More than a decade ago I was in the thick of a war raging between airspace users and air navigation service providers. At stake was the forced implementation of Mode S Enhanced Surveillance (ES), something some ANSPs considered to be vital while the airspace users in general considered to be an expensive folly. The business case developed by EUROCONTROL was at best dodgy and the promised benefits were seen as of questionable value.
At the time, Mode S elementary surveillance looked like a done deal. In the end, after having held back the Mode S ES for two years or so, three big ANSPs banded together and went ahead anyway… costing the industry millions without having realized measurable benefits to this day!
But now, Mode S Elementary Surveillance is rising from the ashes, more specifically the problems associated with the SES Implementing Rule (IR) on Aircraft Identification for Surveillance (Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011).
Two Members of the European Parliament have submitted questions for written answer (ref. E-000312/2012). You will find the text of the questions, as published, below in full.
I wonder what the answers will be. The questions paint a sad story indeed….
Subject: Written question on Single European Sky Implementing Rules on Aircraft Identification and Surveillance Performance
Date published: January 20 2012
Please note the question will be answered within 6 weeks
Question for written answer E-000312/2012 to the Commission Rule 117 Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE)
Subject: Single European Sky Implementing Rules on Aircraft Identification and Surveillance Performance
Two regulations laying down new Single European Sky Implementing Rules (IR) related to SESAR have been published in the EU Official Journal:
– SES IR on Aircraft Identification for Surveillance (Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011).This requires Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) to make use of the downlinked aircraft identification by 2 January 2020. Aircraft flying through EU airspace were already modified by 2003. This means all ANSPs will be required to make use of this old technology in their ground systems, 17 years later than the corresponding airborne retrofit mandate.
– SES IR on Performance and Interoperability of Surveillance (Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011). This is a further SESAR-related mandate requiring aircraft retrofits by 7 December 2017 with so-called ADS-B out technology. New aircraft need to be equipped by 8 January 2015. At the same time, there is no mandate for ANSPs to make use of this technology in their ground systems.
Therefore following questions to the Commission:
1. Could the Commission explain why the AEA’s/IATA’s/airspace users’ views were ignored, bearing in mind the fact that SESAR should be designed to improve efficiency for airlines?
2. Why have the requirements for ANSPs not been synchronised with the aircraft equipage mandates? What is the business case for the ADS-B out mandate in the absence of a requirement for all ANSPs to make use of those new aircraft capabilities?
3. Which actions will the Commission take to prevent SESAR from failing as a result of uncoordinated mandates such as those described above? Is there a possibility of reviewing the flawed implementing rules which were published in the OJ?
The simple answer to your question is; ‘No’.
Clearly, ANSPs have to fulfil a range of functions (and this is well understood), but if they really answered to their customers they would ensure that, when mandates were issued for fitting expensive avionics in aircraft, they, in their turn, would use this new functionality to improve their ATM services. But they do not. Instead, what usually happens is that the airlines are forced into retro-fitting their aircraft, spending millions of Euros, with no return for their investment.
Mode S is a particularly obvious case in point (see the earlier article ‘An Opportunity We Should not Miss’). I very much hope that the European Parliament can not only obtain good answers, but even more important, some useful action.
It is essential that air/ground developments are implememted in parallel. If this is not done one partner spends money with no result, resources are wasted, and the travelling public have to pay for an unneccesarily inefficient air transport system. Europe should not waste precious resources in this way.