ATC Global 2014 The Sustainable Development of the Air Transport Industry 航空运输业的可持续发展
Robin Deransy Senior Expert
Environment and Climate Change 17/09/2014
4
25
2035 -10%
-5%
5%
Flig
hts
in E
urop
e (M
illion
)
Annu
al G
row
th
2030 2020 2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970 1965 1960 2025
15
0
20
10
5
-5
IFR traffic in Europe 1960-2012 historical figures 2013-2035 forecast
0%
Long-Term Trend before 2009
Long-Term Trend
=
Annual Growth
Actual Traffic
Long-Term Average Growth
Forecast Trafic
Traffic growth in Europe
Source: EUROCONTROL STATFOR
ATC Global 2014
5
Traffic, Fuel Burn and CO2 Emissions 2050
Traffic (AAE)
Fuel efficiency +1.5%/year (Industry)
Total fuel consumption (AAE)
Total CO2 emissions (AAE)
Fuel efficiency +2%/year (ICAO) Industry objective: +1.5%/year Fuel Efficiency + CNG 2020+ ICAO objective: +2.0%/year Fuel Efficiency + CNG 2020+
Industry objective: +1.5%/year Fuel Efficiency & -50% CO2 in 2050 vs. 2005
Source: Flying in 2050, Initial Report 31/10/2011, updated 10/11/2011, Académie de l’Air et de l’Espace (AAE, Fig. 7, p. 65)
CNG = Carbon Neutral Growth ATC Global 2014
7
Technology - Reduction at Source A (Very) Rough Guide to the 2050 Fleet Aircraft Status 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
B737 Production
Operations
B737NG Production
Operations
B737Max Production
Operations
B747-400 Production
Operations
B747-8 Production
Operations
B777 Production
Operations
B777X Production
Operations
B787 Production
Operations
A320 Production
Operations
A320Neo Production
Operations
A330 Production
Operations
A350 Production
Operations
A380 Production
Operations
ATM concepts mitigation environmental impacts
10 10
Source: SESAR/Airbus “Green trajectory” ATC Global 2014
Airport Collaborative Decision Making
Improve predictability
Improve on-time performance
Reduce ground movement costs
Optimise use of infrastructure & reduce congestion
Reduce ATFM slot wastage
Flexible pre-departure planning
Reduce apron & taxiway congestion
ATC Global 2014
CDG
VIE BUD
Initial phase
Ongoing
A-CDM Airport
PRG
ZRH MXP
AMS
FCO
MUC
LYS
LIS
BRU
WAW
OSL
ATH
HER
BCN
SXF
GVA
IST MAD
PMI
LGW
DUS
FRA
RHO
TLS LIN VCE
MAN
BHX
DUB
CPH
LTN
LJU
ORY
LHR
A-CDM 2015
STR
HAM KBP
HEL
ARN
SOF
A-CDM 2014
A-CDM Implementation Status
ATC Global 2014
CDO – Continuous Descent Approach
13
AIRCRAFT TYPE
AVERAGE FUEL BURN SAVINGS (KG) FROM
FL210
TIME SAVINGS (MIN) TO DESCEND FROM FL210
A320 85 KG
13% (2 min)
A340 258 KG 14% (2,9 min)
A340-600 261 KG 11% (2 min)
CDO is an operation, enabled by airspace design, procedure design and ATC facilitation, in which an arriving aircraft descends continuously, to the greatest extent possible, by employing minimum engine thrust, ideally in a low drag configuration, prior to the final approach fix.
ATC Global 2014
Environmental policies
Combination of policy tools over time
CO2 emissions (kg)
Actual fuelburn (kg)
Idle fuel burn (kg) (optimum trajectory)
Available tonnekilometre (ATK)
Revenue tonnekilometre (RTK)
Aircraft fuel efficiency
ANS fuelefficiency
Net carbon content
Load factor
Airlines/ Manufacturers
Air navigationservices
Alternativefuels Horizontal
en route profile
Taxi phase
Vertical en-route profile
Terminal holdings CO2 efficiency
(kg)/RTK
94%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
<1h
<2h
<3h
<4h
<5h
<6h
<7h
<8h
<9h
<10h
Flight duration in hours
cum
ulat
ive
%
FlightsFuel Burn
12% of flights >3 hours, burn 60% of fuel 20% of flights <1 hour, burn 4% of fuel
Source: PRC
14 ATC Global 2014
Measuring the Horizontal En-Route Profile
15
KEA Indicator
requires surveillance
data
KEP Indicator
City pair distance (Great circle distance)
Shortest Route
Shortest Available Route
Last Filed FPL
Actual Trajectory
Business need: “Get from A to B” = direct route
Planning Operations Leng
th o
f Tra
ject
ory
Route Network Design
Route & Airspace Availability
Awareness and Choice
ATC Separation Fragmentation
Wind-optimum Cost-optimum
Difference due to planning limitations
Ref
eren
ce d
ista
nce
Extr
a di
stan
ce
Ref
eren
ce d
ista
nce
Extr
a di
stan
ce
Based on information known in advance
Tactical decisions based on updated information
Horizontal Flight (in)Efficiency = Extra distance / Reference distance (expressed as %) KEP = Horizontal Flight Efficiency of route on Last Filed Flight Plan (~ planned fuel consumption) KEA = Horizontal Flight Efficiency of actual (flown) trajectory (~ actual fuel consumption)
Source: PRC ATC Global 2014
5.42 5.385.18 5.15 5.11
3.29 3.17 3.12
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
rout
e ex
tens
ion
(%)
Source: PRU analysis
Target RP1 Targets RP2
Filed flight plan
Flight efficiency first measured in 2006: continuous improvement since then Good routing efficiency of ANS (≈3%) compared to other transport modes
• Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time) • Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load
SES targets on Environment set for 2014 (FPL), 2019 (Actual, FPL) Improved flight-efficiency (from 3.29% in 2011 to 2.6% in 2019: SES target)
compensates for air traffic growth up to 26% until 2019 Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (due in 2020)
already being met as far as European ANS is concerned!
Actual flown trajectory
ENVIRONMENT:
Performance targets on en route flight efficiency within Single European
Sky (SES) scheme
16
Source: PRC ATC Global 2014
Environmental performance
17
ENV Impact Assessment Models & Tools
AEM Advanced Emissions Model
ALAQS Airport Local Air Quality Studies
STAPES SysTem for AirPort noise Exposure Studies
used for:
Policy Options assessments
Regulatory Impact Assessments
Assessment of Current and Future operations
Assessments of SESAR operational concepts FP projects
ATC Global 2014