1 Managed Airspace or Free Flight by Steve Zerkowitz Assistant Director Infrastructure Europe IATA

# 2 # Results of R&D programmes like PHARE. l PHARE pre-dates the free flight concept l PHARE is firmly ground based l Advanced airborne capabilities are taken into account l Within its confines PHARE is as daring as the free flight concept itself l Proves what can be achieved by novel thinking and trust in computer support

# 3 # Will it will solve our problems l No single program can solve all problems l OCD recognises need for Managed Airspace l Managed Airspace will require advanced tools l PHARE should be right at home in Managed Airspace l Core area problems need to be addressed early on - PHARE is well positioned to do that

# 4 # Is it a threat to airlines autonomy? l Recognise OCD as necessary step beyond PHARE territory l Put PHARE in the context of Managed Airspace, do not claim that it is an overall solution l Refine PHARE results - CDM, SWIM, early free flight implementations l No threat to autonomy if done right!

# 5 # The concept of user- preferred trajectories l 3D versus 4D trajectories l The logistics of trajectory selection l User preferred trajectory = resource with dynamic, influences the bottom line l The appeal of users managing their own trajectories l Keep constraints to a minimum - each removed constraint is a step towards free flight!

# 6 # Separation assurance - ground based or air based? l See and avoid - the good old days l Growing speed and aircraft numbers, flight in all kinds of weather - ground surveillance and control becomes essential l Introduces inevitable inefficiencies (e.g. separation, trajectories) l ATC = some strategic and a lot of tactical l Inefficiencies can be reduced by modern ATC tools, but....

# 7 # Separation assurance ground based or air based? l Could we let the aircraft take care of most of the tactical aspects? l The electronic see and be seen and avoid environment l NASA and EUROCONTROL FREER shows it can be done l Where can decisions best be made?? l Not either or, but when and where one or the other. More R&D is needed.

# 8 # Practicalities of implementation l Implementation is only partly a technical challenge l Non-technical obstacles must also be addressed: l change of ATC culture l one airspace for ATM l rule making (ENPRM) l training l etc.

# 9 # Potential for cost saving. l Reduce delays, provide better trajectories l Savings must outweigh the costs of deployment and operation l Deployment decisions must be supported by appropriate cost-benefit analyses (deterministic or probabilistic) l The economic arguments against free flight - based on false premises and disregard time scales.

# 10 # Conclusions l Our view of the future = the OCD l No need to see PHARE as being in conflict with this, but l put in context (Managed Airspace) l continue R&D to explore the potential of free flight l PHARE has shown what can be achieved with an open minded approach

# 11 # Questions please!