the free route airspace project (frap)

EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre

Sa

A

The EUR RVSM Implementation Project

Environmental Benefit Analysis

EEC/ENV/2002/008

Frank Jelinekndrine CarlierJames Smithgnès Quesne

EUROCONTROL

ii

The EUR RVSM Implementation Project

- Environmental Benefit AnalysisFrank Jelinek, Sandrine Carlier, James Smith, Agnes Quesne

Environmental Studies Business AreaEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

EEC/ENV/2002/008

© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation EUROCONTROL October 2002

This document is published by EUROCONTROL in the interest of the exchange of information. It may be copied inwhole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included.

The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission fromEUROCONTROL.

EUROCONTROL makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document,neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this

information.

RREEPPOORRTT DDOOCCUUMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN PPAAGGEE

Reference:

EEC/ENV/2002/008

Security Classification:

UnclassifiedOriginator:

EEC ENVEnvironmental Studies Business Area

Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreCentre de Bois des BordesB.P.1591222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEXFranceTelephone: +33 1 69 88 75 00

Sponsor:

EUROCONTROL RVSM Programme Office

Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location:

EUROCONTROL AgencyRue de la Fusée, 96B –1130 BRUXELLESTelephone: +32 2 729 90 11

TITLE:The EUR RVSM implementation Project - Environmental Benefit Analysis

Authors :Frank Jelinek,Sandrine Carlier,James Smith,Agnès Quesne

Date

30/10

Pages

56

Figures Tables Appendix References

EATMP TaskSpecification-

Project

RVSM

Task No. Sponsor

-

Period

2002

Distribution Statement:(a) Controlled by: EUROCONTROL Project Manager(b) Special Limitations: None(c) Copy to NTIS: YES / NO

Descriptors (keywords):RVSM –– Global Emissions – AEM - NOx - CO2 - H2O - SOx - Condensation Trail - Contrail - EEC - etc

Abstract:This study aims to analyse the environmental effect of the implementation of RVSM in the EUR RVSMairspace. Investigations have been made especially for reduction in fuel burn, CO2, H2O and NOx emissions.The methodology was based on a comparison of fuel burn and emission production for three January 2002traffic days before and after implementation. To overcome possible effects just after implementation, in additiontraffic days from July 2002 have been analysed. The Advanced Emission Model (AEM3) developed at theEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre has been used to estimate aviation emissions and fuel burn. Animproved version (EEC-BM2) of the Boeing Method2 (BM2) lead to more reliable in-flight NOx emissionestimations.

iv

TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE........................................................................... iiiTable of Contents ......................................................................................................... ivList of Figures................................................................................................................ vList of Tables ................................................................................................................ viList of Abbreviations ................................................................................................... VIIExecutive Summary.......................................................................................................1Introduction....................................................................................................................5

Study process plan.................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Context ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Problem Definition .........................................................................................................7Specification of Study Goals..........................................................................................9Specification of Analysis Design..................................................................................11

Geographical area analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Daily Traffic situation ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

Meteorological Situation ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

Output Data Analysis & Results...................................................................................33Fuel burn, H2O, CO2 and SOx Emissions Results .............................................................................................................. 33

Vertical analysis of fuel burn and CO2, H2O and Sox emissions .................................................................................... 34

Vertical analysis of NOx emissions................................................................................................................................. 37

Environmental Benefit at high altitiudes ......................................................................................................................... 40

Output sensitivity analysis ...........................................................................................41Flight time and Fuel burn estimation with AEM3................................................................................................................ 41

Emission estimation with AEM3........................................................................................................................................... 42

CO2, H2O, SOx ............................................................................................................................................................. 42

NOx, HC, CO ................................................................................................................................................................. 42

Conclusions.................................................................................................................45Further work ................................................................................................................45Annexe 1 Additional Meteorological Charts.................................................................47Annexe 2 Boeing Method 2 - EUROCONTROL modified............................................65Annexe 3 : CFMU Data access & Use agreement.......................................................68Annexe 4 : Fuel burn and emission analysis figures....................................................69References ..................................................................................................................77

v

LLiisstt ooff FFiigguurreessFIGURE 1: YEARLY NOX AND SOX EMISSION REDUCTION FROM RVSM ..............................................................................................................1FIGURE 2: YEARLY FUEL, H20 AND CO2 SAVINGS DUE TO RVSM ......................................................................................................................2FIGURE 3: NOX AND H20 EMISSION REDUCTION AT TROPOPAUSE LEVEL ............................................................................................................2FIGURE 4: PROCESS PHASES FOR THE RVSM STUDY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................5FIGURE 5: EUR RVSM AREA OF IMPLEMENTATION (PICTURE FROM HTTP://WWW.EUR-RVSM.COM) ................................................................7FIGURE 6: SIX MORE FLIGHT LEVEL DUE TO EUR RVSM (PICTURE FROM HTTP: //WWW.EUR-RVSM.COM) ......................................................7FIGURE 7: NOAH-12AVHRR SATELLITE PHOTOGRAPH; CENTRAL EUROPE; MAY 4, 1995, PROCESSED BY DLR (MANNSTEIN ET. AL,

1999) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................9FIGURE 8: THE AEM3 CALCULATION CYCLE .......................................................................................................................................14FIGURE 9: EUR RVSM PROJECT ANALYSIS PLAN – GLOBAL VIEW ..................................................................................................................15FIGURE 10: MOVEMENTS FOR 18TH AND 25TH JANUARY AND 5TH JULY 2002......................................................................................................19FIGURE 11: MOVEMENTS FOR 19TH AND 26TH JANUARY AND 6ST JULY 2002.....................................................................................................20FIGURE 12: MOVEMENTS FOR 22ND AND 29TH JANUARY AND THE 9TH JULY 2002 ..............................................................................................21FIGURE 13: EUR RVSM AREA AND AEMIII 4D-WINDOW ...............................................................................................................................22FIGURE 14: JANUARY 18, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART............................................................................................................28FIGURE 15: JANUARY 19, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART............................................................................................................28FIGURE 16: JANUARY 22, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART............................................................................................................29FIGURE 17: JANUARY 25, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART............................................................................................................29FIGURE 18: JANUARY 26, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART............................................................................................................30FIGURE 19: JANUARY 29, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART............................................................................................................30FIGURE 20: JULY 6, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART .....................................................................................................................31FIGURE 21: JULY 5, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART .....................................................................................................................31FIGURE 22: JULY 9, 2002: METEOROLOGICAL ANALYSIS CHART .....................................................................................................................32FIGURE 23: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 18TH VS. 25TH JANUARY 2002 ...................................................................................34FIGURE 24: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 19TH VS. 26TH JANUARY 2002 ...................................................................................34FIGURE 25: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 22ND VS. 29TH JANUARY 2002 ...................................................................................35FIGURE 26: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 18TH VS. 5TH JULY 2002.............................................................................................35FIGURE 27: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 19TH VS. 6TH JULY 2002.............................................................................................35FIGURE 28: PERCENTAL DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL FUEL BURN PER FL 18TH VS. 25TH JANAURY 2002..............................................................36FIGURE 29: TOTAL NOX EMISSION DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 18TH VS. 25TH JANUARY 2002..............................................................................37FIGURE 30: TOTAL NOX EMISSION DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 19TH VS. 26TH JANUARY 2002..............................................................................37FIGURE 31: TOTAL NOX EMISSION DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 22TH VS. 29TH JANUARY 2002..............................................................................37FIGURE 32: TOTAL NOX EMISSION DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 18TH JANUARY VS. 5TH JULY 2002.......................................................................38FIGURE 33: TOTAL NOX EMISSION DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 19TH JANUARY VS. 6TH JULY 2002.......................................................................39FIGURE 34: PERCENTAL DISTRIBUTION OF NOX EMISSIONS PER FL 18TH VS. 25TH JANAURY 2002 ..................................................................40FIGURE 35: EMISSIONS COMPARISON OF 757-200 FOR A 400 NM AND 3000 NM MISSION [REF 11]..............................................................42FIGURE 36: JANUARY 18, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHTS (CRUISE) ...............................................................47FIGURE 37: JANUARY 18, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE.....................................................................................48FIGURE 38: JANUARY 19, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHTS (CRUISE) ...............................................................49FIGURE 39: JANUARY 19, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE.....................................................................................50FIGURE 40: JANUARY 22, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHTS (CRUISE) ...............................................................51FIGURE 41: JANUARY 22, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE.....................................................................................52FIGURE 42: JANUARY 25, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHTS (CRUISE) ...............................................................53FIGURE 43: JANUARY 25, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE.....................................................................................54FIGURE 44: JANUARY 26, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHTS (CRUISE) ...............................................................55FIGURE 45: JANUARY 26, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE.....................................................................................56FIGURE 46: JANUARY 29, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHT (CRUISE).................................................................57FIGURE 47: JANUARY 29, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE.....................................................................................58FIGURE 48: JULY 5, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHT (CRUISE) ..........................................................................59FIGURE 49: JULY 5, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE..............................................................................................60FIGURE 50: JULY 6, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHT (CRUISE) ..........................................................................61FIGURE 51: JULY 6, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE..............................................................................................62FIGURE 52: JULY 9, 2002: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE (SURFACE) AND 300MB HEIGHT (CRUISE) ..........................................................................63FIGURE 53: JULY 9, 2002: SATELLITE IMAGE AND MEAN PRECIPITATION RATE..............................................................................................64FIGURE 54: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 18TH VS. 25TH JANUARY 2002 ...................................................................................69FIGURE 55: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 19TH VS. 26TH JANUARY 2002 ...................................................................................70FIGURE 56: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 22ND VS. 29TH JANUARY 2002....................................................................................71FIGURE 57: TOTAL FUEL BURN DIFFERENCE PER FL FOR 18TH JANUARY VS. 5TH JULY 2002 ............................................................................72FIGURE 58: TOTAL DIFFERENCE OF NOX EMISSIONS PER FL FOR 19TH VS. 26TH JANUARY 2002 .......................................................................73FIGURE 59: TOTAL DIFFERENCE OF NOX EMISSIONS PER FL FOR 22TH VS. 29TH JANUARY 2002 .......................................................................74FIGURE 60: TOTAL DIFFERENCE OF NOX EMISSIONS PER FL FOR 18TH JANUARY VS. 5TH JULY 2002................................................................75FIGURE 61: TOTAL DIFFERENCE OF NOX EMISSIONS PER FL FOR 19TH JANUARY VS. 6TH JULY 2002................................................................76

vi

LLiisstt ooff TTaabblleess

TABLE 1: INITIAL NUMBER OF FLIGHTS PER DATA SET ...................................................................................................................................... 17TABLE 2: NUMBER OF FLIGHTS PER JANUARY 2002 DATA SET ......................................................................................................................... 17TABLE 3: DELETED MOVEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17TABLE 4 : TRAFFIC AND DELAY SITUATION FOR JANUARY AND JULY TRAFFIC DAYS. ..................................................................................... 23TABLE 5: POOR WEATHER CONDITIONS REPORTED AT AIRPORTS IN EUROPE FOR THE JANUARY PERIOD ..................................................... 25TABLE 6: POOR WEATHER CONDITIONS REPORTED AT AIRPORTS IN EUROPE FOR THE JULY PERIOD ............................................................ 25TABLE 7: FUEL AND EMISSIONS FOR TRAFFIC DAY COUPLE INTERSECTION DATA SETS.................................................................................... 33TABLE 8: ESTIMATED SAVINGS TO AIRLINES .................................................................................................................................................... 34TABLE 9: ENVRIONMENTAL BENEFIT AT FL290 AND ABOVE.......................................................................................................................... 40TABLE 10: TIME RATIO AND FUEL FLOW RATIO ............................................................................................................................................... 41TABLE 11: VARIATION IN PUBLISHED COEFFICIENTS FOR FUEL PROPORTIONAL EMISSIONS (%)...................................................................... 42TABLE 12: DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN NOX, HC AND CO IN PERCENT OVER ALL TRAFFIC DAYS ...................................................................... 43TABLE 13: PUBLISHED AVERAGE EINOX (G/KG FUEL) OF REFERENCE PROJECTS [REF 12] ............................................................................. 43TABLE 14: AVERAGE EINOX IN G/KG FUEL FOR ALL TRAFFIC DAYS ................................................................................................................ 43

VII

LLiisstt ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonnss

AEM Advanced Emission Model

AEM3 Advanced Emission Model; 3rd version

ANCAT Abatement of Nuisances Caused by Air Transport

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATM Air Traffic Management

BADA Base of Aircraft Data

BEN Benzene

BM2 The Boeing Method2

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CPR Correlated Position Reports

CVSM Conventional Vertical Separation Minima

Contrail Condensation trail

DLR Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt

EATMP2000+ EUROCONTROL ATM Programme for 2000 and beyond

EEC EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre

EEC-BM2 EEC corrected BM2

EI Emission Index

FP Flight Plan

GIS Graphical Information System

H2O Water

HC Hydrocarbon

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

Lat Latitude

Long Longitude

LTO Landing- and Take-Off cycle

Max Maximum

MS Microsoft

Min Minimum

NASA North American Space Agency

NM Nautical Mile

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

RAMS EUROCONTROL Re-organised ATC Mathematical Simulator

RFL Requested Flight Level

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SOx Oxides of Sulphur

TEA Toolset for Emission Analysis

1

EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy

Following the implementation of RVSM in the EUR RVSM airspace, the Business Area"Environmental Studies" of the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre performed an additionalanalysis focusing on environmental aspects of such an ATM scenario for the EUROCONTROLRVSM programme office.

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the implementation of RVSM leads toreduced aviation emissions and fuel burn, since it offers the possibility to optimise flight profiles dueto the availability of six additional flight levels.

For this purpose, the Advanced Emission Model (AEM3) developed at the EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre was used to estimate fuel consumption and emissions production for a seriesof air traffic scenarios. AEM incorporates the EUROCONTROL modified Boeing Method 2 (EEC-BM2), which added improved realism to the estimation of in-flight NOx emissions.

Traffic from 3 days just before implementation was compared with 3 traffic days just afterimplementation of RVSM. Additional 3 traffic days from July 2002 have been analysed against theJanuary traffic data.

The traffic data used in the study was CPR Radar data provided by the EUROCONTROL CentralFlow Management Unit. The analysis of the data was macroscopic and does not focus onindividual flights etc. The use and reproduction of the data or information based on this data isobject of a special agreement (Annex 3) with the CFMU.

The results obtained from this study support the initial hypothesis that RVSM lead to environmentalbenefits. After the very first days of RVSM implementation in the EUR RVSM area a clear trenddevelops with increasing environmental benefit until July. Considering that the July results willremain stable and don’t suffer any more from system implementation effects, it can be concludedthat EUR RVSM implementation lead to significant environmental benefit. Total NOx emissions arereduced by 0.7 – 1%. This represents about 3500 tons per year less NOx emitted by aviation intothe atmosphere. Sulphur oxide emissions have been reduce as a result of the introduction ofRVSM by around 260 ton per year.

Figure 1: Yearly NOx and Sox emission reduction from RVSM

Yearly Savings due to EUR RVSM (up to)

-260-3500

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0Nox Sox

tons

2

Total fuel burn, CO2 and H2O emissions are reduced by 1.6 –2.3%.

Figure 2: Yearly Fuel, H20 and CO2 savings due to RVSM

The total yearly saving in fuel burn translates into up to 310.000 tons yearly saving for airlinesoperating in the EUR RVSM area.

The environmental benefit is even more positive for the high altitude band along and abovetropopause. At these flight levels NOx emissions are reduced by even 2.3 - 4.4%, fuel burn anddirectly proportional emissions like CO2, SOx and especially of interest H2O are reduced by 3.5 –5.0%.

Emission reduction at Tropopause level

-4.40%

-5.00%-5.10%-5.00%-4.90%-4.80%-4.70%-4.60%-4.50%-4.40%-4.30%-4.20%-4.10%

Nox H20

Perc

ent

Figure 3: NOx and H20 emission reduction at Tropopause levelThis is an important benefit for environment, since those atmospheric layers are most sensitive foraviation NOx and H2O emissions.

Additional analysis of more post RVSM-implementation movement days would help to furtherconsolidate the very positive results of this study on an even more solid statistical base.

Yearly Savings due to EUR RVSM (up to)

-310 -381

-975-1200-1000-800-600-400-200

0Fuel H2O CO2

* 100

0 to

ns

5

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

Study process plan

The following study process plan has been applied to this study.

Figure 4: Process phases for the RVSM study project

Development of Analysis Instruments

Problem Definition

Specification of Study goals

Specification of Analysis design

Development of Analysis Plan

Input Data Collection

Output Data Analysis

Final Study Results

6

Context

This study is motivated by the interest to better understand possible means for ATM to contribute tothe goals defined for all industry sectors by the Kyoto conference. The Kyoto protocol requiresglobal emission output to be reduced until 2008/20012 by 5.2%, where an even higher target of 8%reduction has been fixed for EUROPE [Ref 1].

As any transport sector, aviation and all its stakeholders have the responsibility to contribute to tryto reach those goals. Main efforts in the airframe and aircraft engine industry have lead over thepast 40 years to very significant reductions in fuel burn and emissions per passenger-kilometre.Although this process of technical improvements is still ongoing, the obtained and announcedprogress has been and will as well in future be absorbed by the continuous traffic increase. For thatreason, all other stakeholders of aviation transport should try to increase their efforts to improve thesituation. The EATMP2000+ program defines the different means to further increase safety,capacity and cost efficiency. Studies like this one helps to estimate with more detail than until todaythe potential environmental benefits of the different program elements.

Different than for the most other EATMP2000+ program elements Reduced Vertical SeparationMinimum (RVSM) has been implemented on 24 January 2002 in the EUR RVSM Airspace andprovided six additional flight levels between 29,000 feet (FL290) and 41,000 ft (FL410) inclusive.

This post implementation study based on real radar movement data observations allows toestimate very realistically the real implementation effects on environment.

7

PPrroobblleemm DDeeffiinniittiioonn

Over the last few years, European air traffic movements have increased by between 4% and 6%per annum. Current forecasts indicate that European air traffic movements tends to double by2015 compared with 1998 figures. The current ATM system has to be change significantly in orderto be able to cope with this continued traffic growth. The implementation of RVSM is considered tobe the most cost effective means in the short term of meeting this need.

Figure 5: EUR RVSM area of implementation (picture from http://www.eur-rvsm.com)

RVSM is applicable in the FIR/UIRs of the countries covering the dark green area in abovegraphics.

The RVSM airspace provides six additional flight level between FL290 and FL410 inclusive in theupper airspace for all states involved in the EUR RVSM programme.

Figure 6: Six more Flight Level due to EUR RVSM (picture from http: //www.eur-rvsm.com)

8

Those additional 6 flight level should allow more flights to operate at or close to their optimal flightprofile, which directly would lead to reduced fuel burn and emissions.

The availability of 6 additional flight levels should lead as well to significantly reduced departuredelays. This might result in less high-speed missions, where airlines might have applied this meanin the past to assure in-time arrivals before introduction of RVSM.

On the other hand, more aircraft operating in higher level bands might have lead to increased fuelburn and emission load in these higher level bands.

9

SSppeecciiffiiccaattiioonn ooff SSttuuddyy GGooaallss

This study aims to test the hypothesis that the implementation of the EUR RVSM programme didlead to environmental benefits to the public. The potential economical benefits by reducing cost forfuel to the airline community are not part of this study, since they have already been analysed byan earlier study.

It is expected, that the EUR RVSM offers the possibility to better optimise the vertical flight profiles.This is expected to result in a reduction of fuel burn and pollutants released.

This study specifically investigates the potential benefit of the EUR RVSM in terms of CO2, H2Oand NOx, since those three emissions are seen to be the main actors in the chemical processesleading to radiative forcing (green house effect) and a reduced ozone layer.

Aviation produces 2-3% of the overall man-made CO2 emissions [Ref 3]. CO2 is a stablecomponent in the atmospheric chemistry. Its lifetime is estimated to be about 100 years. It is mixedin a homogenate way all over the atmosphere and cannot be associated with local emitters. For ananalysis of its impact on the atmosphere, precise knowledge of the geographical position andaltitude of the emission source is of low importance. CO2 emissions have to be reviewed in a globalcontext. This study tests the hypothesis of reduced CO2 emissions as a result of the EUR RVSMimplementation.

The lifetime of water emissions in the atmosphere is estimated to be about 2 weeks. It is rapidlyeliminated in form of precipitation. H2O emissions as a result of the combustion process can lead inform of water vapour, in certain atmospheric conditions, to condensation trails (Contrails).Condensation trails can evolve into cirrus clouds. Currently the contrail cover remains weak (0.1%of the global sky compared to the about 20% global mean coverage of natural cirrus clouds) butlocally over regions with intense air traffic the contrails cover can reach up to 5% of the sky [Ref 4].

Figure 7: NOAH-12AVHRR Satellite photograph; Central Europe; May 4, 1995, processed by DLR (Mannstein et. Al, 1999)

10

By this effect, H2O emissions participate indirectly to radiative forcing and man-made climatechange. The hypothesis of reduced H2O emissions as a result of EUR RVSM is tested in this study.

The contribution of aviation to global NOx emissions is estimated to be only 1.8% [Ref 5]. Severalstudies indicate for the North Atlantic track system an increase of NOx following aircraft emissionsof 10 -100% [Ref 6], [Ref 7], [Ref 8]. NOx has two contradictory effects on Ozone. In high altitudesof the stratosphere NOx emissions contributes to the reduction of Ozone, where in typical cruisealtitudes (8-13 km) NOx emissions cause an Ozone increase. The study tests the hypothesis thatthe EUR RVSM lead to reduced global NOx emissions.

11

SSppeecciiffiiccaattiioonn ooff AAnnaallyyssiiss DDeessiiggnn

Three January 2002 Traffic Samples (18/19/22 January 2002) using the Conventional VerticalSeparation Minima Scheme in the EUR RVSM area of implementation are used as baselinescenarios. Emissions output, fuel burn and probability for contrail building are determined for thesetraffic samples.

Results obtained for those baseline traffic scenarios are compared against results obtained for thethree January 2002 traffic days (25/26/29 January 2002) using RVSM.To avoid misleading effects which might have occurred during those very first days of the EURRVSM implementation further traffic days from July 2002 (5/6/9 July 2002) are analysed.The comparison is focussing on qualitative results, since the error variation due to the quality ofavailable aircraft engine information in this type of study does not refer to absolute and quantitativefigures. Qualitative results exclude this source for error and deliver reliable information for thepurpose of this study. Absolute figures per scenario are normalised on a single flight average asbase, since the different scenarios don’t contain the exact same number of movements.

13

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff AAnnaallyyssiiss IInnssttrruummeennttss

The Advanced Emission Model (AEM3) has been used to estimate aviation emissions and fuel burn.Emission data was superposed over geographical data using the ARC View GIS package. FurtherAnalysis has been performed using standard spreadsheet and data base software as MS-Excel and MS-ACCESS.

AEM3 is a stand-alone system able to analyse flight profile data, on a flight-by-flight base, for air trafficscenarios of almost any scope. It is using 4D-flight profile information to calculate fuel burn and, inaddition, emissions produced (CO2, H2O, SOx, NOx, HC, BEN, CO, VOC, TOG).AEM3 is based on the use of several underlying databases. System default databases are those whichhold the information related to aircraft, aircraft engines, fuel burn rates and emission indices. Thosedefault databases rely on external data providers, assuring the quality of the information provided and theuser of the system to assure that the relation between those default databases is representative for thespecific study purpose. This default system information is combined with dynamic input data, representedby the air traffic flight profiles.

AEM3 Fuel burn calculationBelow 3000 ft, the fuel burn calculation is based on the Landing and Take-Off Cycle (LTO) defined by theICAO Engine Certification specifications. ICAO LTO covers four engine operation modes, which are usedin AEM3 to model the six following phases of operation: Taxi-Out, Taxi-On(Idle), Take-Off, Climb-Out,Approach and Landing(Approach). The ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank includes emissionindices and fuel flow for a very large number of aircraft engines. AEM3, links each aircraft appearing inthe input traffic sample to one of the engines in the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank.The LTO cycle can be systematically added to all input flight profiles, even when data for thoseoperations are available. The application of the ICAO LTO cycle is common practise in aviation emissionestimation and aims to assure completeness of information to improve comparability of the different inputflight profiles.Above 3000 ft, fuel burn calculation is based on the “Base of Aircraft Data“ (BADA). This databaseprovides altitude and attitude dependent performance and fuel burn data for more than 150 aircraft types.The latest version, 3.3, covers nearly 90% of the aircraft types that make up the European air traffic.BADA is developed and maintained by the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre. AEM3 links eachaircraft performing one of the input flight profiles to the BADA fuel burn data. Where no data for a specificaircraft type is available, representative aircraft types, are used to create a most realistic indirect link; e.g.A320 is reference aircraft for A319 and A321 etc.

AEM3 Emissions calculationBelow 3000 ft, the emission calculation is based on the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank [Ref13].Above 3000 ft, the emission calculation is as well based on the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions DataBank, but emission factors and fuel flow is adapted to the atmospheric conditions at altitude by using amethod initially developed by The Boeing Company (The Boeing Method 2 – BM2) and modified by theEUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Business Unit Environmental Studies (EEC-BM2) (see annex 2).EEC-BM2 allows estimation of emissions for the pollutants NOx, HC, CO. The emissions for thepollutants H2O and CO2 are directly issued of the oxidation process of carbon and the hydrogencontained in the fuel with the oxygen contained in the atmosphere. The SOx emissions depend directlyon the sulphur content of the used fuel. All three are directly proportionally to the fuel burn. Benzeneemissions are proportional to the HC emissions.

14

The knowledge about composition of the fuel is very important to determine the proportional coefficientsbetween fuel burnt and emissions. The below constants used in AEM3 during this study are based on anextensive literature review [Ref 14] at the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Business UnitEnvironmental Studies and are average values:

3.149 kg CO2 / kg Fuel

1.230 kg H2O / kg Fuel

0.00084 kg SO2 / kg Fuel

The following graphic indicates in a simplified way the different approaches applied in AEM3 toobtain most realistic fuel burn and emission estimations for all phases of each flight profile.

Figure 8: The AEM3 calculation cycle

The AEM3 4D – Analysis WindowThe most widely separated geographical coordinates (min and max altitude, longitude, latitude) andthe time limits given by the traffic and flight files, automatically define the 4D analysis window insideof which fuel burn and emission following aircraft operation are calculated. Nevertheless, AEM3provides as well the possibility to overwrite those values and to define manually the 3D airspaceblock and the start end and times a user wishes to be considered by the system.To overcome the potential limitations of such a rectangular analysis window an external tool hasbeen developed which allows to “cut” the AEM3 output data into an geographical area defined byan irregular polygon. Due to the very limited time scale this feature has not been applied during thisstudy.

Taxi Out Taxi In

Take Off

Descent

Approach

Cruise

Climb Out

Climb

3 000 ftICAO fuel flowICAO emissions

BADA fuel flowBM2 emissions

Landing

15

DDeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff AAnnaallyyssiiss PPllaann

Nine traffic days of CPR data were available for analysis. Three data sets with CVSM scenariosand six RVSM scenarios have been studies.

Figure 9: EUR RVSM project Analysis Plan – global view

At a first level of analysis the study did provide totals for Fuelburn and the folIowing pollutants:CO2, SOx, NOx, H2O.All scenarios were analysed with AEM3 using the standard AEM 4D-analysis window representingthe flight simulation area. This leads to results indicating the benefit of flights operating in a mixedenvironment, where a part of the mission is executed in conventional airspace and the other part ina Free Route environment.In a second approach, analysis was strictly limited to the RVSM airspace. This leads to resultsindicating the pure net effect of the RVSM concept inside the EUR RVSM airspace.Analysis has been further detailed to obtain information related to each Flight Level Band.Incomplete flight profiles below FL290 have been deleted, since the trial to complete those profileswould have added a high error margin to those flights.About less than 1% of the flights suffered from problems of data coherence (ghost points). Thoseflight profiles have been excluded from the study.Since the number of flights per traffic day risks not to be identical average numbers per flight haveto be produce to create the possibility to compare.

RVSM Study

3 CVSM Scenarios 6 RVSM Scenarios

January 2002 January 2002 July 2002

17

IInnppuutt DDaattaa CCoolllleeccttiioonn

The study is based on the analysis of available radar data (CPR data), which draws a realisticpicture of movements inside the EUR RVSM area of implementation.Known profile points are included in the 3D airspace volume defined by the flight level 0-600, thelongitudes –10 – 19 and latitudes 40 – 65 for the movements of 18, 19, 25 and 26th January 2002.The same airspace volumes include the movements for 5th, 6th and 9th July 2002.The profile points for the 22nd and 29th January are included inside the geographical area describedby longitude –168 – 141 and the latitude -35 – 89. The vertical definition of the 3D airspace volumeis identical to the other scenarios.To assure data consistency between the used traffic and flight profile data and the AEM3 systemdata, it was necessary to collect further data on aircraft types, engines, emission and fuel burnparameters.

January and July 2002 Movement DataThe following table indicates the original number of movements for the different traffic days.

Date 1/18/02 1/19/02 1/22/02 1/25/02 1/26/02 1/29/02 7/5/02 7/6/02 7/9/02Flights 14382 10439 21000 14583 10422 20670 17960 14773 16864

Table 1: Initial number of flights per data set

Not all movements profit from the RVSM airspace since they stay lower than FL290. Dependent onthe traffic day, roughly between 41 and 65 % of the flights in the movement data available to thisstudy did use the EUR RVSM airspace (FL290 and above).

Date 1/18/02 1/19/02 1/22/02 1/25/02 1/26/02 1/29/02 7/5/02 7/6/02 7/9/02complete profiles FLMax<FL290 5545 2944 10617 5819 3123 11459 6407 3842 6095

incomplete profiles FLMax<FL290 1442 1000 713 1837 1087 692 1711 1192 1538flight using EUR RVSM airspace 7395 6495 9670 6927 6212 8519 9842 9739 9231

% flight using EUR RVSm airspace 51.42 62.22 46.05 47.50 59.60 41.21 54.80 65.92 54.74Table 2: Number of flights per January 2002 data set

A sub-set of flights have been deleted from the initial radar data set due to unknown airports,unknown aircraft types, unrealistic high flight levels, unknown attitude and incomplete flight profileinformation below FL290.

Date 1/18/02 1/19/02 1/22/02 1/25/02 1/26/02 1/29/02 7/5/02 7/6/02 7/9/02Incomplete profiles FLMax<FL290 1442 1000 713 1837 1087 692 1711 1192 1538

unknown airports 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0A/C type unknown 11 1 5 1 5 13 13 11 8FL unrealistic high 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Flight attitude unknown 0 0 673 0 0 644 0 0 0sum 1456 1001 1392 1838 1092 1350 1724 1203 1547

estimated % of deleted movements 10.12 9.59 6.63 12.60 10.48 6.53 9.60 8.14 9.17Table 3: Deleted movements

18

The number of deleted flights varies over the different traffic days between 6.5 and 12.6 %. A verylow number of flights might have suffered from two or more of above problems, that is why thedeleted movements are only indicated as estimates.

Incomplete flight profiles inside the EUR RVSM airspace have been kept.

To further improve the possibility to compare, it has been tried to create an intersection data set foreach traffic day couple (18/25, 19/26, 22/29 January & 18.1/5.7, 19.1/6.7, 22.1/9.7.), where eachday of each couple only holds the movements which appear as well in the second day. Thecreation of the intersection data set has been based on the query using the Call sign, ADES,ADEP, AC-Type triple to identify the match data sets.

Due to significant differences in meteorological situation and delay situation (see later paragraphs“Meteorological Situation” and “Daily Traffic Situation”) for some of the use traffic days above queryhas further been extended to only include flights where the flown distance differs for less than 50kms.

Indication of environmental impact or benefit will than been expressed in %Change in kg per km.

19

Geographical area analysis

The following figures indicate the CFMU CPR movement data (copyright CFMU) used for thisstudy, superposed over European geography.

Figure 10: Movements for 18th and 25th January and 5th July 2002

20

Figure 11: Movements for 19th and 26th January and 6st July 2002

21

Figure 12: Movements for 22nd and 29th January and the 9th July 2002

Intersection movement data sets have been built from these raw data sets to create a bettercomparability and to obtain results indicating only the net effect of the RVSM implementationwithout being biased by differences in number of movements or geographical areas.

22

Figure 13: EUR RVSM Area and AEMIII 4D-window

The AEM3 4D-Analysis window is based on the known lat/long position of the input flight profiledata. This means that where the in above graphics the ‘rectangular’ AEM3 4D-Analysis window(red) does cover more than the EUR RVSM area, radar data points outside the EUR RVSM areahave been part of the raw input data.

This is the case for the western area, in some parts of the Oceanic Transition Area and the verynorth-western part.

This means, for those areas, that parts of flight profiles are included which have been performedoutside the EUR RVSM.

The study considers that the error which might come from this incorrectness between AEM3 4D-Analysis window area and EUR RVSM implementation area is neglectable.

23

Daily Traffic situation

Delay situationThis paragraph tries to summarise the daily traffic situation for the different traffic days aiming toidentify possible influences from delay situation, special events etc. on the results.

The information is extracted and summarized from EUROCONTROL CFMU daily report database.

The following table gives an overview for the delay situation at all traffic days.

Daily Resume 1/18/02 1/25/02 7/5/02 1/19/02 1/26/02 7/6/02 1/22/02 1/29/02 7/9/02Flights 21601 22484 26703 15383 15344 21251 21377 20982 25026

Regulated flights 2263 3818 6814 1868 2812 6351 2296 5004 7264Delayed flights 1078 1860 4169 984 1466 3988 971 2871 4598

Total ATFM Delay (min) 19079 32857 73490 14648 24872 80063 14514 75090 89519Avg Delay Per Flight (min) 0.88 1.46 2.75 0.95 1.62 3.77 0.68 3.58 3.58

Avg Delay Per Delayed Flight (min) 17.7 17.67 17.63 14.89 16.97 20.08 14.95 26.15 19.47Table 4 : Traffic and delay situation for January and July traffic days.

The following information on the delay sitation is based on CFMU daily de-briefing information.Each days delay situation is put in relation with the seven last traffic days for the same day of theweek.

Delay situation on 18th versus 25th January 2002 and 5th July 2002 The Average delay per flight situation on 18th January 2002 was the second lowest compared onthe last 7 Friday traffic days.

The Average delay per flight situation on 25th January 2002 was the fourth lowest compared on thelast 7 Friday traffic days.

The average delay per flight situation on 5th July 2002 was the 3rd lowest for the last 7 Friday trafficdays.

The average Delay per flight on 25th January 2002 was about 0.58 minutes or 66% higher than 18th

January 2002.

The average Delay per flight on 5th July 2002 was about 1.92 minutes or 212% higher than the 18th

January 2002.

Although the delay situation is not the same for the 18th and 25th January, a comparability of thosetwo traffic days seems possible, since the absolute delay per flight is not too important.

The delay situation for the 5th July is significantly higher than for the 18th January. Any compare ofthose two traffic days has to take this significant difference carefully into account.

Delay situation on 19th versus 26th January 2002 and 6th July 2002The Average delay per flight situation on 19th January 2002 was the third lowest compared on thelast 7 Saturday traffic days.

The Average delay per flight situation on 26th January 2002 was the fifthst lowest compared on thelast 7 Saturday traffic days.

The average delay per flight situation on 6th July 2002 is the second lowest compared on the last 7Saturday traffic days.

24

The average Delay per flight on 26th January 2002 was about 0.67 minutes or 70% higher than 19th

January 2002.

Although the delay situation is not the same, a comparability of those two traffic days seemspossible. The difference in terms of delay has to be tried to be taken into account during resultanalysis and error impact estimation.

The average delay per flight on 6th July 2002 was about 2.82 minutes or 202% higher than the 19th

July.

The delay situation for the 6th July is significantly higher than for the 18th January. Any compare ofthose two traffic days has to take this significant difference carefully into account.

Delay situation on 22nd and 29th January 2002 and 9th July 2002The Average delay per flight situation on 22nd January 2002 was the third lowest compared on thelast 7 Tuesday traffic days.

The Average delay per flight situation on 29th January 2002 was the most severe compared on thelast 7 Tuesday traffic days.

The average delay per flight situation on 9th July 2002 was the highest for the last 7 Tuesday trafficdays.

The average Delay per flight on 29th January 2002 and on 9th July was about 2.90 minutes or 526% higher than 22nd January 2002.

The delay situation questions the comparability for those two traffic days (29th January & 9th July)against the movements of the 22nd January 2002. Any interpretation of results based on thecompare of those three traffic days has to be done very carefully.

25

Meteorological Situation

The model for the combustion process is based on the ICAO Standard Atmosphere to take intoaccount the variation of the meteorological parameters with altitude. Different than the combustionprocess modelling, the used radar movements are strongly influenced by the real weather situationin the geographical area under analysis.This section tries to summarise the meteorological situation per traffic day. The days January 26and 29 both have severe weather conditions (storms or very strong winds) over a large area whichmay effect the comparison results. Fuel burn comparisons between either January 19/26 orJanuary 22/29 would then be biased toward differences in weather conditions. The other two daycomparison, January 18/25, should give results more indicative of the difference between CVSMand RVSM. Similarity, July 9 had poor weather conditions which might effect the CVSM andRVSM comparison for January 22/July 9.

Table 5: Poor Weather Conditions Reported at Airports in Europe for the January Period

Table 6: Poor Weather Conditions Reported at Airports in Europe for the July Period

January 18, 2002: Meteorological AnalysisA low-pressure system southwest of Iceland and an associated warm front brought strong windsand rain to Ireland and western Britain. As well, a cold front trough extending from southernNorway to northern France brought strong westerly winds and low visibility to Holland, Denmarkand southern Sweden. Light rains associated with a warm front were found through central andeastern Sweden. A weak low-pressure system centred near Greece brought rain to southernGreece and Western Turkey. For France and central Europe, winds were light in a generalnorthwesterly direction with fog found in the morning throughout the region.The following weather related events were reported at the European airports:Fog: Paris Ch de Gaulle, Milano/Linate, Milano/Malpensa, Toulouse Blagnac, Munich, Porto

Strong Winds: Copenhagen Kastrup

Poor WeatherPoor WeatherCondition Reported

January 18 January 19 January 22 January 25 January 26 January 29

General Poor Weather

Toulouse Milan Stockholm Paris, Rome,Milan,Bergamo,Torino,Venezia

Strong WindsCopenhagen Frankfurt Amsterdam Amsterdam,

London,Frankfurt,Copenhagen

Low Visibility Amsterdam Madrid

FogParis, Milan,Toulouse,Munich,Porto

Milan Madrid Milan

Poor WeatherPoor WeatherCondition Reported

July 5 July 6 July 9

General Poor WeatherBritain,Germany,Switzerland

Strong Winds

Low Visibility

Fog

26

Low Visibility: Amsterdam/Schiphol

January 19, 2002: Meteorological Analysis

The low-pressure system of the previous day moved to a position immediately south of Icelandbringing with it consecutive cold and warm fronts which passed through Britain and westernFrance. This system continued to bring strong winds and rain to Ireland and western Britain. Thecold front trough extending from southern Norway to northern France on the previous day movedthrough Sweden and Germany bringing strong westerly winds. The weak low-pressure system ofthe previous day centred near Greece moved slowly to the east and continued to bring rain tosouthern Greece and Western Turkey. For France and central Europe, winds were stronger thanthe previous day in a general westerly direction.

The following weather related events were reported at the European airports:

Weather: Toulouse Blagnac, London/Heathrow

Strong Winds: Frankfurt


A low-pressure system located between Iceland and Scotland had associated with it a warm frontextending south east from southern Norway through Poland which brought strong winds, snow andrain throughout Scandinavia, Holland and parts of Germany. The system also had a cold frontextending through Britain, western France and central Spain bringing light rain and cloud. A weakhigh pressure system centred in northern Greece brought generally clear and calm weather to theeastern mediterranean, although occasional fog patches could be found.

The following weather related events were reported at the European airports:

Weather: Frankfurt

Strong Winds: Amsterdam/Schiphol

Fog: Milano/Malpensa


A low-pressure system located between between Sweden and Finland had associated with it awarm front extending south east Russia and a cold front extending southwest through Germanyinto France. This system brought strong winds and heavy snowfall to Sweden and Finland. Aseparate system over the north Atlantic brought rain, cloud and unsettled weather to Britain andIreland also with a warm front extending from Ireland down the western coast of France to Portugaland Spain.

The following weather related events were reported at the major European airports:

Heavy Snow: Stockholm/Arlanda

Fog: Madrid Barajas


A trough extending between Britain and Norway/Denmark brought strong westerly winds andsnow/rain throughout northern Europe. A low pressure system located to the southwest of Irelandbrought rain and strong westerly winds to southern Ireland and north-western France. Another lowpressure system located over south-eastern Finland extended the area of strong westerly windsinto Russia. Lower wind speeds and clearer weather could be found in southern parts of Europedue to weak high pressure systems located southern Spain and northern Greece.


27

Strong Winds: Amsterdam/Schipol, London/Heathrow, Frankfurt, Copenhagen Kastrup

Fog: Milano/Linate

Low Visibility: Madrid Barajas


A series of warm fronts (in central Britain, and central and western France), cold fronts (fromRussia through to northern Italy) and troughs (in Denmark) associated with a low pressure systemcentred in south-western Norway and connected with a weak low in the north Atlantic broughtgenerally unsettled weather to most of Europe. High pressure systems centred in southern Spainand northern Greece brought clearer and calmer weather to southern parts of Europe.


Weather: Paris Charles de Gaulle, Rome Fiumicino, Milano/Malpensa, Milano/Linate,Bergamo/Orio Alserio, Torino/Caselle, Venezia

July 5, 2002: Meteorological Analysis

A warm associated with low pressure system centred over Ireland passed over northwesternFrance and England bringing rain, overcast skies and southwesterly winds. A second low centredover eastern Sweden, and two other low pressure areas over the North Sea west and northwest ofNorway, brought rain and westerly winds throughout Scandinavia and the Baltic. A series of weaklows over the Mediterranean and Black seas brought rain to northern Italy. A high pressure systemlocated over central Germany brought generally clear skies and calm winds to central Europe.


The Low Pressure system over Ireland the previous day moved to a location over the EnglishChannel. An associated cold front, extending though central France and northern Spain, and awarm front extended from eastern England through Denmark and southern Sweden brought cloudyskies, weak northwest winds and light rain to Britain, France and Central Europe. Another Low andcold front located over southern France brought rain to the region around northern Italy. The LowPressure system over Scandinavia on the previous day moved North with a cold front extendingthrough western Russia. This system continued to bring rain to Scandinavia. High Pressuresystems over southern Spain, southern Italy and Central Poland brought clear skies and light windsto these areas.


A deep Low Pressure system was centred north of Scotland with associated Lows west of Irelandand west of Brittany. Associated with this system were warm fronts thorough central Norway andSweden extending down through southern England and northern France. As well, a cold frontextended from Brittany though northern Spain. This result of this activity was strong west windsthough Britain and France and strong north winds though Scandinavia and northern Spain. Cloudyskies and rain were also found through these areas as well as northern Italy and western Germany.A strong High Pressure system located over northern Poland brought clear skies but strongnorthern winds to eastern Europe. A separate Low Pressure system over Turkey brought rain andweak winds to Greece and Turkey.

28

Meteorological Analysis Charts: January 18, 19, 22,25, 26, 29 and July 5, 6, 9

Figure 14: January 18, 2002: Meteorological Analysis Chart


29Figure 16: January 22, 2002: Meteorological Analysis Chart


30Figure 18: January 26, 2002: Meteorological Analysis Chart


31Figure 20: July 6, 2002: Meteorological Analysis Chart

Figure 21: July 5, 2002: Meteorological Analysis Chart

32

Figure 22: July 9, 2002: Meteorological Analysis Chart

Meteorological Situation - SummaryThe weather situation on 26th and 29th January indicate server weather conditions (storms andvery strong winds) over a large area which may effect the comparison results. Fuel burn andEmission comparisons could be biased either for January 19/26 or January 22/29 towards thosedifferences in weather conditions. The comparison for the other traffic days, January 18/25, shouldgive results which are little biased by the meteorological situation and should better indicate thedifference between CVSM and RVSM based operation in the geographical study area.

The July movements do not seem to be influenced negatively by the meteorological situation overEurope, why a compare against the January CVSM scenarios should deliver results which shouldnot be not biased by weather impact. Some areas of strong winds during the 9th July did not lead toany significant problems, which otherwise would have been reported in the CFMU daily debriefingfor that day.

To overcome possible impact from weather on the results, statements will be based on %Changein kg/km for fuel burn and pollutants.

Further details about the weather situation at these traffic days is attached in the Annex 1.

33

OOuuttppuutt DDaattaa AAnnaallyyssiiss && RReessuullttss

Data analysis is based on the scenario input and output data produced with AEM3. A first level ofinformation is delivered directly by the AEM3 output reports. Additional Analysis is done usingStatistical Analysis of Office Spreadsheet and Database systems.

A Graphical Information System (GIS) is further used to help to better understand input data and itsrelation to the results.

The output data analysis is expected to indicate potential direct causal relations between thevariation of the different traffic system variables and a potential variation of emission and fuel burnobserved.

Fuel burn, H2O, CO2 and SOx Emissions Results

Since the movement data sets are not identical the study does not publish absolute totals for fuelburn and emission. To create a more reliable indicator for the environmental situation the studyuses the % change in kg per km for Fuel burn and Emissions for intersection data set from the twotraffic days of each compare. The intersection data set has been created using the query Callsign,ADEP, ADES, Aircraft type and distance difference smaller than 50 km.

18/25.01.02 19/26.01.02 22/29.01.02 18.1/5.7.02 19.1/6.7.02 22.1/9.7.02 % Ch. kg/km % Ch. kg/km% Ch. kg/km% Ch. kg/km% Ch. Kg/km % Ch. kg/km

Fuel 0.37595 0.21309 -0.10149 -1.60900 -2.33594 -22.94640NOx -0.03324 -0.31460 -0.47989 -0.71177 -0.97479 -29.19654H2O 0.37595 0.21309 -0.10149 -1.60900 -2.33594 -22.94640SO2 0.37595 0.21309 -0.10149 -1.60900 -2.33594 -22.94640CO2 0.37595 0.21309 -0.10149 -1.60900 -2.33594 -22.94640

Table 7: Fuel and emissions for traffic day couple intersection data sets

The compares for the 18th versus 25th January and the 19th versus the 26th January indicate a slightincrease of Fuel burn and emissions, with the exception of NOx.

The next four compares available to this study indicate an increasing benefit as a function of timefrom RVSM implementation (24th January 2002) starting already 5 days after implementation.

The 29th the study observes a benefit for fuel burn and directly proportional emissions of 0.1%.

Six month after RVSM implementation benefits of 1.6 and 2.3% are observed for the fuel burn anddirectly proportional emissions for the 5th and 6th July.

The results for the 9th July indicate a benefit for fuel burn and directly proportional emissions ofabout 23%.

Excluding the results for the 9th July, which seem to suffer from a problem the study could notidentify in the short time available the results seem to perfectly support hypothesis andexpectations of the study. Results show a clear trend along the time line from an initial perturbationtoward an environmental benefit, which became with the time more and more important.

In the very first days (25th and 26th) after implementation of RVSM in the EUR RVSM airspace area,as for any implementation of new systems, a slight environmental impact can be observed.

Airspace users where still in the face of adaptation to the new system.

Only 5 days after RVSM implementation this little negative impact disappeared and turned into anenvironmental benefit of little significance.

Further six month after RVSM implementation the environmental benefit becomes now clearlyvisible. Airspace users make now full use of the additional 6 flight levels to plan and operate moreoptimal vertical flight profiles. Fuel burn and directly proportional pollutants are reduced in the orderof 1.6 to 2.3%.

34

NOx emissions evolve from January to July towards an observed environmental benefit between0.7 and 1% in July.

January 18/25 January 19/26 January 22/29 January 18/July 5 January 19/ July 6

No. Flight Compare 6727 5029 13836 2473 1441Change Fuel (kg) 74609.435 48817.9323 -101370.5561 -42266.25665 -54226.6224Change/Flight (kg) 11.09104133 9.707284212 -7.326579655 -17.09108639 -37.63124386

Total Flights 12706 9307 19965 16249 13581Total Fuel Change 140922.7711 90345.69416 -146275.1628 -277713.0628 -511069.9228

Est. Price / kg (EURO) € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30Total Cost Fuel Change (EURO) € 42,276.83 € 27,103.71 -€ 43,882.55 -€ 83,313.92 -€ 153,320.98

Table 8: Estimated savings to airlinesThe results indicate for July an average fuel saving between 17 and 37 kg per flight in the EURRVSM area.

Vertical analysis of fuel burn and CO2, H2O and Sox emissionsThe following figures for flight level 200 and above indicate the difference in fuel burn per FlightLevel for CVSM against RVSM traffic days. Since no significant change has been observed foraltitudes below FL200 the focus in on FL200 and above.

The trends in the figures for Fuel burn are as well representative for the directly proportionalpollutants H2O, CO2 and Sox. The absolute figures for fuel burn would have been to multiplied withthe factors specified earlier in this report to obtain absolute figures for those pollutants.

The figures allow to test the hypothesis that RVSM did as well lead to an environmental benefit athigher altitudes near and above the Tropopause layer. Those altitudes are most sensitive toemissions.

January 18 - January 25 FUEL Difference

-800000 -600000 -400000 -200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms

Figure 23: Total fuel burn difference per FL for 18th vs. 25th January 2002


-800000 -600000 -400000 -200000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms


35


-4000000 -3000000 -2000000 -1000000 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

evel

Kilograms

Figure 25: Total fuel burn difference per FL for 22nd vs. 29th January 2002

January 18 - July 05 FUEL Difference

-300000 -200000 -100000 0 100000 200000 300000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms

Figure 26: Total fuel burn difference per FL for 18th vs. 5th July 2002

January 19 - July 06 FUEL Difference

-200000 -150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms

Figure 27: Total fuel burn difference per FL for 19th vs. 6th July 2002

All above figures indicate, with slight variations, the same trend. Emissions in the CVSM flightlevels have been reduced by the implementation of the EUR RVSM level. The emission output inthe six new RVSM flight levels is significantly higher than under CVSM. The figures show as wellthe general tendency of all flights to fly higher. This is even valid for the flight levels below the EURRVSM airspace. In terms of fuel burn and proportional emissions a small, but systematicenvironmental impact for the level bands between FL200 and FL250/270 can be observed.

On the other hand EUR RVSM implementation lead to a more homogenous distribution of fuel burnand emissions over altitude. The following figure indicates that clearly. Further figures for the othertraffic days with better readability are available in Annex 4.

36

January 18 - January 25 FUEL BURN

0 2 4 6 8 10 12200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 28: Percental Distribution of Total fuel burn per FL 18th vs. 25th Janaury 2002

Where in CVSM emissions (blue) are mainly concentrated on FL290, FL310, FL330, FL350 andFL370, under RVSM less emission per level band are distributed wider over all level bands in theairspace above FL200.

What this means in terms of atmospheric impact goes beyond the scope of this study and wouldrequire further analysis of this change by atmospheric research specialists.

37

Vertical analysis of NOx emissionsThe following figures indicate the difference in total amount of Nox emissions in kg per Level Band.

The overall trend over all compares seems to indicate that NOx emissions have been reducedmainly in the former available CVSM levels. As an result of the use of the new six RVSM levels theNOx emission levels at those flights levels have been increased. This was to be expected.

January 18 - January 25 NOx Difference

-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms

Figure 29: Total NOx emission difference per FL for 18th vs. 25th January 2002


-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms



-40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

evel

Kilograms


38

January 18 - July 05 NOx Difference

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms

Figure 32: Total NOx emission difference per FL for 18th January vs. 5th July 2002

39

January 19 - July 06 NOx Difference

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Kilograms

Figure 33: Total NOx emission difference per FL for 19th January vs. 6th July 2002

40

Similar than for fuel burn, Nox emissions are more equally distributed over all flight levels beyondFL200. Below figure shall serve only as one example. Further figures with better readability areavailable in Annex 4.

January 18 - January 25 NOx

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 34: Percental Distribution of NOx emissions per FL 18th vs. 25th Janaury 2002

Environmental Benefit at high altitiudesThe following table indicates the environmental benefit resulting from RVSM with a focus only onflight profile segments which have been operated at FL290 or above.

18-Jan 19-Jan 22-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 25-Jan 26-Jan 29-Jan 5-Jul 6-Jul % Change% Change% Change% Change% Change

Fuel 290+ -2.42267 -2.2172 -1.8656 -3.52536 -5.08286Nox 290+ -2.52023 -2.63355 -1.86434 -2.31808 -4.48393CO2 290+ -2.42267 -2.2172 -1.8656 -3.52536 -5.08286H2O 290+ -2.42267 -2.2172 -1.8656 -3.52536 -5.08286SO2 290+ -2.42267 -2.2172 -1.8656 -3.52536 -5.08286

Table 9: Envrionmental Benefit at FL290 and above

It is a very positive signal to the atmospheric research community, that the study seem to confirmsignificant savings in terms of NOx and H2O emissions in the Flight levels around and abovetropopause layer.

NOx emissions have been reduced by 1.8 – 4.48% and H2O emissions by 1.8 – 5.08% by theimplementation of RVSM in the EUR RVSM area for Flight Level 290 and above.

These savings around tropopause layer have direct positive impact in terms of condensation trailbuilding, suspect to contribute to radiative forcing (for H2O) and the Ozone layer (NOx emissions).

Nevertheless, the total benefit based on the complete flight profile through all Flight level is lowerand the two figures should not be mixed up.

41

OOuuttppuutt sseennssiittiivviittyy aannaallyyssiiss

This chapter aims to indicate the level of reality in the absolute figures obtained by the results of thisstudy. The results depend strongly on the quality of the input data, the quality of the underlyingdatabases for aircraft performance and fuel burn and the realism of the applied methods to estimate theemission output.

Flight time and Fuel burn estimation with AEM3

The flight time AEM3 estimates for each complete flight profile includes the known times of the availableprofile data (input data), estimated times for taxi-in/-out, default mode times for take-off run, climb-outand landing and estimated times to complete incomplete profiles for missing parts (mainly for climb,descent and approach).

This might result in differences between flight duration estimated by AEM3 and the real duration of aflight monitored by the airlines.

Since the flight duration is the base for the later fuel and emission estimations, an error at this level willconsequently propagate into those results.

The fuel burn estimation of AEM3 further depends strongly on the quality of the aircraft type dependentfuel flow information provided with the BADA data.

AEM3 results, for duration and fuel burn have been compared for a limited set of aircraft types againstairline operational flight plan (FP) information for more than 600 flights. This data, although plan data, isof high realism, since it is used for mission preparation based on statistical analysis of the samemissions performed earlier for the same city pair with the same aircraft type.

In an ideal case Time Ratio (TimeAEM/TimeFP) and Fuel Ratio (FuelAEM/FuelFP) would be equal toone. A value above one indicates that AEM3 overestimates the real duration and/or fuel burn. FromTime ratio and Fuel Ratio, Fuel Flow Ratio has been estimated.

Aircraft Type Time Ratio Fuel & Time Ratio FuelFlow Ratio

A306 1.08505754983194 1.12353673184408 1.03546280288829A310 1.0877432186771 1.04391240966257 0.95970481979392A319 1.08328933620863 1.18042361420534 1.08966605204171A320 1.1090924153218 1.159047420187 1.04504133665967A321 1.08608255488522 1.15655630539218 1.06488802364974A340 1.11428177355993 1.13747947255774 1.02081852144426B733 1.0916394831381 1.18980109901589 1.08992127656981B735 1.08465159719753 1.18470637034922 1.09224600176703

Table 10: Time Ratio and Fuel Flow Ratio

Above table indicates that AEM seems to overestimate flight duration by 8-11%.

Absolute figures for fuel burn seem to be overestimated by 12-19% for the limited list of Aircraft typesrepresented in above table.

This could be interpreted as that the overestimation added by the underlying fuel flow model lies in theorder of 2-9%.

An exception is the A310 aircraft. Although an overestimation of 8% of the flight duration is the result ofthe current validation, fuel burn is indicated to be overestimated by 4% only. This seems to indicate anunderestimation of fuel flow for this aircraft model of about 4%.

42

Emission estimation with AEM3

CO2, H2O, SOxThe emissions for CO2, H2O and SOx are directly proportional to the fuel burn. Any error levelestimated for the fuel burn estimation will propagate, for that reason, for exactly the same level, into theresults for those pollutants. The emission coefficient representing the degree of proportionality betweenfuel burn and the above pollutants have been based on an in-depth literature review. There is only aslight variation for those coefficients in the different literature sources, and the values applied for thisstudy (RVSM Study applied) have been qualified reasonable by different domain experts.

Pollutant RVSM Study applied Max Min Max % Min %CO2 3.149 3.22 3.1 2.254684 -1.55605H2O 1.23 1.25 1.17 1.626016 -4.87805SOx 0.00084 0.0012 0.000267 42.85714 -68.2143

Table 11: Variation in published coefficients for fuel proportional emissions (%)

The above table indicates the variation for the different coefficients in the different literature sourcescompared to the coefficients applied in this study. The variation indicates at the same time the level oferror, which might have been put by those coefficients into the results for CO2, H2O, and SOxestimations of this study.

NOx, HC, COThe estimation of the level of realism for the NOx, HC and CO emissions calculated by AEM3 is basedon information available from different other research projects, since real data for validation purpose isnot available directly.

▪▪ NASA study

NASA [Ref 11] indicates that the internal distribution between the three above pollutants should varybetween 72.5 and 90% for Oxides of Nitrogen, 25 and < 10% for Carbon Monoxide and <1 - 2.5% forHydrocarbon, dependent on the mission length. The estimation is based on Boeing standard missionprofiles, for a mission range between 400 and 3000 nm for a B757-200.

Figure 35: Emissions Comparison of 757-200 for a 400 NM and 3000 NM Mission [Ref 11]

The distribution obtained by AEM3 for those pollutants over complete flight profiles for the differentscenarios under analysis corresponds to a very high level with the reference information publish by

0

20

40

60

80

100

400 NM Mission(740.8 km)

3000 NM Mission(5556 km)

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al E

mis

sion

s

HCCONOx

43

NASA (see tables below). The fact that NOx is observed at the higher limit and HC and CO at thelower limits indicated by NASA experts can be explained by the fact that this study did not includeLTO operations. LTO operations are main contributor to HC and CO emissions.

CVSM RVSM% NOx % HC % CO % NOx % HC % CO

RVSM study 90.00 1.6 8.4 90.24 1.62 8.14Table 12: Distribution between NOx, HC and CO in percent over all traffic days

▪▪ NOx average emission indices from ANCAT and NASA inventories

NASA and ANCAT researchers have analysed the NOx emissions estimation for larger trafficsamples and put the calculated amount of NOx emissions in relation of the estimated amount offuel burn by those traffic scenarios to obtain an indication for average NOx Emission Indices.

This analysis leads to the following estimations for average NOx Emissions Indices (EINOx) in g perkg fuel burn:

ANCAT 1A ANCAT 2 NASA NASA 1992 1992 1990 1992Horizontal resolution (°) 2.8 * 2.8 1 * 1 1 * 1 1 * 1Vertical resolution (km) 1 1 1 1EINOX (g/kg) 16.8 13.7 10.9 11.1

Table 13: Published average EINOx (g/kg fuel) of reference projects [Ref 12]

ANCAT 1A results have been obtained using a thermo dynamical NOx emission model that has beenreplaced during ANCAT 2 by the DLR NOx estimation method. NASA results are based on BoeingMethod 1 and Method 2.

A comparison by Rolls-Royce experts, between the Boeing Method 2 and the DLR NOx emissionmethod indicates a difference of 3.6% with the DLR method giving the higher Nox estimation.

The results published in this report are obtained by AEM3 applying a modified version of Boeing Method2 (see appendix 2). The modification compared to the original Boeing Method 2 covers a correction inthe formula to correct for humidity at flight level.

A brief comparison during this study, between DLR method, Boeing Method 2 and the EUROCONTROLmodified Boeing Method 2 (EEC-BM2) indicates DLR method to deliver 4.28% higher results than theBoeing Method 2 and 3.56% higher results than the EEC-BM2.

This would lead to an expectation that an average Emission indice for NOx for the RVSM movementdata should lie slightly higher than the most recent values published by NASA.

The following tables confirms perfectly this expectation. It indicates the average NOx emission indices ing per kg fuel obtained for the different scenarios under analysis in this study. The different values forthe 18th and 19th January (those dates appear twice in below table) are based on the fact that differentflights have been extracted from the raw movements data to create intersection data set for thecomparison against the 25/26th January and 5/6th July.

Date 18.1 25.1 19.1 26.1 22.1 29.1 18.1 5.7 19.1 6.7EINox g/kg Fuel 11.04 10.99 10.85 10.79 17.19 17.12 11.34 11.44 11.97 12.14

Table 14: Average EINOx in g/kg fuel for all traffic days

The average EINOx over all traffic days lies at 12.49 g/kg fuel burnt. If the results for the 22.1 and 29.1are not considered the average EINOx over the remaining days lies at 11.32 g/kg fuel.

These results are about 12.5% or 2% higher than NASA results from 1992, but 17.4% or 8.83% lowerthan ANCAT2 results.

The high EINOx figures for the 22.1 and 29.1 are surely based on the fact that the intersectionmovement data set is a global movement data set holding many long haul flights for which the relation

44

between cruise segment (higher NOx emissions) against approach/descent segment (lower NOxemissions) is dominated by the long duration of the cruise phase.

This is less the case for the other movements data sets, where movements are limited to the north andcentral part of Europe.

These figures show as well very clearly, that average emission indicies, especially for NOx, should beapplied only very carefully. A strong doubt should be applied to any study using such average EINOx tocalculate “backwards” absolute figures for NOx emissions.

45

CCoonncclluussiioonnss

The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that RVSM implementation in the EUR RVSMarea would result in environmental benefit due to the possibility to flight at or closer to optimal flightlevels.

The study was based on January and July 2002 radar data movement sets. Three CVSM trafficdays from before RVSM implementation have been compared against three RVSM traffic days justafter implementation in January and again against the same traffic days in July.

The results indicate that after a very short period where the ATM system suffered slightly fromsome implementation effects, RVSM lead to significant environmental benefits in terms of fuel burnand emissions per km.

The study can demonstrate that after six month EUR RVSM operation environment benefits from1.6-2.3% less fuel burn and Carbons Dioxide, Sulphur Oxide and Water emissions.

NOx emissions have been reduced due to the implementation of EUR RVSM by about 0.7-1%.

The Fuel burn reduction can be translated into about –17- -37 kg per movement, which translatesup to 310.000 tons yearly fuel saving for airlines in the EUR RVSM airspace.

The result is even more positive for the high level bands around and above tropopause layer, whichare most sensitive for NOx and H2O emissions. The emissions are more homogeneously spreakthrough all levels at higher altitudes, but reductions of up to 4.4% for NOx and 5.0% for H2O havebeen indicated by this study.

Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the results of this study are based only on a little numberof movement data base set. To create a more solid statistical base for the results found furtheranalysis of more traffic days and a deeper look to certain details would be required.

FFuurrtthheerr wwoorrkk

This current study shows some limitations due to the little number of radar movement set availableand the ambitious time frame defined for it.

The results might be biased by weather and delay situation.

An continued exercise systematically analysing the situation for the same traffic days until the endof the year 2002 would create a more solid fundament for information concerning theenvironmental benefit permanently obtained due to the implementation of EUR RVSM.

47

AAnnnneexxee 11 AAddddiittiioo nnaall MMeetteeoorroollooggiiccaall CChhaarrttss

Additional Meteorological Charts: January 18, 19, 22,25, 26, 29 and July 5,6,9

Figure 36: January 18, 2002: Sea Level Pressure (Surface) and 300mb Heights (Cruise)

48

Figure 37: January 18, 2002: Satellite Image and Mean Precipitation Rate

49


50


51


52


53


54


55


56


57

Figure 46: January 29, 2002: Sea Level Pressure (Surface) and 300mb Height (Cruise)

58


59

Figure 48: July 5, 2002: Sea Level Pressure (Surface) and 300mb Height (Cruise)

60

Figure 49: July 5, 2002: Satellite Image and Mean Precipitation Rate

61


62


63


64


65

AAnnnneexxee 22 BBooeeiinngg MMeetthhoodd 22 -- EEUURROOCCOONNTTRROOLLmmooddiiffiieedd

This annexe describes the EUROCONTROL modified Boeing Method 2 (EEC-BM2)

The original Boeing Method 2 (BM2)The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has established standards and recommendedpractices (Annex 16 to the ICAO Conference, "Environmental Protection") for the testing of aircraftemissions on turbojet and turbofan engines. The world's jet engine manufacturers have beenrequired to report to ICAO the results of required testing procedures, which pertain to aircraftemissions. ICAO regulations require reporting of emissions testing data on the following gaseousemittants: NOx, HC, CO and smoke. In addition to this, ICAO requires that information be reportedon the rate of fuel flow at various phases of flight. Hence, ICAO maintains a database of this whereinformation is available to find out this information for each of the phases of flight as ICAO definesthem:

Operating Mode Throttle Setting (percent of maximum rated output)Take off 100%Climb out 85%Approach 30%Taxi/ground idle 7%

The Boeing Aircraft Company conducted an extensive study for NASA on emission inventories forscheduled civil aircraft worldwide (see Baugham et al., 1996). The Boeing 2 Method is an empiricalprocedure developed for this study which computes in-flight aircraft emissions using, as a base, themeasured fuel flow and the engine ICAO data sheets. Whereas the first Boeing method took intoaccount ambient pressure, temperature and humidity, the second method was more complicated(and accurate). This new method allowed for ambient pressure, temperature and humidity as wellas Mach number.

MethodologyThe Boeing Method uses English units and not S.I. therefore the first step is to convert the FuelFlow (Wf) from the ICAO data for a specific engine from kg/s to lbs/hr (multiply by 7936). TheEmission Index (EI) values from ICAO are to be read as lbs/1000 lbs (same number as g/kg).

The ICAO fuel flow values are then to be modified by a correction for aircraft installation effects(Wf):

Take off 1.010Climb out 1.013Approach 1.020

Taxi/ground idle 1.100

STEP 1: Curve fitting the DataThe Emission Indices (NOx, HC, CO) are to be plotted (log-log) against the corrected fuel flow (Wf).

STEP 2: Fuel Flow Factor

a) Calculate the values ∂amb (ambient pressure correction factor) and θamb (ambient temperaturecorrection factor) where:

∂amb = Pamb/14.696 (Pamb = ambient (inlet) pressure) andθamb = (Tamb + 273.15)/288.15 (Tamb = ambient (inlet) temperature)

b) The fuel flow values are further modified by the ambient values:

Wff = (Wf /∂amb) θamb3.8 exp (0.2 M2), where M is the Mach number.

c) Calculate the humidity correction factor H:

66

H = -19.0 (ω - 0.0063), ω = specific humidity, ω = (0.62198 (Φ) Pv)/( Pamb - (Φ) Pv), where Φ is relative humidity and Pv = saturation vapour pressure in psia. For a correction to thisformula, please see the EUROCONTROL corrected Boeing 2 Method below.

Pv = (0.014504)10β

and,

β = 7.90298(1- 373.16/( Tamb + 273.16)) + 3.00571 = (5.02808)log(373.16/( Tamb + 273.16)) +1.3816 x 10-7 [ 1- 10 11.344(1- (Tamb + 273.16)/373.16)] + 8.1328 x 10-3 [ 1- 10 3.49149(1- 373.16/( Tamb +273.16))]

STEP 3: Compute EICalculate the emission indices of HC, CO and NOx:

EIHC = REIHC θamb3.3/∂amb1.02

EICO = REICO θamb3.3/∂amb

1.02

EINOX = REINOX (∂amb1.02θamb

3.3) exp HWhere the REIHC, REICO, and REINOX values are read off the graph (STEP 1) by substitutingWff for Wf.

STEP 4: Total Emission

Total (HC, CO, NOx) = Number of Engines x ∑i (EIHC, EICO, EINOX)i x Wfi x timei x 10 –3

in lbs

Bibliography:ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank, First Edition 1995, ICAO, Doc 9646 AN/493

Steven L. Baughcum, Terrance G. Tritz, Stephen C. Henderson, and David C. Pickett, ScheduledCivil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database Development and Analysis. Nasa ContractReport 4700. 1996.

EUROCONTROL modified Boeing Method 2 (EEC-BM2)

Eurocontrol has implemented an improved version of the Boeing Method2 as part of its AEM3emission calculations used to obtain the results for the RVSM study. The improvement covers amistake within the published Boeing Method2 specific humidity calculation (see above). Theformula for the humidity correction factor should read:

ω = (0.62198 (Φ) Pv)/( Pamb – 0.37802 (Φ) Pv)The reason is that specific humidity, ω, is defined as the ratio of the mass of water vapour in asample of moist air to the total mass of moist air, i.e.:

ω = Mw / (Mw + Md) where Mw is the mass of water vapour and Md is the mass of dry air.

Specific humidity can also be calculated from the actual vapour pressure (Pa) and ambientPressure (Pamb) as:

ω = e * Pa / (Pamb – ((1 – e) * Pa))The factor e is the ratio of the mole weight of water vapour to that of air (18.016 / 28.966 - both ing/mol) = 0.62198 (a dimensionless quantity).

67

Please note also that actual vapour pressure (Pa) is related to relative humidity (Φ) and thesaturation vapour pressure (Pv) by the formula:

Φ = Pa / Pv

Therefore the correct formula for specific humidity is

ω = (0.62198 (Φ) Pv)/( Pamb – 0.37802 (Φ) Pv)

Note that the factor 0.37802 appearing is 1 – e = 1 – 0.62198 (= 0.37802) and must be

included in the formula. This correction has been implemented as the Boeing Method 2 -EUROCONTROL

modified.

68

AAnnnneexxee 33 :: CCFFMMUU DDaattaa aacccceessss && UUssee aaggrreeeemmeennttThis study is based on CFMU CPR data. The use of the data requires establishment andacceptance of a user requirement. It shall be underlined that the reproduction of information fromthis report requires written acceptance from the Authors, who will co-ordinate any request withCFMU in respect of below agreement. In case of agreement, initial data source and report have tobe mentioned.

Usage of CFMU data is subjected to the agreement of the following points:

1. The use to which the CFMU data will be put shall be specified in the initial request (e.g. forspecific ATM studies only) and will be strictly complied with. Any use for commercialpurposes is excluded.

2. The CFMU shall under no circumstances be held liable for any damages resulting from theuse of the data.

3. The data is provided on an as-seen/as-is basis and the CFMU provides no warranty andaccepts no liability in connection with the use of the CFMU data.

4. The CFMU data will not be further transmitted or otherwise provided to a third party withoutthe explicit agreement of the original provider.

5. Data may not be displayed in publications unless approved by the CFMU; in that case, thedata source must be mentioned. The Copyright statement has to be mentioned on anydocument using the data (including , as required, specific warning such as prohibiteduse/reproduction, ..).

6. Before publishing reports based on CFMU data, the users are invited to validate theirconclusions with the CFMU responsible.

69

AAnnnneexxee 44 :: FFuueell bb uurrnn aanndd eemmiissssiioonn aannaallyyssiiss ffiigguurreess



0 2 4 6 8 10 12

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

70


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM


71


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 56: Total fuel burn difference per FL for 22nd vs. 29th January 2002

72January 18 - July 5 FUEL BURN

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 57: Total fuel burn difference per FL for 18th January vs. 5th July 2002

73


0 2 4 6 8 10 12

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 58: Total difference of NOx emissions per FL for 19th vs. 26th January 2002

74


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 59: Total difference of NOx emissions per FL for 22th vs. 29th January 2002

75January 18- July 5 NOx

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 60: Total difference of NOx emissions per FL for 18th January vs. 5th July 2002

76 January 19- July 6 NOx

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

200

250

300

350

400

Flig

ht L

eve

Percent of Total

RVSMCVSM

Figure 61: Total difference of NOx emissions per FL for 19th January vs. 6th July 2002

77

RReeffeerreenncceess

[Ref 1] Groupement des Industries Françaises Aéronautiques et Spatiales. Groupe de Travail.Environnement, Document de Synthèse. 11.04.2000.

[Ref 2] The 8-States Free Route Airspace Project. FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE CONCEPT,Issue 1.3, 1 April 1999, doc. EUROCONTROL

[Ref 3] AVIATION AND THE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE, Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, 1999.

[Ref 4] Klaus Gierens and Susanne Marquat, Regions that are conditioned for ContrailFormation, DLR, 2001.

[Ref 5] Lee, D.S., I. Koehler, E.Grobler, F.Rohrer, R. Sausen, L.Gallardo-Klenner, J.g.J. Olivier,F.J. Dentener, A.F. Bouwam: Estimations of global NOx emissions and theiruncertainties" Atmos.Env.,31, 1735-1749, 1997.

[Ref 6] WMO, 1995 WMO (World Meteorological Organisation): "Scientific assessment ofozone depletion: 1994", global ozone research and monitoring project, Report No.34,WMO, Geneva, 1995.

[Ref 7] Koehler and. al, 1997: Koehler, I., R.Sausen, R.Reinberger: "Contributions of aircraftemissions to the atmospheric NOX content" Atmos. Env., 31, 1801-1818, 1997

[Ref 8] Brasseur and. al., 1998: Brasseur, G.P., R.A. Cox, D. Hauglustaine, I.Isaksen, J.Lelieveld, D.H. Lister, R.Sausen, U. Schumann, A. Wahner, P. Wiesen: "Europeanscientific assessment of the atmospheric effects of aircraft emissions", Atmos. Env., 32,1998

[Ref 9] EUROCONTROL, FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE PROJECT, Fast Time Simulation Report.Phase 1, AOM/Z/FR, REF: 00.70.05, Edition: V1.4, Edition Date: 07 November 2000.

[Ref 10] EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE, Eight-States Free Route AirspaceProject Large Scale Real Time Simulation South Scenario, EEC. Report No.365, ProjectAOM-Z-FR, May 2001.

[Ref 11] (Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database Development andAnalysis; April 1996; NASA LRC; Contractor Report 4700; Steven L. Baughcum,Terrance G. Tritz, Stephen C. Henderson, David C. Picket)

[Ref 12] Impact de la flotte aérienne sur l’environnement atmosphérique et le climat; Rapportno.40, Décembre 1997, Institut de France, Académie des sciences – AcadémieNationale de l’air et de l’espace

[Ref 13] ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank ; ICAO ; Doc 9646-AN/943 ; First Edition –1995 ; Internet Issue 1(3/10/1998) ; Internet Issue2(8/2/99).

[Ref 14] Emission Indices – State of the Art; Literature Review; EUROCONTROL ExperimentalCentre; BU Environmental Studies; A.Celikel ; 1999 ; unpublished internal paper.

For more information about theEEC Environmental Studies Business Area

please contact:

Ted ElliffEnvironmental Studies Business Area Manager,

EUROCONTROL Experimental CentreBP15, Centre de Bois des Bordes

91222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEXFrance

Tel: +33 1 69 88 73 36Fax: +33 1 69 88 72 11

E-Mail: [email protected]

or visit

http://www.eurocontrol.fr/ba_env/

the free route airspace project (frap)

Documents