Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T21:17:22.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SESAR and NextGen: Investing In New Paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

Peter Brooker*
Affiliation:
(Cranfield University)

Abstract

SESAR is Europe's ‘Single European Sky Air traffic Research system’. NextGen is the USA's ‘Next Generation Air Transport System’. SESAR and NextGen are developments targeted at post 2020. The common vision is to integrate and implement new technologies to improve air traffic management (ATM) performance – a ‘new paradigm’. SESAR and NextGen combine increased automation with new procedures to achieve safety, economic, capacity, environmental, and security benefits. The systems do not have to be identical, but must have aligned requirements for equipment standards and technical interoperability.

A key component is a ‘cooperative surveillance’ model, where aircraft are constantly transmitting their position (from navigational satellites), flight path intent, and other useful aircraft parameters – known as ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast). The focus for planning and executing system operations will increasingly be aircraft 4D trajectories: a 4D trajectory is the aircraft path, three space dimensions plus time, from gate-to-gate, i.e. including the path along the ground at the airport.

In analysing potential major ATM system changes, a simple division into five Key Test areas might be: Safety Credibility, Operational Concept, Technological Feasibility, Benefits and Costs, and Transition Path. The main attention here is on Benefits and Costs of SESAR. The strategic challenge will be to convince customers and stakeholders of the benefits of paradigm shift expenditure, given the associated impacts on future user charges, aircraft equipment investments and public expenditure. The analysis here shows that the existing cost benefit analysis results for SESAR are not particularly robust, possibly over-estimating Net Present Values by some tens of € billions.

Keywords

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brooker, P. (2002). Future Air Traffic Management – Passing the Key Tests. Aeronautical Journal, 106(1058), 211215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, P. (2007). NGATS: Strategy and Challenges. Navigation News Jan/Feb, 1215.Google Scholar
DfT (2006). Transport, Wider Economic Benefits, and Impacts on GDP. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/rdg/webia/transportwidereconomicbenefi3137Google Scholar
EC [European Commission] (2007). State of progress with the project to implement the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) 2nd March 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/sesame/doc/0315_comm_sesar_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eddington, R. (2006). Transport Study. Chapter 1.2, How does Transport contribute to the Performance of the Economy? http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/187604/206711/mainreport/mainreportvolume1/mainreportvol1chap12Google Scholar
Eurocontrol (2005). Standard Inputs for Eurocontrol Cost Benefit Analyses. 2005 Edition. http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gallery/content/public/library/CBA-standard-values.pdfGoogle Scholar
GRA, Incorporated (2004). Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions: a Guide. Prepared for FAA. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20Critical%20Values%20Dec%2031%20Report%2007Jan05.pdfGoogle Scholar
Graham, D. (2005). Investigating the link between productivity and agglomeration for UK industries. Imperial College – for DfT. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/rdg/webia/investigatingthelinkbetweenp1077Google Scholar
Jacobs Consultancy (2006). European Best Practice: Final Report. For UK Commission for Integrated Transport. http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2007/ebp/pdf/ebp-phase2.pdfGoogle Scholar
JPDO [Joint Planning and Development Office] (2007). Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Draft 5, 28th February, 2007, Version 1.2. Available from http://techhangar.jpdo.aero/Google Scholar
Marais, K. and Weigel, A. L. (2006). Encouraging and Ensuring Successful Technology Transition in Civil Aviation. MIT ESD-WP-2006-07. http://esd.mit.edu/wps/esd-wp-2006-07.pdfGoogle Scholar
Merrett, A. J and Sykes, A. (1973). The Finance and Analysis of Capital Projects, Longman, 2nd Edn.Google Scholar
OEF [Oxford Economic Forecasting] (1999). The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the UK Economy: Final Report. http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/aviation.PDFGoogle Scholar
OEF (2006). The Economic Contribution of the Aviation Industry in the UK. http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/free/pdfs/aviation2006final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. (1998). Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 14, 84100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. (2002). An Intellectual History of Environmental Economics. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 27(1): 5781.Google Scholar
PRC [Eurocontrol Performance Review Commission] (2003). A comparison of performance in selected US and European En-route Centres. http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/useurope.pdfGoogle Scholar
SDG [Steer Davies Gleave] (2005). SESAME CBA and Governance. Assessment of options, benefits and associated costs of the SESAME Programme for the definition of the future air traffic management system: Final Report. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/traffic_management/sesame/doc/2005_06_24_sesame_final_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, T. B., Corker, K. and Nadler, E. (2006). Report on a Workshop on Human-Automation Interaction in NGATS. DOT-VNTSC-NASA-06-02. http://www.volpe.dot.gov/hf/docs/worshop-hai-sheridan.docGoogle Scholar
Spackman, M. (2004). Time discounting and the cost of capital in government. Fiscal Studies, 25(4), 467518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar