Aviation and the environment · 30 years of operational service in Karlsruhe Datelines 42...

Skyway is a quarterly publication of the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, EUROCONTROLVolume 11, Number 44, Spring 2007

Aviation andthe environment

Ulrich Stockmann (MEP) Emissions trading: a significant steptowards addressing the impact ofaviation on the environment

Airbus tackles theenvironmental challenge

Sir Richard BransonVirgin Group ChairmanThe environment iseveryone's responsibility

Interview withDavid McMillanECAC Focal Point forEnvironmental Matters

Skyway Magazine is a EUROCONTROL publication. Articles appearing in this magazine do not necessarily reflect EUROCONTROL’s official policy.

Publisher: Víctor M. AguadoManaging Editor: Gerhard StadlerEditor: Lucia [email protected] Editorial Team: Christos Petrou, Jean-Jacques Sauvage Linguistic Advisers: Language Service (DGS/LSEC)Layout: Frédérique FyonPhotography: Christian SampouxPrinting: EUROCONTROL Logistics and Support Services, Bureau DGS/LOG

Articles, photographs and letters from readers are welcome. Whilst every care will be taken of material submitted for publication, the Managing Editorregrets that he is unable to accept responsibility for any loss or damage.

EUROCONTROL Website: http://www.eurocontrol.int

Stakeholder Forum18 Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson:

the environment is everyone’s responsibility

21 DFS: balancing operational and environmental needs

24 ICAO’s work on the environmentThe CAEP/7 results

28 ENAC: addressing environmental issues globally

31 Airbus tackles the environmental challenge

Independent Platform34 Ulrich Stockmann (MEP)

Emissions trading: a significant contribution towards addressing the impact of aviation on the environment

36 European Federation for Transport and EnvironmentEmissions trading for aviation: only a first step

38 Air transport and the environmentThe need for a political will

Review40 EUROCONTROL’s Software Team celebrates

30 years of operational service in Karlsruhe

Datelines42 Maastricht ATC Exhibition and Conference

44 The Workshop on Functional Airspace Blocks

46 Environment in ATM Consultation Workshop

44 Industry News

46 Visits & Agreements

3 Editorial

Focus4 The environment in ATM or

ATM in the environment: the heart of the matter

8 EUROCONTROL: a partnership for sustainability

12 Assessing the impact of aviation on the environment

Interview16 David McMillan,

ECAC Focal Point for Environmental Matters and Director General of Civil Aviation in the UK

Contents

3

Chers lecteurs,

Skyway 44 - Spring 2007

EditorialEditorial

Dear readers,

Over the past few years, environmental concerns have assumed increasing importance.

With the number of flights expected to reach 16 million by 2020, thecapacity of the entire European air traffic management (ATM) networkwill be increasingly constrained by environmental factors. That is whyEUROCONTROL is doing everything it can to minimise aviation’s envi-ronmental impact.

In this respect, increased efficiency in the European route networkplays a key role. The introduction of six new flight levels in January2002 reduced annual carbon dioxide emissions by 1 million tonnes,which is the equivalent of removing three days’ worth of emissionsfrom the system every year. The implementation of the flexible use ofairspace in Europe currently saves a further 400,000 tonnes of CO2annually. EUROCONTROL’s Central Flow Management Unit alsohelps reduce emissions on a daily basis. It does so by proposingmore direct routeings whenever possible and by keeping aircraft onthe ground with the engines switched off until there is a slot available,rather than have them circle in the air.

However, more work is needed to ensure that air traffic managementcan contribute to a 10% reduction in fuel burn by 2020. Central toachieving this progress in the short and medium term is the DynamicManagement of the European Airspace Network (DMEAN)Programme, and in the long term there is SESAR.

Together with our stakeholders we are determined to accelerate airtraffic management’s contribution to the sustainable development ofair transport.

Key to enhancing aviation’s environmental performance is improvedcommunication. It is essential for all of us in the aviation industry to beable to improve our understanding of environmental issues and to beable to learn from each other’s experience and move towards deter-mining and adopting best practice. This is why we at EUROCONTROLhave launched a debate with stakeholders in order to identify keyissues and areas for change, with a view to ensuring that we can addvalue and help our partners to do business.

This Skyway issue is a very good example of this. In this edition, weaim to shed light on the main environmental challenges facing the avi-ation industry as a whole. We address the main issues and proposesolutions. By working in partnership, we believe that ATM can con-tribute to minimising aviation’s environmental impact, while meetingsafety, capacity, security and economic requirements.

Víctor M. AguadoDirector General

Les préoccupations environnementales ont pris, au cours des dernièresannées, une importance grandissante.

La croissance escomptée du nombre annuel de vols, qui devrait attein-dre les 16 millions en 2020, soumettra la capacité de l’ensemble duréseau européen de gestion du trafic aérien (ATM) à des contraintes envi-ronnementales sans cesse plus fortes. C’est la raison pour laquelleEUROCONTROL met tout en œuvre pour limiter au minimum les inci-dences de l’aviation sur l’environnement.

L’efficacité accrue du réseau de routes européen joue, sur ce plan, unrôle déterminant. L’introduction de six niveaux de vol supplémentaires enjanvier 2002 a permis de réduire d’un million de tonnes les émissionsannuelles de dioxyde de carbone, ce qui revient à supprimer chaqueannée l’équivalent de trois jours d’émissions. La mise en œuvre du con-cept d’utilisation flexible de l’espace aérien en Europe permet à l’heureactuelle de diminuer annuellement les émissions de CO2 de 400 000tonnes supplémentaires. L’Organisme central de gestion des courants detrafic aérien d’EUROCONTROL contribue lui aussi quotidiennement à laréduction des émissions, en proposant systématiquement des itinérairesplus directs à chaque occasion possible et en maintenant les aéronefs ausol, moteurs coupés, jusqu’à ce qu’un créneau se libère, plutôt que de lesfaire évoluer dans des piles d’attente.

Des efforts supplémentaires sont toutefois requis afin que la gestion dutrafic aérien puisse contribuer à une diminution de 10% de la consom-mation de carburant d’ici 2020. À court et moyen termes, le ProgrammeDMEAN (Programme de gestion dynamique du réseau aérien européen)jouera un rôle essentiel dans la réalisation de cet objectif, suivi, pour lelong terme, par le Programme SESAR.

Nous sommes déterminés, avec nos partenaires, à accélérer la contribu-tion de l’ATM au développement durable du transport aérien.

L’amélioration des performances environnementales de l’aviation passeimpérativement par une meilleure communication. Il est en effet essentielque chacun des acteurs du secteur aéronautique puisse mieux cerner laproblématique environnementale et tirer parti des expériences des autresen vue de définir et adopter des pratiques exemplaires. C’est dans cetesprit qu’EUROCONTROL a engagé un débat avec ses partenaires, quia pour objet de recenser les questions et domaines clés où un change-ment s’impose et, partant, de faire en sorte que l’Organisation puisseapporter une valeur ajoutée et aider ces mêmes partenaires dans la con-duite de leurs activités.

La présente édition du magazine Skyway est une très bonne illustrationde cette démarche. Dans ce numéro, nous nous attachons à mettre enlumière les principaux défis environnementaux auxquels le secteur aéro-nautique dans son ensemble est confronté. Nous abordons les grandsproblèmes et proposons des solutions. Nous croyons fermement qu’enoeuvrant en partenariat, le secteur ATM peut contribuer à réduire les inci-dences de l’aviation sur l’environnement, tout en répondant aux exi-gences posées en termes de sécurité, de capacité, de sûreté et d’effi-cacité économique.

Víctor M. AguadoDirecteur général

Focus

The vast majority of European airportsnow experience environmental restric-tions, yet only six flow managementpositions currently report environmentaldelay. In 2006, this amounted to 33,915minutes out of a total of 18.4 millionminutes of air traffic flow management(ATFM) delay reported. The fact thatenvironmental restrictions and non-optimal operations are built into flightplans probably masks the real extent ofthe problem. Moreover, noise abate-ment operational procedures may leadto longer flight times, which in turnincrease fuel burn and engine emis-sions.

At airports, ATM has to cope with noiseabatement procedures, noise routes,noise-related airfield configurationrestrictions, noise preferential runways,

noise dispersion regimes, movementrestrictions and curfews, impact limits,onerous planning and consultationprocesses and other environmentalmanagement measures. It must do sowhile maintaining high levels of safetyand ensuring adequate capacity tomeet demand. As traffic increases andwith it the pressures to further constrainairport operations for environmentalreasons, ATM finds itself at the heart ofthe matter, namely how to ensure theleast possible environmental impact forthe maximum possible airport through-put.

A particular concern is the lack of har-monised guidelines and operationaltechniques that can be applied acrossthe European region. This leaves air-ports and ATM open to attack from

4

Focus

There is growing environmental pressure on the air traffic management

(ATM) sector, both from the generalpublic and at political level.

Many stakeholder articles in this editionof Skyway explain the underlying

factors. They are most apparent at the increasing number of airports which

have severe environmental restrictionson their operations, principally due tonoise but increasingly linked to local

air quality. However, the impact of avia-tion emissions on climate change is

very quickly becoming a major concern. This has the potential to influ-ence the use of en-route capacity as a

result of measures or regulationsdesigned to minimise environmental

impact, and possibly also to affect the demand side as a result

of economic measures.

Andrew Watt,Environment Domain

Manager, EUROCONTROL

The environment in ATM or ATM in the environment?

The heart of the matter by Guido Kerkhofs,Director Air Traffic

Management Programmes,

EUROCONTROL and


local, well-informed communities,which cherry-pick what they considerto be the most advantageous proce-dures (for themselves) from otherEuropean regions or even from otherglobal regions. While this applies pri-marily to operations at airports, it mayalso apply to a lesser extent to en-routeoperations.

Air traffic operations in the en-routephases of flights do not yet suffer fromthe environmental constraints that air-ports are experiencing. The significantinvestments and cooperative action toincrease en-route capacity over the last15 years have also improved the effi-ciency of the en-route network, withdirect benefits in the proportionatereduction of both fuel burn and green-house gas emissions per flight. ATM

has in general neither assessed norclaimed these benefits, which in prac-tice are unlikely to offset the absoluteincrease in aviation emissions over timeas movements increase.

For example, the introduction ofreduced vertical separation minima isestimated to save over 310,000 tonnesof fuel annually, whichis equivalent to almost1 million tonnes of car-bon dioxide (CO2). TheFlexible Use ofAirspace Concept isbeing increasinglyapplied and alreadysaves about 120,000tonnes of fuel everyyear. Air traffic flowmanagement meas-ures require aircraft towait at airports withtheir engines switchedoff prior to their slottime becoming avail-able. This avoids the unnecessary con-sumption of a further 300,000 tonnes offuel every year. ATM therefore effec-tively delivers fuel savings of over700,000 tonnes a year, equivalent toapproximately 2,300,000 tonnes ofCO2.

Despite this, however, ATM is now fac-ing increasing pressure from two signif-icant areas on en-route environmentalissues.

Firstly, airspace users are pressing fornetwork inefficiencies to be squeezedout of the system. The EUROCONTROLPerformance Review Commission’s(PRC) 2005 Report identified annualsavings to users of up to €1.2 billion ifsuch inefficiencies could be eliminated.A significant proportion of these sav-ings comes from reduced fuel burn,

which also reducesgreenhouse gas emis-sions. In response tothe confirmation ofthese findings in its2006 Report, the PRCis therefore proposingas a flight efficiencytarget a reduction inthe European averageen-route extension perflight of two kilometresper annum until 2010,which would reducecarbon dioxide emis-sions per flight as aconsequence.

Secondly, the attitude of the generalpublic and politicians towards climatechange has hardened in recent yearsas the research evidence linking globalwarming to the activities of mankindhas accumulated. Politicians feel anincreasing need to act as public dis-quiet grows. The pressure to invoke theprecautionary principle is building. TheEuropean Summit of 8-9 March 2007committed the European Union by

5

ATM therefore

effectively delivers

fuel savings

of over

700,000 tonnes

a year, equivalent

to approximately

2,300,000 tonnes

of CO2

Focus

2020 to reducing CO2 emissions by20% against 1990 levels.

Like all forms of transport, aviation is arapidly-rowing generator of greenhousegases. Although aviation is starting at alow base of approximately 3% of totalman-made emissions, it has to be seento be responding to this challenge, andmust communicate more effectively theenvironmental improvements beingachieved. The European Commissionconsiders1, for example, that at currentgrowth rates, “there is a risk that growthin the Community’s share of internation-al aviation emissions could by 2012 off-set more than a quarter of the environ-mental benefits of the reductionsrequired by the Community’s targetunder the Kyoto Protocol.”

Despite the best efforts of ICAO toreach agreement on emissions reduc-tion measures, the EuropeanCommission is actively pursuing theincorporation of aviation emissions inthe European Union’s EmissionsTrading Scheme (EU ETS). On 20December 2006, the Commission pro-posed new legislation to that effectwhich, if adopted, would apply to allintra-EU flights from 2011, and otherdeparting and arriving flights from 2012.The pressure from airspace users onATM to further improve network efficien-cy can therefore be expected to grow.

It is important not to forget, however,that the European Community’s SingleEuropean Sky legislation specificallyidentifies, in Article 6.1 of the AirspaceRegulation, the need for route and sec-tor design to ensure the safe, economi-cally efficient and environmentally-friendly use of airspace. It can thereforebe anticipated that, as environmentalawareness spreads among ATM stake-holders, air navigation service providersand regulators will increasingly incorpo-

rate environmental mitigation in theiractivities, such as the design of func-tional airspace blocks. This would rein-force the rapidly evolving approach ofthe ATM industry towards sustainabilityissues in general, which the SESAR ini-tiative is strongly driving. Indeed, theEuropean Commission considers theSESAR initiative to be a complementaryinstrument to the ETS in combating theclimate-change effects of aviation.

ATM therefore finds itself once more atthe heart of the matter. It has to facilitatesociety’s demand for safe and expedi-tious air transport on the one hand,while also respecting society’s compet-ing demand to minimise or reduce theenvironmental impactthat is the inevitableconsequence of suchmobility. While theseissues may never becompletely resolved,the European aviationindustry, includingATM, must demonstratethat it is doing all it canto resolve this paradoxand thereby convincedecision-makers of itssustainability over thelong term.

EUROCONTROL at the heart of the matter

What, therefore, is EUROCONTROLdoing to help our industry meet thischallenge? Firstly, it is doing everythingit can to improve network efficiency.This reduces flight times and fuel burn,directly benefiting the airspace users’bottom lines, while minimising the envi-ronmental impact per flight. TheDMEAN Programme is central toachieving this progress in the short termand is developing a “DMEANEnvironmental Case” that will demon-

strate the positive impact the pro-gramme will have. Much can also bedone at airports where every initiative toimprove airside efficiency should savefuel and emissions. The Agency’s vari-ous airport operations initiatives nowsystematically take fuel burn and envi-ronmental impact into account. Also, ofcourse, there is SESAR, in which theAgency is working closely with stake-holders within the Environment Work

Package (1.1.4) toensure that SESARidentifies those actionswhich will deliver the10% emissions reduc-tion sought by decision-makers.

The Agency has gradu-ally built up its expertiseon environmental issues,firstly through researchactivities at the EURO-CONTROL ExperimentalCentre (EEC), and morerecently in EATM, where

the Environment Domain was estab-lished four years ago. Together, thesetwo units provide a small but highly moti-vated group of staff with the skills andresources to deal with environmentalissues in the ATM context.

There is, for example, an increasingrequirement to be able to model theenvironmental impact of ATM, whetherfrom the service-provider side assess-ing new operational procedures, orfrom the regulatory perspective to iden-tify performance trends and what, ifany, further standards should be devel-

6

Focus

The environment in ATM orATM in the environment?The heart of the matter

The Agency’s

various airport

operations

initiatives now

systematically

take fuel burn

and environmental

impact

into account

1- COM (2006)818 final,20.12.2006: proposal for aDirective of theEuropeanParliament and ofthe Council amendingDirective2003/87/EC so asto include aviationactivities in thescheme of greenhouse gasemissions allowance trading within the Community

oped. The suite of “dual-use” assess-ment tools that the EEC has developedis being used to support these two keystakeholder groups.

Indeed, the EEC’s AdvancedEmissions Model (AEM – as explainedin a related article) is being used tosupport ICAO standardisation activitieson the one hand, and airspace sce-nario design assessments on the other.It also supports assessments of opera-tional improvement proposals such ascontinuous descent approach, whereboth the fuel and emissions savingscontribute to an increasingly persua-sive business case for its implementa-tion. Operational flight trials managedby the Environment Domain havedemonstrated fuel savings of between50 and 150 kg per approach, whilereducing noise levels 10-25 nauticalmiles from touchdown. A related articlein this edition of Skyway furtherexplains EUROCONTROL’s plans forCDA implementation.

We also have to look at how the ATMsector can better communicate itsincreasingly good environmental per-formance. Airspace users and manu-facturers can call upon decades of per-formance data to support their claimsof 70% reductions in fuel consumptionand noise per flight, but what story hasATM to tell? Do we have such informa-tion? Who is achieving best practice inmanaging environmental pressure as abusiness issue? What basic informationcan be provided to move air navigationservice providers and their regulatorsalong that road? Operational stake-

holders have recently made it clear thatthey expect strong support from theAgency on such communication andawareness issues.

In order to successfully communicateATM’s improved environmental per-formance, we need to have the toolsand processes in place to deliver thefacts and figures that will underpin ourclaims. As part of its internal improve-ment programme to achieve EFQM2

Award status, the Agency adopted aCorporate Social Responsibility Policyin 2006. Minimising aviation’s environ-mental impact through ATM measuresis at its heart and is driving a systemat-ic approach to assessing the contribu-tion that each ATM performanceimprovement measure can bring.Essentially, the principles of an environmental management system arebeing introduced, with the EnvironmentDomain and Experimental Centre pro-viding the methodologies and tools forATM project managers to evaluate theircontribution to environmental perform-ance, as they do already for safety andcapacity, for example.

Both SESAR and ICAO are in fact think-ing along similar lines. We anticipatethat the Agency can contribute to boththe “Environmental Case” methodologyinitiative within ICAO (as explained in a related article) while developingthrough SESAR a more systematicapproach to managing environmentalissues within ATM.

That is one reason why we have put inplace an “Environment in ATM” training

strategy that was explained in the mostrecent edition (Winter 2006) of Skyway.It provides ATM organisations with themeans to kick-start the development ofenvironmental awareness in theirorganisations. The “Environment inATM” training suite combines the e-learning product released in April2006, a one-hour awareness moduleembedded within other training cours-es at our Institute of Air NavigationServices (IANS) and, from early nextyear, a dedicated instructor-led courseat IANS aimed at those ATM managerswho have to consider environmentalimpact in their work.

Finally, the Agency is the custodian of avast amount of ATM-related data, andboth operational and regulatory stake-holders are increasingly appreciative ofthe information that the Agency canprovide when analysing these datafrom an environmental perspective.Thus, the Environment Domain, work-ing closely with the PRISME data ware-house team, has established thePAGODA facility to deliver pan-European ATM network indicators cov-ering flight efficiency, fuel burn andgreenhouse gas emissions. PAGODAhas been used extensively to supportthe policy-making discussions sur-rounding the proposal from theEuropean Commission to include avia-tion in the EU’s Emissions TradingScheme. Indeed, the Agency continuesto receive requests from MemberStates, the EC and airspace userorganisations for support as the debateon the draft legislation develops.

Whether dealing with local or globalaviation environmental issues, EURO-CONTROL, working with its partners,has a unique role and competence incost-effectively facilitating, harmonis-ing and communicating ATM’s success. ■■

7Skyway 44 - Spring 2007

2- EuropeanFondation forQualityManagement

Focus

In en-route airspace, climate changeand fuel stock depletion are the mostsignificant ATM-related adverseimpacts. Around airports, however,these are strongly exacerbated bynoise, air quality and third party riskissues. In fact, since landside opera-tions make use of “environmentalcapacity” that would otherwise beavailable to aircraft operations, thereare interrelationships between manylandside and airside operations at anairport as far as the environment is con-cerned. Indeed, these interdependen-cies go beyond airport boundariessince overall environmental impactoften depends on factors external toaviation such as land-use planning (oran absence thereof) and the proximityof other pollution sources such asmotorways. Furthermore, changes to

the noise footprint and certain relateddecisions external to ATM, such asthose regarding residential develop-ment close to airports, will benefit somecommunities and disadvantage others.Thus, ATM-related environmental man-agement at an airport is a very complexissue from technical, societal and polit-ical perspectives.

The policy response to these adverseimpacts imposes major costs and con-straints on the ATM system, including:

■ mitigation costs (e.g. bunds, barri-ers, insulation and managementoverheads), which form part of oper-ational costs;

■ operational costs (e.g. extra fuelused to avoid overflying populationcentres);

8

Focus

by Alan Melrose,Environment Domain,EUROCONTROL

Society demands have increasedaccess to all forms of publictransport, including aviation,

whose annual growth remainsconsistently above that of

national economies. Most economic and social

benefits that come from aviationactivities are well known, yet public acceptance of

our industry is weakened bycommunity perceptions

of its environmental impact thereby threatening its sustain-able growth over the long term. Other societal benefits such ashealth improvements from avia-

tion-driven poverty reduction areless widely understood.

Since it is around airports wherethese impacts are most directly

felt by society, airports haveremained the focus of the regula-tory response and are the source

of the most significant environmental constraints

in Europe’s air traffic management (ATM) system.

EUROCONTROL: a partnership for sustainability


■ environmental practice developmentcosts (e.g. management processesand new abatement techniques); and,

■ constraints (e.g. curfews, movementlimits, impact limits, runway configura-tion limitations, etc.).

At international level, the focus has histor-ically been on improving the environmen-tal performance of aircraft, for examplethrough the ICAO standard-settingprocess as enshrined in Annex 16 to theChicago Convention. Recently, however,the focus has begun to shift towards ATMas a means of delivering environmentalimprovements. A key example of this is tobe found in the ICAO balanced approachto noise management at airports and itsfour pillars, an important one being oper-ational procedures (as enshrined in ECDirective 2002/30/EC).

For decades there have been environ-mental programmes at many Europeanairports. These tend, however, torespond to local circumstances and,where not coordinated either nationallyor regionally, will lead to the prolifera-tion of local rules. Moreover, despitethe fact that most environmental prob-lems can be resolved only through col-laboration among airport operationalstakeholders (air navigation serviceproviders, aircraft operators and airportoperators), such collective action isoften not optimised and sometimes isnot present at all. There is also consid-erable room for pan-Europeanimprovement regarding the avoidanceof poor practice, the sharing of goodpractice, training and awareness,assessment capabilities (includingtrade-offs) and avoiding duplication ofeffort.

This situation is compoundedby instances where ineffectiveenvironmental solutions areimposed by external (i.e. non-ATM) decision-makers – oftenwith significant adverse environ-mental or socio-economictrade-offs. Such poor perform-ance often arises because poorpractice at one airport is beingblindly replicated at anotherwithout consideration of its suit-ability to local conditions. Theseproblems are typically (thoughnot always) found at airportswhere community relations and consul-tation are not effective, or where com-munity trust has been lost.

This does not mean that all airportsexhibit poor practice or that some air-ports are not achieving best practice. Infact, if environmental performance at allairports matched the existing best inclass, there would be very little for rule-makers to criticise or impose. Few air-

port stakeholders, however, are worldclass in all aspects of environmentalmanagement and yet this is the stan-dard that is required if aviation is toretain its licence to operate.

Furthermore, ATM stakeholders mustcollaborate more effectively in highlight-ing the environmental benefits from theoperational improvements they intro-duce. ATM organisations have achievedmajor efficiencies and improvementsover many years but are only now begin-ning to appreciate how much their valuein environmental terms can strengthentheir business cases and reputationsamong both financial and political deci-sion-makers. Unfortunately, ATM is stillnot very good at making these known tothe public or to policy shapers. This isone of our sector’s critical weaknesses.

It is also vital that environmentalissues are not seenin isolation, but areaddressed withinthe context of sus-tainability. This willalso ensure thatwhere the manyand substantialpositive contribu-tions of aviation arealso taken intoaccount, are notsacrificed andindeed are seen to

be maximised where possible. This willavoid situations where small gains inenvironmental performance are made atthe cost of major impacts on, for exam-ple, jobs and economic development.Thus, ATM must become more informedabout the sustainability impacts of itsdecisions. This will require better envi-ronmental impact assessment tools,trade-off assessment methodologiesand high-quality information. It is also

9

If environmental

performance at

all airports

matched the

existing best

in class, there

would be very

little for rule-

makers to

criticise or

impose

Focus

essential to avoid the imposition of envi-ronmentally-driven constraints and non-optimum operations that are ineffectiveor counterproductive from an environ-mental standpoint. This will requiretransparent decision-making not only byATM but also by the external rule-mak-ers themselves. It will also mean avoid-ing the blind replication of environmentalpractice and application of ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions.

Meeting the challenge

Working closely with ATM stakeholders,EUROCONTROL is developing a suiteof airport-related environmental initia-tives. These have been selected on thebasis of stakeholder requirements fol-lowing, firstly, extensive research andconsultation and, secondly, agreementon where EUROCONTROL’s compe-tence and ability will add significantvalue.

The first key activity is to facilitate theimplementation of Continuous DescentApproach (CDA) in a harmonised man-ner across Europe. This work was trig-gered by operational stakeholders –principally airlines – who recognisedboth the safety implications of an unco-ordinated development of CDA acrossEurope, as well as the benefits to begained from CDA’s potential to reducenoise, fuel burn and emissions. CDA istherefore the subject of a EuropeanConvergence and Implementation PlanObjective – in this case ECIP ENV01.EUROCONTROL has established across-Agency team of airspace, naviga-tion, airport, environmental and ATCsystems experts to work with stakehold-ers in developing pan-European CDAguidance material. This will be availablefrom June 2007.

Operational CDA flight trials have beenundertaken at Manchester International,

Stockholm Arlanda and Bucharest HenriCoanda International Airports and havesuccessfully demonstrated that CDAcan be implemented. Results from thetrials typically indicate that, along theCDA approach segment, noise reduc-tions of 10-40% and fuel savings of 50-150kgs per flight can be achieved, withassociated reductions in greenhousegas emissions (principally, carbon diox-ide and oxides of nitrogen). The CDAactivity is being progressed with stake-holders under the auspices of theAirport Operations Team, which originat-ed the initiative, and the Airspace andNavigation Team, which has beendeveloping the operational aspectsthrough a dedicated CDA Focus Group.

In parallel, a study is currently underway to demonstrate the feasibility ofimplementing a group of activities cen-tred around Collaborative EnvironmentalManagement. If accepted by stakehold-ers, they will be developed as part ofSALIENT, the first EUROCONTROLenvironmental implementation pro-gramme, with an objective to securecurrent and future airport capacitythrough environmental improvements.SALIENT includes:

■ A methodology for CollaborativeEnvironmental Management (CEM)at airports. CEM provides practicalguidance and support resources tohelp airport operational stakeholderscollaborate effectively in dealing withairport environmental problems, suchthat they prioritise their sharedresponsibilities efficiently, effectivelyand economically. This is at the veryheart of EUROCONTROL’s airportenvironmental activities and is criticalto successfully selecting, designingand implementing any operationalenvironmental solutions. An effectiveCEM mechanism is essential to intro-ducing CDA, for example. CEM is the

subject of a European Convergenceand Implementation Plan Objective(ECIP ENV02), for which pan-European guidance will be availablein June 2007.

■ A web-based portal, SOPHOS. Thiswill provide CEM practitioners with a‘one-start shop’ offering guidanceand practical support to airport oper-ational stakeholders when undertak-ing environmental initiatives andwhen responding to environmentalpressures and proposed local regu-lations including harmonised CDAdefinition. It offers resources in threekey and interrelated areas: quantifi-cation, evaluation and management.In addition to recommended practicepages and case studies, SOPHOSwill also include:

- a confidential benchmarkingfacility;

- a significance assessment tool;- an outline environmental impact

assessment tool to apply to opera-tional proposals; and,

- an environmental informationrepository including a legislativedatabase and extracts from rele-vant reports and standards.

SOPHOS is presently being beta-testedby airport operators and, if proven to befeasible and of value, will be developedover 2008 to 2011.

■ An initial scoping study into the over-all cumulative capacity and efficiencyeffects of environmental constraintsand environmentally-driven non-opti-mal operations on the European ATMsystem. This study will also compareconstraints with reported delay toidentify whether the subject is beingadequately monitored. If viable, thiswill be the first time that a Europeanperspective on these environmental

10

Focus

EUROCONTROL: a partnership for sustainability


This portfolio of airport-related environ-mental activities addresses the mosturgent needs of stakeholders to deal withairport environmental challenges. Theoverall aim of our work is to facilitate andenhance local decision-making throughthe provision of a harmonising frameworkthat allows local stakeholders to selectoptimum solutions and implement goodpractice. Moreover, if local stakeholdersdo work within such a pan-Europeanapproach, their credibility, both national-ly and locally, will be enhanced whenthey demonstrate that they are adoptingEuropean best practice.

EUROCONTROL is also developing anaction plan to ensure that all parts of theAgency and all levels of managementconsider environmental sustainability in

their decision making. Indeed, theAgency’s airport operations projectleaders are taking the lead to ensurethat the environmental dimension is fullycaptured in their work. Examplesinclude a specific environmental modulein the Airside Capacity Enhancementtraining course, and the assessment ofthe fuel burn, emissions and noisereductions to be gained from the intro-duction of departure manager supporttools.

Conclusion

Airports have become the main bottle-neck in the European ATM system, inlarge part due to increasingly stringentenvironmental constraints. ATM opera-tional stakeholders, including EURO-CONTROL, must collectively demon-strate that all avenues for environmentalimprovements are being explored, thatthe best options are effectively imple-mented and that maximum socio-eco-nomic benefits are delivered if aviation isto retain its licence to grow.

Aviation however, is not separate fromsociety. The extent of the beneficial andadverse impact of aviation is largelydriven by societal demand for mobility.Society also has a responsibility to helpto minimise adverse impacts by notimposing unnecessary or counterpro-ductive environmental rules and byseeking to mitigate impacts where pos-sible, for example through fullyenforced and integrated land-use plan-ning; for its part, ATM must remainresponsive to the often conflictingdemands from society. ATM will onlyeffectively meet the environmentalchallenge, and hence its own businessneeds, through leadership and collabo-ration, through improved two-way com-munications and by effectively prioritis-ing investments for improved environ-mental performance without delay. ■■

11

Aviation RegulatorOther ATC

Environment RegulatorLocal Community

Planning AuthritiesLocal Government

GovernmentInternational Agencies

EUROCONTROLEU, ECAC, ICAO, etc.

AirportOperator

CEM

AirportATC

AirportOperators

Airframe and EngineManufacturers

Avionics suppliers

Collaborative Environmental ManagementA partnership for improvement and change

Continuous Descent ApproachShowing contrast in noise contour area

Base Case

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

CDA

aspects will have been compiled andshould lead to improvements in themonitoring of environmental issuesand their management.

■ The development of advanced noiseabatement techniques. These willmake use of recent improvements innavigation and aircraft technologiesto enable more optimised profiles tobe flown, including more accurateadherence to noise routes. A criticalelement here is to ensure that there isno impact on airport throughput.

■ Trade-off assessment methods andtools, plus provision of operationalinformation. These will inform deci-sion-making and help to developmore sustainable thinking.

Focus

Traditionally, the focus hasbeen on the impact of avia-tion on noise, local air qual-ity and global climatechange.

Monitoring the situation, byanalysing background con-ditions and individualevents, is essential.However, this cannot byitself isolate the contributionof aviation to ambient con-

ditions. Furthermore, because of uncon-trollable influences such as weather andother contributing factors, monitoringalone cannot easily quantify the averageor typical impacts that aviation activitymight have.

That is why modelling is also used toexplain observed “facts” by represent-ing a system with all its complexities andinteractions. A model will attempt todescribe a system based on existingknowledge and available data. In manycases, the data and knowledge areincomplete, massive or complex andsome assumptions and simplificationsare needed. A model has a furtheradvantage - it can be used to simulatethe future and predict the results, basedon particular conditions and assump-tions.

The reason for explaining these general-ities about modelling is to stress thatsuccessful modelling depends ondeveloping and supporting internationalmethodologies and guidance material,which have been peer-reviewed by a

wide cross-section of domain experts.Only by developing transparent andendorsed methodologies as a communi-ty and applying these in validated mod-elling tools, can an analyst expect theresults presented will be credible andacceptable.

EUROCONTROL first started develop-ing environmental models more thaneight years ago and has in parallel par-ticipated in European and Internationalworking groups, contributing to newguidance material being developed formodelling the impact of aviation on theenvironment.

International guidance material

Contributions have been made withinICAO’s Committee on AviationEnvironmental Protection (CAEP) work-ing groups to the development of guid-ance material on local air quality andgreenhouse gas emissions. The exam-ple offered here, however, coversEUROCONTROL’s contribution to air-craft noise modelling, including theupdating of ECAC’s Doc 29 “Report onStandard Method of Computing NoiseContours around Civil Airports”.

International guidance on aircraft noise modellingIn the late 1980s, ICAO and ECACboth issued guidance on aircraft noisemodelling around airports. ICAOCircular 205 and ECAC Document 29both described the same best-prac-tice methodology (i.e. the different

equations and algorithms) for the cal-culation of aircraft noise in the vicinityof an airport at that time. ECAC hasupdated its material since then, pub-lishing the ECAC Document 29 2ndEdition in 1997, which introduced anumber of additional features, withoutchanging the foundations of themethodology.

Apart from the fact that it has beenovertaken by modelling improvementsthat have already been incorporatedinto some state-of-the-art noise mod-els, this international guidance had twomajor limitations, diminishing signifi-cantly its practical value. Firstly, thisguidance focused mainly on the algo-rithms and equations that have to beincorporated into computer programs,with little advice on the practical appli-cation of the methodology. Secondly,the guidance did not provide any ofthe aircraft-specific noise and perform-ance data that are required to imple-ment the modelling methodology in areal – practical – modelling system.

Update of the ECAC Doc 29 In 2001, the ECAC’s Group of Expertson the Abatement of NuisancesCaused by Air Transport (or ANCAT forshort) set up a task group to updatethe ECAC Document 29 2nd Edition,with the goal to address the above lim-itations. Environment staff from theExperimental Centre contributed to thework of that group whose task wassuccessfully completed with the publi-cation of ECAC Doc 29 Third Editionas two distinct volumes in December2005. Volume 1, which is entirely new,is a user’s guide explaining the princi-ples, applications and limitations ofaircraft noise modelling, the modellingoptions and the precautions necessaryto ensure the provision of reliablenoise results (noise contours). It is

12

Focus

Assessing the impact ofaviation on the environment

Despite the obvious societal and economic benefits of aviation, there are clearly some negative impacts thatneed to be managed if the industry wishes to advocateand promote itself as being sustainable.

by Ted Elliff,Aviation Environment– Research Methods,EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre


intended principally for aviation policy-makers and planners who need noisecontour maps to make informed deci-sions. Volume 2, which replaces theSecond Edition of ECAC Doc 29,describes a recommended modellingmethodology (i.e. a full description ofthe equations and algorithms) thatincorporates the latest internationallyagreed advances in modelling tech-niques.

The Aircraft Noise andPerformance database websiteIn order to enable its full implementa-tion in practical modelling systems,and promote commonality within thecommunity of aircraft noise modellers,the Third Edition of ECAC Doc 29 issupported by an on-line, industry-backed, international Aircraft Noiseand Performance (ANP) database.

This ANP database is accessedthrough a website (http://www.aircraft-noise-model.org) that has been devel-oped and is maintained by EURO-CONTROL, with logistical and financialsupport from the United States FederalAviation Administration (FAA) inobtaining the relevant data from air-frame manufacturers.

From European to international guidanceNow that the Third Edition of ECACDoc 29 and the ANP database areavailable, ICAO guidance material isbeing updated and brought into line.There are now around 200 registeredusers of the ANP database worldwide.EUROCONTROL has recently agreedto a request from ICAO to guaranteethe availability of the ANP database fora minimum period of five years, there-by facilitating the release of ICAO’sown revised noise modelling guidancematerial.

TESA – A EuropeanToolset for Environmen-tal SustainabilityAssessment

TESA provides a framework for in-depth analyses of changes to theATM system such as new runways,new ATC procedures, new air-routestructures, new aircraft types,increased demand, etc., and for arriv-ing at solutions that minimise theirenvironmental impact. TESA evalu-ates the impact of changes in terms of

local air quality, noise, fuel burn andglobal emissions.

TESA is driven by four-dimensionalflight profiles (sources may be fromCentral Flow Management Unit, radar,fast- and real-time simulations, andactual flight data). The tools are close-ly coupled to international databases(for example: the Aircraft Noise andPerformance database, ICAO engineemissions databank, weather informa-tion, GIS data).

TESA provides an efficient support toolfor decision-makers on a European andinternational level and can help evaluatethe achievement of targets. TESA is aunique set of tools for providing answersto key questions, both for the EURO-CONTROL Agency’s projects and forthe wider international community.

It provides a platform for conductingtrade-off studies between noise andemissions as it allows simultaneousanalysis from the same data sourcesusing the same assumptions.

Modelling local air quality

Local Air Quality (LAQ) is an increasing-ly important issue for airports. Facedwith demands on capacity and pressurefrom local communities, airport opera-tors need to understand and plan their

environmental impact to help mitigatethe impact of noise and pollution whilstimproving safety and airport capacity.

To meet these needs airport operatorsrequire accurate emissions inventoriesand emissions concentration maps,correlated with data such as land-use,population density, non-airportsources of pollution, and pollution-sensitive zones.

Air quality modelling is particularlycomplicated, as it is not only a ques-tion of modelling the amount of emis-sions each source produces, but alsoof estimating pollution concentrationlevels resulting from physical mixingand chemical reactions in the atmos-phere. Regulations on air quality areusually defined in terms of concentra-tion levels.

13

Data bases TESA Projections Decision

4D Trajectory

Aircraft Noise& Performance

Weather

GeographicInformation

Focus

The EUROCONTROL Airport Local AirQuality (ALAQS) project was initiatedin 2002 to address these issues byproviding good-practice methods, adatabase of default values, and a test-bench toolset aimed at European air-port local air quality modellers.

ALAQS is currently managed in part-nership with experts from universitiesand industry, and airport air qualityspecialists. EEC ALAQS staff alsoclosely cooperate with European the-matic networks (AERONET) and inter-national bodies (ICAO-CAEP) workingtowards guidance on airport air quali-ty issues and trade-off analysesbetween noise and emissions.

The ALAQS-AV toolset is a GIS(Geographical Information System)based research tool. It is a test bedthat can be used to investigate thesensitivity of different inventory anddispersion methodologies. The choiceof a GIS as a test bench simplifies theprocess of defining the various airportelements (runways, taxiways, build-ings, etc.) and allows the spatial distri-bution of emissions to be visualizedand integrated with other data sourcessuch as population, land use and localgeography.

Modelling global emissions

The impact of aviation on ClimateChange is more and more in the publiceye these days, particularly in Europe

As a result, the Toolset for EmissionAnalysis (TEA) is being developed toallow an analysis of the effectiveness ofplanned ATM and aviation measures inminimising the impact of aviation on theenvironment.

TEA is a set of inter-connected models,namely:

■ AEM3 – a system for estimating avia-tion fuel burn and emissions (CO2,H2O, SOx, NOx, HC, CO, Benzene,VOC, TOG & PM);

■ MET Server / MM5 - a meteorologicalmodel for providing realistic 4D mete-orological forecasts and /or (re)analy-sis data;

■ CONTRAIL - a tool for determiningthe probability and amount of contrailformation from aircraft.

The individual models are described inmore detail below:

AEM3The Advanced Emission Model (AEM3)estimates aviation fuel burn and emis-sions. It is able to analyse flight profiledata, on a flight-by-flight basis, for airtraffic scenarios of almost any scope(from local studies around airports toglobal emissions from air traffic).

It uses several underlying system data-bases (aircraft, aircraft engines, fuelburn rates and emission indices) provid-ed by external data agencies in order toassure the quality of the information pro-vided.

Optionally, if required, the fuel burn cal-culation can be based on the Landing

and Take-Off Cycle (LTO) below 3,000 ftdefined by the ICAO Engine Certificationspecifications instead of the input flightprofile.

The ICAO Engine Exhaust EmissionsData Bank provides AEM3 with emissionindices and fuel flow for a very largenumber of aircraft engines.

Above 3,000 ft, fuel burn calculation isbased on the EUROCONTROL Base ofAircraft Data (BADA). This providesaltitude and attitude dependent per-formance and fuel burn data for morethan 150 aircraft types. Incidentally,BADA is recognised now withinemerging international guidancematerial, as a unique source of aircraftperformance and fuel burn data and isincreasingly used in other environ-mental models such as the FAA’sAviation Environmental Design spaceTool – AEDT.

Emission factors are adapted to theatmospheric conditions at altitudeusing an EEC-corrected version of theICAO-CAEP-recommended BoeingMethod 2 (EEC-BM2). The estimationof VOCs and TOGs is based on amethod developed by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.

14

Focus

Assessing the impact of aviation on the environment

Comparison of calculated (AEM) fuel burn with operational (FDR) data


A validation campaign based on morethan 10,000 FDR1 flight profiles hasdemonstrated the realism of the AEM3model. Overall, it underestimates fuelburn by between -8 and -1%; theseerrors are mostly attributable to notknowing an aircraft’s actual take-offweight and not calculating the changein weight as fuel is burnt along theflight profile.

As well as being used within EURO-CONTROL to assess the impact ofintroducing new CNS/ATM concepts,AEM is also used by ANSPs to assessthe impact of airspace changes.

A “batch” version of AEM has been inte-grated into the Agency’s PAGODA facili-ty for deriving ATM-related environmen-tal performance indicators. Running in anOracle environment, it is used to calcu-late the daily emissions from allEuropean flights based on the CFMUflight plans archived in the data ware-house at EUROCONTROL headquarters.

In fact, AEM will be at the core of futuredevelopments within EUROCONTROLto incorporate fuel burn considerationsinto both airspace and route designplanning tools and the flight planningprocesses in the CFMU.

MET-SERVERThe Meteorological model and database(MET SERVER – MM5) is a ‘state of theart’ system based upon the MM5(Mesoscale Model version 5) modeldeveloped by the National Centre forAtmospheric Research (NCAR) andPennsylvania State University in theUnited States. MET SERVER will providethe surface and upper air meteorologi-

cal data needed for local and globalemission studies and contrail estima-tions. These include pressure, geopo-tential height, temperature, horizontaland vertical winds speed and humidity.

MET-SERVER can supply comprehen-sive meteo data for global, regional andlocal air studies since it is based onproven technology (MM5) and world-wide data have been collected regularlysince 2004.

CONTRAILThe purpose of the CONTRAIL model isto calculate the probability of condensa-tion trail formation from actual aircraftflight tracks.

The formation of contrails is an emerg-ing issue within the aviation communityand the science is still not matureenough to fully understand their impacton climate change. However, it seemsplausible that contrail-generated cirrusclouds could have a significant globalwarming potential impact – and if thisis indeed the case, ATM may berequired to mitigate for this problem,by trying to predict where contrailsmay form, and then planning routes toavoid them. This, of course, may haveunfortunate consequences for air-space capacity and flight efficiency.Such trade-offs illustrate the need forATM organisations to have access totools that can analyse such interde-pendencies.

The CONTRAIL model combines theoutput from AEM3 with meteorologicaldata from MET SERVER - MM5, to gen-erate a gridded output showing thoseflight tracks that produce contrails that

would be visible to a satellite passingoverhead at specific times during theday. This is to facilitate actual compar-ison with earth observation data.

Conclusion

The emerging suite of models,datasets and assessment tools beingdeveloped at the EUROCONTROLExperimental Centre provides a basictoolset that can be used to assess avi-ation’s impact on the environment.

EUROCONTROL is this year initiating arigorous process of industrialisation ofthese tools which will assure their longterm availability and support for usersthroughout the EUROCONTROLMember States.

Since the tools have been designed toshare data with other ATM simulationand monitoring tools, the task of esti-mating the environmental impact ofchanges to the ATM system is mademuch easier. It is expected that theywill form the foundation of the assess-ment suite that will be used to validatethe SESAR concept and which can beused together with other ATM model-ling tools such as fast and real timesimulators and capacity analysis tools.

Further harmonisation of Europeantools for assessing the impact of avia-tion on the environment will continueunder the stewardship of an ECAC-ANCAT working group, together withEuropean CAEP members, who will inturn feed a new ICAO-CAEP taskgroup established with a similar remit.In the end this will ensure that bothEuropean and global developmentsremain harmonised, ensuring that newmodels and methodologies followinternationally-recognised best prac-tice, which can only be of benefit tostakeholders assessing the environ-mental impacts of our industry. ■■

15

1- flight datarecorder

AEM output:- fuel mass flow rate- NOx, CO, HC, SOx, CO2, H2O- VOCs, TOGs- aircraft location on 4D grid (latitude, longitude, flight level, time)

MM5 output (4D grid):- temperature- relative humidity- pressure- wind speed and direction

Toolset for Emission Analysis

In your capacity as ECAC FocalPoint for EnvironmentalMatters, could you please high-light the priority issues onECAC’s agenda when it comesto addressing environmentalchallenges?

The European Civil Aviation Conference(ECAC) has long recognised that civilaviation must respond to the increasingscientific, public and political pressure inrelation to aviation environmental issues,and therefore includes the environmentas one of its key priorities alongside safe-ty and security. ECAC believes that, if thecivil aviation community does not actboth decisively and quickly to addresssuch pressures, there is a real dangerthat environmental issues may come todominate the whole aviation agenda.

Noise was the first of aviation's environ-mental impacts to be recognised.Reducing it remains a major focus ofeffort, through the various elements ofthe "balanced approach" agreed on by the International Civil AviationOrganisation (ICAO). The effects of air-craft emissions on air quality and healthhave also become an increasing sourceof concern in recent years. These localimpacts of noise and emissions havealready affected national decisionsrelating to the expansion of airportcapacity. It is, however, the effect of air-craft emissions on the atmosphere andaviation’s contribution to climate changewhich would appear to be the majorsources of concern. Dealing with thismajor challenge is therefore a key prior-ity for ECAC.

In your own country, the UK,aviation environment issueshave been very prominent inthe media in recent months.Could you explain why?

Environmental issues –of all types – havebecome a matter ofintense political debatein the United Kingdomin recent years. Theyare also a frequentsubject of conversationbetween ordinary peo-ple on a daily basis.There are a number ofreasons for this, butperhaps two stand out.First, the UK is a rela-tively small and, inplaces, a very densely populatedisland. With that comes congestion andpollution which are very apparent toeverybody. Secondly, as in many otherparts of the world, we have been expe-riencing unusual and extreme weatherevents which also raise environmentalconcern.

Amidst all this, aviation is an iconic andfast-growing sector of the economy,which seems to have caught the publicimagination as a major source of envi-ronmental concern.

Do you see this interest as a one-off issue in the UK or part of awider trend?

There is growing public and politicalinterest in environmental issues across

Europe, particularly with respect to cli-mate change. In part this can beexplained by the increasing coverage ofthis issue in the media and the increas-ing attention being paid to it by political

parties of various com-plexions. While the par-ticular emphasis willdiffer between coun-tries, I certainly see thisincreased interest as aregional trend and onethat is set to continueas scientific knowledgeimproves, as air trafficcontinues to grow andas the pressures mountto balance capacityexpansion againstenvironmental impact.

Europe is apparently taking amore aggressive approach todealing with aviation's contri-bution to climate change. Isthat really the case?

It is worth recalling that Europe, andin particular the European Union, hasgenerally adopted a more ambitiousapproach to environmental issuesthan other regions, for instancethrough its commitments under theKyoto Protocol. There are probably anumber of reasons for this, includingthe particularly strong European envi-ronmental lobby, growing publicawareness and a responsive attitudeon the part of many governments.There is genuine concern at thegrowth of civil aviation both in Europeand globally, and at the increasing

16

InterviewInterview

David McMillan

ECAC Focal Point for EnvironmentalMatters and Director General of Civil Aviation in the UK


contribution it will make to harmfulemissions and climate change, par-ticularly when viewed against thereductions being achieved in othersectors. Therefore Europe quite right-ly believes that effective actionshould be taken, and quickly. It istrue that other regions and Statesview the environmental challenge dif-ferently, depending on their geo-graphical situation, their state of eco-nomic development and other fac-tors. However, as I said earlier, weneed to act soon if the environment isnot to dominate the aviation agendaand so constrain the health of thesector, which would of course also dodamage to our economies.

If Europe is indeed taking amore aggressive approach,is there a danger that this infact leaves Europe isolatedwith respect to other ICAOregions?

ECAC is committed to the principlethat measures to address aviation’senvironmental impacts would be bestagreed on and implemented at globallevel through ICAO. ECAC States andobserver organisations thereforemake a major contribution to the workof ICAO’s Committee on AviationEnvironmental Protection (CAEP).The fact that ICAO has not movedquickly on this agenda, however, hasbeen of particular concern toEuropean ministers and govern-ments. ECAC will of course continueto take a leading role in seeking inter-national action and will make everyeffort to pursue the dialogue with indi-vidual States and with its sister asso-ciations; this dialogue is necessary inorder to secure agreement at ICAOlevel. However, we will continue toobserve the need to meet the chal-lenge posed by the particular envi-ronmental pressures within Europeitself.

What do you expect to be theoutcome of the forthcomingICAO Assembly, from the envi-ronmental perspective?

We hope to see the Assembly endorseguidance material on both the imple-mentation of emissions trading schemesand emissions charges related to localair quality. We also expect it to endorsethe next three-year work programme forCAEP, including the development ofmodelling tools to support the analysis ofaviation’s environmental impacts. Theseachievements will not be easily won,however – I fully expect a good numberof late nights and hard negotiations toget there.

Until recently, the focus ofaviation environmental protec-tion was very much on reducingimpact at source, i.e. the airfra-me and engines. Air trafficmanagement was not really anissue. Is that still the case?

Improvements to aircraft and enginesremain a key part of the effort to reduceaviation’s environmental impact.However, they alone cannot compensatefor the forecast growth in traffic and it isbecoming more and more difficult forthem to achieve major improvements.What is required is a combination ofmeasures, including different operatingprocedures and the use of economicinstruments to address emissions.

What do you think air trafficmanagement can contribute toensuring the long-term sustai-nability of the air transportindustry?

ATM can contribute to reducing the envi-ronmental impacts of aviation at bothlocal and global levels. It can influenceoperations at and around airports, anexample being the continuous descentapproach, which reduces noise levels,

fuel burn and emissions. It can also pro-vide network efficiencies, allowing themore direct routing of aircraft, less "hold-ing" and the avoidance of unnecessaryfuel burn and emissions. These sorts ofimprovements should of course be aninherent part of the SESAR programme.Whilst we should not make extravagantclaims about the degree of savingswhich can be achieved through ATM,there is undoubtedly more that can bedone, not least by putting environmentalgoals right up there with safety andeffectiveness as key priorities for us.

What would your environmentalvision be for our industry in,say, 2025, when traffic mayhave doubled?

My vision for the industry is one thatdelivers the objectives contained in ini-tiatives such as the Strategic ResearchAgenda, which was formulated withinthe EU by all government and industrystakeholders, and in ATM’s own SESARprogramme. In this vision, there wouldbe continued reductions in sourcenoise and emissions, together with anair transport system combining novelapproaches to the design of air vehi-cles, the full capabilities of a seamlessEuropean ATM system and better inte-gration of aviation with other modes oftransport. The industry would be imple-menting recognisable and significantmeasures to reduce its contribution toclimate change and would have sta-bilised or reduced its local noise andemissions impacts. It would be achiev-ing these environmental objectiveswhilst meeting ever-more stringentrequirements in terms of safety, securi-ty, reliability and affordability. Theachievement of this vision representsan enormous challenge, requiring amajor and sustained effort on the partof all involved. The aviation industry hasencountered and overcome many chal-lenges in its short life – this is perhapsthe most important of all. ■■

17

Virgin Atlantic’s sustainability ethos isvery straightforward. Our aim is toreduce our environmental impacts overwhich we have direct control, to use ourinfluence to drive other industry stake-holders to play their part in reducingemissions and other environmentalimpacts, and to engage our customersand staff and empower them to help usmeet this challenge.

I am very confident that the ambitioustargets set out in the UK industry-wideSustainable Aviation Strategy (50%greater fuel efficiency of new aircraft in2020 compared with 2000 equivalents,80% less NOx) are on track to be met.With the advances in fuel efficiencyalready achieved by the aircraft manu-facturers – 70% in the last 40 years,even before climate change becamean industry focus – together with theairlines, airports, air navigation service

18

by Sir Richard Branson,Chairman, Virgin Group

StakeholderForumStakeholder Forum

Over the past few years, as theissue of climate change has risen

further up everyone’s agenda, I have come to realise that no oneindividual, company, government

or other group is going to solvethis problem on their own.

Just as the environment is every-one’s responsibility, so is workingtogether to do everything we can

to reduce our own carbon footprintand develop solutions to this

global problem.

The environment is everyone’s responsibility


providers and other sustainable avia-tion partners, new aircraft entering air-line fleets around the world should besubstantially more environmentally sus-tainable than those in operation today.

However, until these technologicaldevelopments allow aviation to reduceits carbon footprint as much as otherindustry sectors have been able to do,we are going to have to ensure that weoperate the aircraft fleet we have in themost efficient way we can. This is notjust up to the airlines themselves, butwill need collaboration between all thevarious stakeholders, some of whommay not have previously consideredthe potential environmental impact oftheir role in the operation of a flight.

You may have seen the quite exten-sive media coverage of the “startinggrid” proposal Virgin Atlantic put for-ward in 2006. This very simple ideameans that, instead of starting theirengines whilst still at the stand, aircraftare towed away from the airport termi-nal to a neutral “starting grid” area.They then wait, until they are given atake-off slot, before starting theirengines. This means that considerableamounts of fuel can be saved perdeparting aircraft and scarce capacityat aircraft stands can be freed up forarriving flights. In the first trials weundertook at London Gatwick andHeathrow airports in December 2006,

we saved up to 1.5 tonnes ofCO2 for just one departingflight. Imagine what this couldmean if implemented at allbusy airports for all departingflights.

This sort of operational effi-ciency, which was the resultof extensive collaborationbetween the airport operatorBAA, the air navigation serv-ice provider NATS andground handling companies,makes absolute businesssense as well as environmen-tal sense. Good business canbe green business. For some airports,such as New York’s JFK for example,where departing flights are routinelyheld in taxi queues of more than anhour, the cumulative fuel saving couldbe considerable. This means savingmoney and reducing emissions.

We are planning on conducting longerand more in-depth trials of the towingand starting grid procedures in 2007and will again be working closely withBAA and NATS, as well as our groundhandling provider Groundstar. Therehas already been a lot of interest fromaround the world in the potential forstarting grids to become standardoperating procedure at new and exist-ing airports, which I am very excitedabout.

Virgin Atlantic’s plans for driving effi-ciency in our operations does not stopthere, however. We are working withNATS and academic institutions onother models of best practice whichshould further reduce the emissionsgenerated and fuel consumed by ourbusiness activities. We are also makingsure that we put our own house inorder. Although by far the majority ofthe environmental impact of our busi-

ness is causedby the aircraftthemselves, weshould not neg-lect what hap-pens on theground. We areu n d e r t a k i n gdetailed auditsof all aspects ofour business,and looking atways to reduceour carbon foot-print, minimisewaste streamsand generallyoperate more

efficiently. This doesn’t have to meanhuge capital outlay either. Many of theinitiatives we have identified will actual-ly save the company money very quick-ly – making the business case for theirimplementation even more persuasive.

I do not need to tell you all how theSingle European Sky proposal couldhelp the aviation industry to operatemore fuel-efficiently and thereby savemillions of tonnes of carbon emissionsevery year. Estimates suggest thatEuropean carriers could save 12% offuel on the basis of their current routenetworks and fleets if they were able tooperate the more direct routeingsenvisaged through the SingleEuropean Sky concept. Together withallowing aviation to participate in the

19

The Single

European Sky

proposal could

help the aviation

industry to operate

more fuel-efficiently

and thereby save

millions of tonnes

of carbon

emissions

every year

StakeholderForum

EU Emissions Trading “carbon cap andtrade” System proposed by theEuropean Commission, the SingleEuropean Sky could make a huge differ-ence to the future sustainability of theindustry. I am sure that national govern-ments recognise the crucial social andeconomic benefits associated with inter-national air travel and will make everyeffort to play their part in ensuring itslong-term environmental viability.

However, it is not just the arguments forcost-efficiency that should drive us in try-ing to make our industry more environ-mentally sustainable. Our customers –be they families going on holiday once ayear, business travellers flying once amonth, or big corporate clients buying

millions of pounds’ worth of flights a year– are asking us to make it possible forthem to travel in a more environmentallysustainable way. They do not want tolose out on the experience of learningabout new cultures and visiting newplaces, or having that face-to-face meet-ing with a key client. Nor, however, dothey want to feel guilty about it, and air-lines, as customers of manufacturers, airnavigation service providers and air-ports, are also asking their key suppliersto enable them to operate in a more sus-tainable manner. None of us operates ina vacuum.

Other air traffic control initiatives such asRVSM and SESAR have had (or couldhave) a substantial influence on reducingcarbon emissions. I understand thatEUROCONTROL’s RVSM initiative alonesaves the airline industry some 300,000

tonnes of fuel or 1 million tonnes of CO2

each year, and there is much scope forkey environmental criteria to be built intothe SESAR initiative through its projectdefinition phase. I would urge you toensure that these and other opportunitiesfor air navigation service providers toplay their part in guaranteeing the futuresustainability of the industry are exploredto their full potential.

We should not underestimate the humancapacity for innovation. This is why I haverecently announced, together with AlGore and other eminent environmental-ists and scientists, a $25 million “VirginEarth Challenge” prize for an idea withthe potential to significantly reduce car-bon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere

over a sustained period of time.There is a lot of evidence thatprizes such as this can provideimpetus for inventors and inno-vators to develop ground-breaking solutions to challeng-ing problems. It is only fittingthat this, the largest science

and technology prize ever offered, shouldbe for a solution to possibly the greatestproblem ever faced by humanity.

I have also committed, at former USPresident Bill Clinton’s Global Initiativeevent in the US in September 2006, myprofits from all my Virgin Group trans-port interests – estimated to be around$3 billion over ten years – to be invest-ed in renewable energy research,development and production.Substantial sums have already beenspent on bio-fuels and, although wehave not yet found a practical alterna-tive to traditional jet fuel, this cannot betoo far away. In the meantime, by devel-oping renewable fuel sources whichcan be used by other transport modes,we can help contribute to global energysecurity for the future whilst reducingemissions from surface transportation.

One of the priorities facing VirginAtlantic’s new Business SustainabilityTeam will be to embed sustainabilitythinking into all aspects of our busi-ness. I am very keen that all of our staffare empowered to take responsibilityfor reducing the environmental impactof their own area of the business. Byengaging staff in our sustainabilitychallenge, and empowering them totake forward initiatives which will have adirect impact on the airline’s carbonfootprint, we will be able to make a dif-ference. It also makes good businesssense. We should all think about ourown jobs, home lives and day-to-daychoices and make sure that we aredoing everything possible to ensurethat future generations can continue toenjoy the freedom to travel from whichwe have all benefited. ■ ■

20

Stakeholder Forum

The environmentis everyone’s responsibility


Main task: service provision

In Germany, the responsibility of DFSDeutsche Flugsicherung GmbH isdescribed in the German Aviation Actas the "safe, orderly and expeditioushandling of air traffic". Environmentalissues, especially noise abatement,are mentioned but cannot overrule

this primary task. However, this doesnot justify performing air traffic con-trol services without taking environ-ment impact into account. TheAviation Act leaves room for interpre-tation. This gap has been filled byjudicial decisions in such a way thattoday we have a clear and soundbasis for handling environmentalissues.

Noise versus safety

As far as those working in aviation areconcerned, safety cannot under anycircumstances be jeopardised. Safetyis not visible and cannot be felt – untilsomething goes wrong. As long as anair navigation provider delivers safe airtraffic control services, the public willtake safety for granted, instead of view-ing it as the result of hard work.

With noise, the situation is completelydifferent. Noise can be heard and felt. Itmay be disturbing, sometimes evenpainful. It can cause physical and psy-chological distress. More importantly: it can be measured.

Balancing these two phenomena is adifficult task – it is like comparingapples and oranges. Making this bal-ancing act transparent to the publichas become a demanding and impor-tant task, which comes on top of theprimary task of service provision.

The legal task of publishing routes lieswith the Federal Office of Civil Aviation(Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, LBA). However,through its route planning office DFSprovides a major input into the deci-sion-making process. In this way, DFShas considerable influence on the dis-tribution of noise, and that noise affectsthe quality of life for hundreds of thou-sands of people. It is fair that thesepeople should expect their needs to be

21

Looking back over the past five years, trends can beidentified which reflect those environmental activities thatsupport the core business of an air navigation service provider and those that do not. Long gone are the dayswhen it was acceptable to define a route network, andthus noise exposure levels, without any environmentalassessment or community consultation.

by Manfred Dieroff,DFS DeutscheFlugsicherung GmbH

DFS: balancing operationaland environmental needs

met to the greatest extent possiblewithout affecting safety.

Balancing noise andoperational needs

Because of Germany's central geo-graphical location, traffic flows inEurope strongly affect route planningwithin German airspace. It is thereforeobvious that a planning process atEuropean level is required to meet theincreasing traffic demands. In return,this has an impact on regional and localplanning, as airports have to be con-nected to the route network througharrival and departure procedures.Finally, international commitmentsresult in local procedures, which havenoise impact around airports. DFS haspromoted the need to consider theenvironmental impact of planning activ-ities even at an early stage, when thisimpact first becomes visible. Due to thefact that such a planning process maybe very abstract and not self-explana-tory, the consideration of environmentalissues has to be made transparent notonly to the public but also before thecourts. DFS has therefore made con-siderable efforts to “translate” internalconsiderations into non-expert lan-guage.

The ICAO balanced-approach conceptwas developed some years ago to dealwith noise around airports. Althoughthe concept and the respectiveEuropean regulation were not devel-oped for the challenges we are current-

ly facing, they can be taken as a base-line of a methodology for balancingoperational needs (capacity and econ-omy) and environmental issues.

Balancing in this case does not meanthat noise abatement has priority overcapacity or economic demands.Indeed, the balancing methodologymay even be used to identifyincreased capacity needs with nega-tive consequences for the noise foot-print. The difference between that andthe “just-do-it” methodology is that theformer has a sound and transparentdecision-making process. DFS hasalways carefully investigated the noiseimpact of route planning but has nowgreatly intensified the related docu-mentation and publications. Usingsafety as an argument for noise expo-sure, however, can be counterproduc-tive when the communities or courtsbelieve that this argument is just anexcuse for not making the effort to lookfor alternatives. The immediate resultwill be a loss of credibility and a dam-

aged reputation. Experience showsthat a clear and transparent descrip-tion of safety issues is welcomed andsupported.

To ensure a transparent route develop-ment process, the procedure designoffice and the environmental officeshould work closely together, withoutany competition. This is importantbecause every decision is unique andthe justification for the final result of abalancing process has to be under-stood by everybody involved.Stakeholders such as airports, airlines,and communities should have a possi-bility to contribute to this process.

22

DFS: balancing operationaland environmental needs

Before complaints, either writtenor verbal, are made, an objective picture of

the situation can be obtained usingSTANLY Track



The result of this balancing process issometimes criticised by the communi-ties around airports once the final resultis made available to stakeholders. Thisis not surprising: the air navigationservice provider has to regard capacitydemand as a major item in the balanc-ing process (not to mention safety, asalready referred to above).

However, since the introduction of theformalised balancing process, no claimagainst the Federal Office of CivilAviation regarding departure routeshas as yet been successful.

Communication

We are already well aware that trans-parency in balancing operational andenvironmental issues and in the finaldecision-making process is the key ele-ment for public acceptance and credi-bility. The better communication isbetween stakeholders, the easier it is tounderstand each other. It is therefore inthe interest of DFS to support the com-munication process.

The Internet can be used as an excel-lent medium for publishing internal datafor stakeholders, and DFS makesextensive use of this possibility. In addi-tion to formalising the balancingprocess, DFS has therefore simplifiedaccess to information on flight tracks.DFS publishes radar data on its web-site, partly in real time for an increasingnumber of German airports

(http://www.dfs.de/dfs/internet/deutsch/index.html). This service has broughtabout remarkable benefits: the numberof complaints has significantlydecreased. Thus, providing informationon aviation is the way forward if we wishto ensure the acceptance of aviation.

Components

The benefits of a transparent balancingprocess for an air navigation serviceprovider have already been discussed.Especially as regards noise abatement,it has to be ensured that trust is built upbetween service providers and stake-holders. Building up this level of trustmeans that the service provider has to:

■ document the balancing of environ-mental issues and ATC issues;

■ make the decision-making processtransparent and public;

■ actively inform communities andresidents about planning (well inadvance) and decisions (as soon asavailable);

■ take every complaint seriously andtake it into consideration for theplanning process;

■ make use of electronic media tomake environmental informationavailable without restrictions;

■ actively participate in new develop-ments and support research on theenvironment;

■ be proactive in information delivery, i.e.provide information on environmentalissues even before it is requested.

New environmentalchallenges

Although noise is currently the mostchallenging environmental impactaround airports, other environmentalissues were being addressed by airnavigation service providers long beforethey came into public view. In fact, DFSputs in considerable effort to minimisethe time aircraft are sitting on the groundwith their engines running as well as thetime aircraft remain airborne through theoptimisation of the route network andusing demand-oriented day-to-day airtraffic control. This is a major inputtowards the reduction of CO2 emissionscaused by aviation and can be seen asthe service provider’s contribution toenvironmental protection.

Today, the discussion on global warm-ing brings aviation more into the envi-ronmental spotlight than has been thecase in the past. This can be seen bothas a risk and as an opportunity for an airnavigation service provider. To neglectthe need to include aviation in environ-mental protection is to run the consider-able risk that legislation will in the endrestrict ATC operations far more than ifearly action to mitigate the negativeenvironmental impact of aviation hadbeen taken. For this reason, DFS doesnot oppose but rather supportsresearch activities on condensationtrails (“contrails”) and possible opera-tional scenarios to avoid the generationof contrails. It is our responsibility as aservice provider to use our operationalknowledge to give guidance on envi-ronmental research. ■■

23

StakeholderForum

Aircraft noise: “a balanced approach”

“Balanced approach” guidance devel-oped in 2001 provide ICAO MembersStates with an internationally-agreedapproach to address aircraft noise prob-lems in a holistic, and environmentallyand economically responsive way,based on four elements: noise at source,land use planning and management,operational measures, and operatingrestrictions. States endorsed this policyat the 35th ICAO Assembly, consideringit a valuable tool for noise mitigation.CAEP/7 proposed that the guidanceinclude socio-acoustic factors (“peopleissues”) and airport case studies.

Noise at source

Procedures for noise certifica-tion were revised and amend-ments to Annex 16, Volume I -Aircraft Noise were proposed.Provisions are related to atmosphericconditions in noise certification testingand measurement conditions (e.g. clari-fication of definitions relating to windspeeds), the measurement of aircraftnoise received on the ground, the evalu-ation method for noise certification of hel-icopters, and an update to the guidelinesfor obtaining helicopter noise data forland-use planning purposes.

Amendments were also made to theEnvironmental Technical Manual (ETM)on the use of procedures in the noisecertification of aircraft. They focused onprocedures for noise certification guid-ance in flight test procedures for helicop-ters, and evaluation of noise measure-ment to establish non-acoustical changefollowing engine modifications.Guidance material on differential globalpositioning was developed for inclusionin the ETM.

Operational measures

An important outcome of CAEP/7 wasthe development of a new ICAO manualproposing methods for computing noisecontours around airports. It replacesICAO Circular 205. The new guidelinesrepresent a major advance in threeimportant areas. First, it provides much-needed guidance on the implementationof aircraft noise contour modelling, espe-cially with respect to the critical impor-tance of correctly representing aircrafttypes and their operating configurationsand procedures. Second, it fullydescribes up-to-date algorithms that

incorporate the latest international-ly agreed advances in seg-

mentation modelling.Third, the methodologyis supported by anonline database from

E U R O C O N T R O L(International Aircraft

Noise and Performance(ANP) database) allowing for a timelyupdate of the data.

A new ICAO circular on noise abatementdeparture procedure (NADP) noise andemissions effects was developed, whichprovides information for airports andoperators on noise and emissions (NOxand CO2/fuel) effects of departure pro-cedures designed in accordance withPANS-OPS provisions.

Building on Circular 303 – OperationalOpportunities to Minimize Fuel Use andReduce Emissions – further work on theestimated benefits to the environmentof CNS/ATM system implementation(e.g. fuel savings and emission reduc-tions) was undertaken and practicalguidelines developed. This informationwas incorporated into the Global AirNavigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems(Doc 9750).

24

Stakeholder Forum

ICAO’s work on the environment The CAEP/7 results

In February, international experts on aviation and the

environment gathered at ICAO Headquarters

in Montreal for the seventh meeting of the Organisation’s

Committee on AviationEnvironmental Protection(CAEP/7). They reported

on their work over the past three years and formulated

recommendations to the ICAOCouncil. Seven new ICAO documents for addressing

aircraft noise and emissions, as well as amendments

to existing ICAO publications,were proposed and

subsequently approved by the Council on 15 March.

The main outcomes of CAEP/7 are described here.

by Jane Hupe,Chief of the

EnvironmentalUnit, ICAO


Continuous Descent Approach (CDA)implementation and its associated ben-efits were revised through the CAEP/7cycle. Until now, a global assessmenthas been difficult mainly because ofinconsistent definitions of CDAs, thenature of CDA operations and the lackof an internationally-agreed methodolo-gy for the assessment of emissions ornoise. It was agreed that CAEP wouldcoordinate the operational aspects withother expert panels.

Aircraft engine emissions

ICAO’s Annex 16, Volume II, wasrevised and updates proposed on theprovisions for modernising currentemissions certification methods,measurement and sampling require-ments, and procedures for regulatedemissions and aviation fuel supplycomposition.

CAEP/7 also proposed guidancematerial related to engine emissions

certification that will become anEnvironmental Technical Manual dedi-cated to emissions in support ofAnnex 16 Volume II. Until the manualis issued, this guidance material willbe available on the ICAO website.

Airport local air quality guidance

CAEP/7 proposed guidance to Statesin implementing best practices withrespect to local air quality at airports,and in assessing and quantifying air-port source emissions. This guidancemanual should consist of three parts.The first part will help users createinventories of aircraft and airportsource emissions. It will containbackground information on the regu-latory context, drivers for addressinglocal air quality at airports, anddetails of how aircraft source emis-sions contribute to total emissionsmeasured and modelled around air-ports. This material is available on theICAO website.

The second part, dedicated to disper-sion modelling and airport air qualitymeasurement, should be ready by2010. The third part will address miti-gation and interrelationships.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)goals

For CAEP/7, a panel of independentexperts was tasked with reviewingtechnologies to control nitrogenoxides (NOx). The group consideredinformation on the relationshipbetween goal-setting and standard-setting, on atmospheric science andon current and developmental tech-nology. They assessed the industry’sability to reduce NOx emissions atsource, provided information on pos-sible trends in future emissions reduc-tion over the long term, and consid-ered possibilities for improvement. Todefine technological feasibility, theexperts used a TechnologyReadiness Level (TRL) scale. Thisscale is a general tool characterisingthe level of development of new tech-nologies. Based on this work, theydeveloped medium- and long-termtechnology goals for NOx. Medium-term goal refers to the level of emis-sions produced by a specific enginethrust category in service in ten years’time (or a TRL of 6). Long-term goalrefers to an improvement of engineemissions performance in about twen-ty years (or TRL 2).

In relation to mid-term goals (2016),the group estimated a 45% reductionon the current standards. As for thelong-term goal (2026), it estimatedthat a reduction of some 60% wouldbe attainable.

CAEP/7 agreed that the use of the

25

StakeholderForum

TRL scale would be an integral part ofthe goal-setting process and thatTRL8 (flight qualified through test anddemonstration) should be acceptedas defining feasibility in the context ofstandard-setting.

Market-based measures

Voluntary measuresAt present, it is not easy for Statesand the aviation community to shareinformation on voluntary activitiesaimed at reducing the impact ofgreenhouse gases from aviation onthe climate. In order to facilitate dia-logue on this issue, CAEP has col-lected information on voluntaryactions by States and aviation stake-holders.

This information will be updated onan annual basis and posted on theICAO website. Sharing the informa-tion will help entities initiate environ-mental protection measures orimprove their current activities.

Local air quality chargesGuidance on emissions levies relatedto local air quality was developed byCAEP, consistent with ICAO policy.

Emissions trading One of the highlights of the meetingwas proposed guidance for incorpo-rating international aviation emissionsinto States’ emissions tradingschemes, consistent with the UnitedNations Framework Convention onClimate Change process. The draftguidance focuses on aviation-specif-ic issues, identifies options and offerspotential solutions:

■ Aircraft operators should be theaccountable international aviationentity for purposes of emissionstrading.

■ Obligations should be based ontotal aggregated emissions from allcovered flights performed by eachaircraft operator included in thescheme.

■ States, in applying an inclusionthreshold, should consider aggre-gate air transport activity (e.g. CO2

emissions) and/or aircraft weightas the basis for inclusion.

■ States should start with an emis-sions trading scheme that includesCO2 alone.

■ States should apply the Inter-governmental Panel on ClimateChange definition of internationaland domestic emissions for thepurpose of accounting for green-house gas emissions as applied tocivil aviation.

■ States will need to put in place anaccounting arrangement thatensures that emissions from inter-national aviation are counted sepa-rately and not against the specificreduction targets that States mayhave under the Kyoto Protocol.

■ As regards trading units, States willneed to consider economic effi-ciency, environmental integrity,and equity and competitivenesswhen making a choice.

On the question of geographic scope,the draft guidance recommends thatStates take into account an ICAOCouncil request that CAEP include thevarious options with regard to geo-graphic scope, describing their advan-tages and disadvantages, start toaddress the integration of foreign air-craft operators on a mutually agreedbasis, and continue to analyse furtheroptions. The draft guidance will includean introduction emphasising that themajority of ICAO Council members donot currently favour a non-mutuallyagreed approach. The ICAO Assemblywill further consider this issue.

Next steps

The Committee will continue to addressthe impacts of aircraft noise and emis-sions and study policy options on theuse of technical and operational solu-tions, while continuing to consider mar-ket-based measures.

One of the future items CAEP/7 will con-sider is the further development of amethodology to carry out environmentalassessments of ATM projects. The goalis to quantify the impact on the environ-ment in terms of the cost of fuel burned,greenhouse gas emissions, air qualityimpacts and noise. This method willfacilitate the development of trade-offconsiderations and hopefully lead toimprovements in efficiency and capaci-ty of ATM systems.

Emphasis will also be given to the workon modelling and databases to betterestimate aviation’s impact on the envi-ronment, and cooperation with EURO-CONTROL will continue in this area.

Forthcoming events

The ICAO Colloquium on AviationEmissions will be held in Montreal on14-16 May 2007. It will enhance thelevel of environmental information avail-able to States and provide a forum onaviation emissions so as to facilitate dis-cussion and decision-making.

Another milestone this year will be thepublication of ICAO’s first Environmen-tal Report, which is to be issued everyAssembly year.

We look forward to the 36th Session ofthe ICAO Assembly in September of thisyear, as the Organisation’s MemberStates and aviation stakeholders reviewachievements and agree on the policyof the Organisation in this field. ■■

26

Stakeholder Forum

ICAO’s work on the environment The CAEP/7 results

EUROCONTROL Headquarters,Brussels, Belgium

17 April 2007, 09.30 - 16.30Main topics covered:

n A more dynamic European airspace network for 2010+

n Current initiatives (with the participation of external speakers)

n Interactive session: areas of improvement in the short term

n Contribution to next steps

n Interactive session: mapping the way forward

Essential for:

n Aircraft operators, flight planning service providers,

air navigation service providers and military authorities

Online registration:www.eurocontrol.int/dmean

WORKSHOP

StakeholderForum

Most of the environment-related work in ICAO isundertaken through itsCouncil's Committee onAviation EnvironmentalProtection (CAEP), whichconsists of members andobservers from States, inter-national organisations andnon-governmental organisa-tions representing the avia-tion industry and environ-mental interests. CAEP is keyto achieving ICAO's strategicobjective of minimising theadverse environmentaleffects of global civil aviation

and meeting its three related goals: tolimit or reduce the number of peopleaffected by significant aircraft noise, tolimit or reduce the impact of aircraftengine emissions on local air qualityand to limit or reduce the impact of avi-ation greenhouse gas emissions on theglobal climate.

Over the years, CAEP has developedand promoted realistic, comprehen-sive and forward-looking environmen-tal solutions that have been endorsedby the world community. During thelatest CAEP/7 cycle, which culminatedin the CAEP 7 meeting held recently inMontreal (5-16 February 2007), thefoundations were laid for decisionsand actions in a number of criticalareas.

CAEP took a first step towards theestablishment of the interdependen-

cies modelling framework that willprovide analytical capability to com-prehensively assess synergies andtrade-offs. Proposed changes to tech-nology and operations often result intrade-offs between different impacts.For example, noise abatement cansometimes lead to increased emis-sions. The ability to assess thesetrade-offs in a commonly agreed wayis essential for sound and effectivedecision-making.

With reference to the specific aspectof CNS/ATM, CAEP has made signifi-cant progress in quantifying the envi-ronmental benefits of efficiency

improvements in global CNS/ATMpractices. Experts have produced anupdated proposal on issues concern-ing the environmental benefits ofCNS/ATM systems, setting out thepossible development of simplifiedmethodologies and tools for estimat-ing the environmental benefits ofCNS/ATM systems.

In February 2007, CAEP/7 accepted aproposal by the Italian Member to

28

Stakeholder Forum

Addressing environmentalissues globallyICAO's environmental activities are primarily focused on those issues that can best be addressed through a globally coordinated approach, namely aircraft noise and the impact of aircraft engine emissions. A consolidated statement of ongoing policiesand practices regarding environmental protection is revised and updated by the Council every three years for adoption by the ICAO Assembly.

by Renata Cecchi,Head of Environmental

Protection PolicyOffice, ENAC, and

the Italian Member of ICAO’s

Committee on Aviation

EnvironmentalProtection (CAEP)

adopt another approach to the prob-lem, bearing in mind the global frame-work of ATM operations.

Within the international aeronauticalcommunity, a great deal of work hasbeen done on improving the perform-ance of the air traffic management

(ATM) system. Efforts are underway todevelop and ensure commonality ofnew technologies and worldwide inter-operability with the aim of improving theefficiency of the system and achievingoperational benefits more quickly.

Air traffic growth is facing environ-mental constraints which limit airportoperations and hence capacity.Moreover there is a risk that the imple-mentation of strategic ATM develop-ment plans linked to ever-increasingtraffic demand may erode theimprovements in the environmentalclimate that have already beenachieved. Air traffic management may

affect noise pollution by influencingwhen, how and where aircraft fly, forexample by facilitating noise-abate-ment techniques such as CDA. Thenoise cost associated with each flight,however, is mitigated by the flight effi-ciency factor. If these measures arenot fully assessed, however, they maylead to high levels of fuel use (ascarce natural resource) andincreased atmospheric emissions.

Growth in demand for air travel caus-es an expansion of aircraft operationsand, consequently, an increase ingreenhouse gas emissions, which areexpected to outpace improvements inemissions-abatement technologies forthe foreseeable future. Improving theefficiency and capacity of the ATMsystem may have both negative andpositive effects on the environment.For instance, improving flight pathefficiencies reduces the amount offuel and emissions per flight, while thenoise problem could preventincreased operational airport capaci-ty, limiting aircraft operations.

The importance of trade-off consider-ations between noise and emissionshas already been stated within CAEPactivity and consideration has beengiven to the inherent complex andevolving interdependencies betweenenvironmental factors.

It is therefore appropriate, in thisframework, to consider that acost/benefit assessment applied toATM projects could quantify the netimpact on the environment in terms ofthe key impacts of the cost of fuel use,greenhouse gas emissions, air qualityimpacts and noise.

Many major infrastructure develop-ments which are likely to have signifi-cant effects on the environment are

commonly the subject of a systematicenvironmental assessment. The eval-uation is carried out for all majordevelopments in the energy, industry,transport, telecommunications, andland development sectors. Further,newly proposed regulations and lawsnow need to be assessed from asocial, environmental and economicperspective. The strength of thistransparent assessment is that itproves that the entity proposing achange has fully considered alterna-tives and associated impacts anddemonstrates that the preferredoption most effectively solves theproblem, without creating unaccept-able new problems.

Environmental impact assessment is, inits simplest form, a planning tool gener-ally regarded as an integral componentof decision-making. It may be definedas a formal process used to identify,predict and assess the likely environ-mental consequences of any develop-ment project. Thus it ensures thatpotential problems are foreseen andaddressed at an early stage in the pro-ject's planning and design.

In the operational ATM field, notwith-standing various initiatives at locallevel, we are still far from a commondefinition or at least understandingamongst the various stakeholders of amethodology to be adopted whenassessing the environmental impact ofCNS/ATM initiatives.

Methodology, transparent process andtools to address the environmentalassessment of the implementation ofCNS/ATM plans are still at a formativestage. This systematic environmentalassessment should, however, also beperformed in the case of plans and pro-grammes regarding the CNS/ATM sys-tem. It has already been emphasised

29Skyway 44 - Spring 2007

StakeholderForum

that improving the efficiency andcapacity of the ATM system may haveeffects on the environment and gener-ally any significant change in the airtraffic scenario at each airport has aninfluence on its environmental climate.It is therefore appropriate to introducethe concept of environmental assess-ment for application to CNS/ATM plansand programmes, leading to improvedefficiency and capacity of the ATM sys-tem, in order to:

a) quantify and weigh the effectivebenefits resulting from their imple-mentation with a view to achievingmaximum environmental benefit;

b) better evaluate the appropriatenessof technical and operational solu-tions; and

c) protect environmental improvementsalready achieved to prevent themfrom being eroded by incompatibleATM plans.

The first step is to define the concept ofenvironmental assessment for ATM pur-poses with a view to identifying a com-mon understanding. The second step is

to develop the necessary methodolo-gies/tools to carry out the transparent,harmonised process of environmentalassessment.

The CAEP 7 meeting endorsed thisbasic objective, the outline of the work tobe done and the setting-up of a TaskGroup (TG) dedicated to CNS/ATMenvironmental benefits.

The TG has been tasked inter alia with:

a) examining the concept of environ-mental assessment applied toCNS/ATM and defining the appropri-ate methodologies in order to quan-tify the benefits resulting from theimplementation of CNS/ATMplans/programmes and identifyappropriate ATM improvements;

b) reporting on CNS/ATM initiativesincluding navigational technologiesand associated benefits for goalsand policy analysis.

The CAEP 7 meeting also approved thepromotion in the States of the use of anenvironmental management system

approach, proposed by USA, as ameans of managing the environmentalimpacts of international aviation in amore systematic and cost-effectivemanner.

In my view the Environmental Mana-gement System (EMS) is a systematicmethod for ensuring the environmentalperformance of an organisation. Theapplication of this method to the air oper-ators, the airport operators and to theATM service providers will ensure thatthe conditions are in place to safeguardthe environmental benefits achieved.

The environmental case is thus to beconsidered a critical and crucial ele-ment of an EMS within the air navigationservice provider organisations.

Without any doubt, there is a need forsustained and prioritised effort in theATM field in order to evaluate all possi-ble environmental benefits, and morethan ever, ICAO is determined to pro-vide the world with guidance in movingtowards a sustainable global air trans-port system.

Of course, the impact of CAEP dependsultimately on the States and the meas-ures they adopt and enforce to mitigatethe environmental effects. To achievethe full benefits of EMS and the environ-ment case, a harmonised application ofthis type of approach across aviationorganisations is required. In the light ofthis, EUROCONTROL’s contribution willbe key to managing the environmentalaspects of aviation efficiently and in afocussed manner. ■■

30

Stakeholder Forum

Addressing environmental issues globally


Skyway 44 - Spring 2007 31

Airbus tackles the environmental challenge

Airbus became the first and only aerospace company to receivecorporate certification to ISO 14001 environmental standards

in early 2007, which covers all the company’s productionsites and products throughout the life cycle.

ISO 14001 corporate certification is a tes-tament to Airbus’ commitment to the envi-ronment – a commitment to keep pacewith the world’s accelerating demand forair transport and greener skies.

It also gives full credit to Airbus’ robustEnvironmental Management System(EMS), which aims to constantly identify,monitor and minimise the side effectsassociated with designing, manufactur-ing, flying and dismantling an aircraft.

Integrating environmental responsibilityinto all aspects of the activities, at eachstage of the life cycle, is key to keepingour environmental footprint minimal.

Design

With 27,307 passenger aircraftexpected to fly in 20251, reducing air-craft noise and aircraft engine emis-sions to a minimum is a necessity. It

is also business imperative to be partof the solution and adequatelyaddress the complex challenges of asustainable air transport industry.

Airbus’ innovative approach reflectsthose key environmental performancedrivers that are part of the primaryrequirements for any new productdesigned today. One major strand ofthe Research & Technology efforts is toinvestigate, test, validate and optimisethe most advanced technologies,design features, configurations andarchitectures that will lead to aircraftgenerating less noise and fewer emis-sions, while carrying the maximum pay-load over the optimum range.

Reducing noise at source is a priorityfor Airbus. The company is workingon low-noise nacelle designs,acoustic treatment, optimised propul-sion systems and overall aerodynam-ic efficiency, but also on low enginenoise technologies, hand-in-handwith engine manufacturers.

One such innovative project is the 0-splice inlet technology for enginenacelles to reduce fan noise. AnAirbus-patented technology, it was

awarded the 2006 “Décibel d’Or” bythe French Ministry of Ecology andSustainable Development. It alsocontributes to the remarkable noiseperformance of the A380 that showsunprecedented certified noise levelswith a 17-EPNdB cumulative margin2,and thus satisfies the noise require-ments of the most stringent interna-tional airports.

Reducing engine emissions is a simi-lar priority for the company. Onemajor strand is the continuous andprogressive introduction of advancedmaterials and new processes toreduce the basic weight of an aircraftto minimise fuel consumption and,subsequently, the level of engineemissions.

The A380 is the first commercial aircraftto incorporate as much as 25% com-posites. With a carbon-fibre-reinforcedplastic composite centre wing box, aweight saving of up to 1.5 tonnes ver-sus the most advanced aluminiumalloys has been achieved. With lessthan 3 litres per passenger per 100 kilo-metres – the figure for a small diesel-engine car – the A380 has a very lowfuel burn.

by Philippede Saint Aulaire,Vice-PresidentEnvironmentalAffairs, Airbus

1- Source: AirbusGlobal MarketForecast

2- ICAO Chapter 4 noise limits

© A

irbus

S.A

.S.

Supply chain

Aircraft are one of the most complexproducts, integrating hundreds of thou-sands of components. Therefore, man-aging the entire supply chain is key toensuring reliability at each subcompo-nent level, and delivering products ontime and within budget that satisfy thehighest standards of quality.

Efficient processes plus a shared com-mitment to responsible business prac-tices and to environmental perform-ance are a must. Suppliers and indus-trial partners are also assessed on thebasis of environmental criteria, whichare part of contractual agreements.They are expected to comply withAirbus’ environmental policy, providereliable environmental data on theproducts delivered and, wherever pos-sible, deploy an EnvironmentalManagement System. Tracking andmanaging hazardous materials is alsocrucial and Airbus is working towards asystematic inventory of such materials. The company will uphold these stan-dards and will continue to evaluate itssuppliers accordingly.

Manufacturing

Airbus has committed to continuouslywork on limiting the environmentalimpact of the production processes spe-cific to the aeronautical industry, on allsites.

Considerable efforts are made to con-tain, reduce and, if possible, eradicatethe local industrial effects of workingmetals and composites, polishing andtreating surfaces, assembling compo-nents and parts, and then assemblingthe entire aircraft.

Cleaner technologies are being continu-ously introduced. Manufacturing inputsand outputs are reduced to the greatestextent. Regular inspections are run.Material quantities, toxicity and usage

are evaluated and related to how waste,water discharge and air emissions areimpacted.

Airbus will cut down energy consump-tion, water consumption and the amountof waste produced by 2% by year-end.Emissions of volatile organic compoundswill be reduced by a further 5%, followinga 13% reduction over 2004 and 20053.Direct carbon dioxide emissions fromfossil fuel consumption per seat deliv-ered fell by 9% over the same period.

A number of projects to preserve renew-able and non-renewable resourcesshould be given credit for such achieve-ments – such as the additional 725 m2 ofsolar energy panels installed at Airbus’facilities in Spain to generate 130,000kWh and reduce carbon dioxide emis-sions by 109 tonnes per year.

Transport

Airbus has developed an innovativeinter-site routing system to transport air-craft sections, specifically designed toincrease efficiency in the air as well as onthe ground while limiting the impact oftransport on the environment.

Large and heavy aircraft sections aretransferred in roughly two days from anyof Airbus’ manufacturing facilities inEurope – adjoining the airport – to thefinal assembly lines in Toulouse andHamburg, thanks to five A300-600 supertransporters specifically built for that pur-pose. Known as Belugas, these aircraft

3- Nitrogen oxideand sulphur oxideemissions werereduced by 13%over the sameperiod


32

A very low fuel burn ofjust 3 litres per

passenger/100 kilometre

© A

irbus

S.A

.S. 2

005

/ P. M

ascl

et


generate very low noise levels, with amargin of 14 EPNdB over their certifica-tion limit. This low noise disturbance isensured in the immediate vicinity of theairports.

A380 components are shipped via amultimode transport network that com-bines marine, river and road transport, asthey are far too large for the Belugas.First conveyed by sea to Bordeaux, theaircraft sections go down the Garonneriver and then continue the journey byroad convoys at night.

The double-hulled barges weredesigned to preserve the riversides andfishing, thanks to minimum bow waveand an engine noise minimised at55dB(A) at 30 metres for normal thrust –that of any fishing boat.

The low-speed road convoys use excep-tionally large trucks equipped with spe-cial noise reduction and guidance sys-tems for constant speed and no addi-tional nuisance. Road segments wereslightly adapted for loads up to 14mhigh, 8m wide and 50m long.

Aircraft operations

There is today a persistent demand forour industry to further improve the overallenvironmental performance of aircraftoperations and further reduce noise,emissions and fuel burn.

Much remains to be done, but a lot hasalready been done.

Aircraft entering into service now aretypically 20 decibels quieter than com-parable products 30 years ago4. AnA320 taking off or landing has a noisefootprint of less than 1/10th the area ofthat created by a similar sized 1970s tri-jet. An A330 taking off has a noise foot-print that is contained within the airport’sperimeter. The A380 is the quietest long-range aircraft on the market, with slight-ly lower noise levels than the A340 (oneof the quietest aircraft of its kind) for pos-sibly twice as many passengers. It alsomeets the most stringent night noiserules at London Airport - QC/2 for depar-tures and QC/0.5 for arrivals.

Fuel consumption has been more thanhalved since 1960 and CO2 emissionsfrom aviation in 2000 remain stable at2.2% of total man-made carbon dioxideemissions despite air traffic growth.Today, Airbus aircraft are amongst themost fuel-efficient means of transport inthe world, with just three litres of fuelneeded to transport a passenger 100kilometres. The A380 generates CO2

emissions as low as 80g per passengerper kilometre, far below the 160g perkilometre for an average European car.

Airbus has endorsed the 2020 visionof the Advisory Council forAeronautics Research in Europe(ACARS) that targets a 50% reductionin noise, fuel consumption and carbondioxide emissions.

It has joined the Aeronautics JointTechnology Initiative for a “Clean Sky”,

which aims to introduce the technolo-gies that will lead to progressivechanges. The company also works withthe airlines, airports, air navigationservice providers and engine manufac-turers. In particular, Airbus contributesto SESAR – the European Commissionand EUROCONTROL project to opti-mise air traffic management and flightefficiency in Europe for a 5 to 12%reduction in fuel consumption and CO2

emissions by 2020.

End-of-life

There are some 4,000 aircraft due toreach end-of-life by 2023; hence theneed for decommissioning, dismantlingand recycling aircraft in an environ-mentally-responsible manner.

Airbus’ response is PAMELA5, anexperimental project for end-of-life air-craft to test state-of-the-art proceduresand establish best practices throughthe entire process. The purpose is toshow that between 85 and 95% of theaircraft components can be recycled,re-used or recovered.

Selected as part of the EuropeanCommission’s LIFE6 programme,PAMELA will be used to disseminateenvironmental knowledge and prac-tices to other industrial sectors.

To conclude

Airbus’ environmental performance ishighlighted in a biennial report. The2006 issue is a clear sign of Airbus’commitment to shape a greenerindustry for greener skies and ensurethat air transport continues to be anenvironmentally efficient means oftransport. ■■

For more information, go to www.airbus.com

33

4- Noise annoyance reduced by 75%

5- Process forAdvancedManagement of End-of-Life ofAircraft.

Aircraft are processed at Tarbes Airport, in south-westFrance, in partnership withEADS CCR, the Préfecture des Hautes-Pyrénées, SITA andSogerma Services

6- L’InstrumentFinancier del’Environnement

An impressive 17 EPNdBcumulative margin

© A

irbus

S.A

.S.

IndependentPlatform

This legislation is of crucial importancein addressing, on a common Europeanbasis, the environmental impacts of theCO2 emissions of air traffic. Althoughaviation is presently responsible foronly 3.5% of human-induced climateimpacts, the current and predictedgrowth in the number of flights depart-

ing from EU airports (7.4% increase in2004 alone) clearly shows the need foraction. Nevertheless, the EuropeanCommission’s proposal raises a coupleof questions which have to be tackledin the course of the legislative process.

Firstly, there are various areas for con-cern within the proposal. The moststriking is the fact that the Commissionwants to include the emissions of allintra-EU flights in the EU-ETS as soonas 2011, whereas emissions from allflights arriving at and departing fromEU airports (i.e. intercontinental flights)are to be included only from 2012. Icannot see any convincing argumentfor supporting such a differentiation.On the contrary, such an arrangementwould only lead temporarily to aEurope-only application of the emis-sions trading mechanism in the aviation

sector. This concern is even more justi-fied if we consider the possible legaldisputes with third Countries and non-European States which in the worstcase might delay the inclusion of inter-continental flights for many years. Sucha scenario would have serious conse-quences for the European aviationindustry without bringing major positiveeffects for the environment. No doubtthe Commission’s approach of exclud-ing from the scope of the Directive allflights arriving from third Countriesadopting equivalent measures to thoseof the Directive is very constructive. Ifear, however, that this is not enough ofan incentive to avoid legal conflicts withnon-EU States and negative economicside-effects for European airlines.Hence, I welcome the initiative toaddress the issue of emissions tradingduring the ICAO Conference in

34

Independent Platform

Emissions trading: a significant contribution towards addressing the impact of aviation on the environment

In December 2006, the European Commission

published its proposal toamend the current Directive

2003/87/EC to include aviationactivities in the European

Emissions Trading Scheme(EU-ETS). This proposal has

now been transmitted to the European Parliament

for its first reading, which will take place

in the coming months.

by Ulrich Stockmann, Member of theEuropean Parliament

Ulrich Stockmann has been a Member of the EuropeanParliament since 1994. As a Member of the Transport Committee, he is actively involved in European aviation policy.

The publication by Ulrich Stockmann "Aviation and Emissions Trading" can be downloaded at: http://www.ulrich-stockmann.de/upload/aviation_emissions_trading.pdf


September 2007 with a view to meetingthe global dimension of environmentalprotection.

Another issue to be addressed is themethod of allocating the total quantityof allowances for aviation in 2011 and2012. The Commission proposes "his-torical aviation emissions" (i.e. themean average of the annual aviationemissions for 2004-2006) as the basisfor calculating the total quantity ofallowances to be allocated to aircraftoperators for each year. The problemwith this approach is that it completelyoverlooks the enormous growth in avia-tion as from 2006. As a result, it capsthe amount of total allowances at alevel which will not be realistic by2011/2012. Therefore, a "dynamic fac-tor" should be included in the allocationmechanism.

Secondly, the Commission proposalraises the question of whether it is real-ly the most effective instrument fordealing with the problem of the CO2

emissions of air traffic. To avoid anymisunderstandings, this is by nomeans an attempt to argue against theinclusion of aviation in the EU-ETS.However, unlike other Members of theEuropean Parliament, I do not expectemissions trading to be the "superweapon" in the fight against climatechange. Instead, I believe that emis-sions trading is only one (albeit essen-tial) element of a more comprehensiveset of measures for reducing the avia-tion industry’s impact on climate. Anemissions trading mechanism alonedoes not result in the reduction of CO2

emissions. It makes flying more costlyand might slow down the growth of avi-ation and, therefore, is an incentive toreduce the consumption of kerosene –but it is not a means of increasingenergy efficiency. The fight against cli-mate change therefore requires com-plementary measures and instruments.

The completion of the Single EuropeanSky (SES) Programme, with itsFunctional Airspace Blocks, offers greatpotential for reducing fuel consumptionby some 15%. The Commission isexpected to release a report on the stateof implementation of the SESProgramme in April. Unfortunately, thisreport will most probably not be verypositive. The creation of FunctionalAirspace Blocks requires the bundlingof national sovereignty over Europeanairspace. The refusal of Germany'sPresident, Mr Horst Köhler, to sign a lawfor the privatisation of the German airtraffic control service provider (DFS), isjust one example of the difficulties ofimplementing the SES. Moreover, inmany Member States cooperation

between military and civil aviationauthorities and air traffic control serviceproviders is still lagging behind. This isanother factor making it difficult toensure the necessary flexibility ofEuropean airspace.

As outlined in the EuropeanCommission Communication inJanuary 2007 ("An action plan for air-port capacity, efficiency and safety inEurope"), improving the slots systemcan contribute significantly to thereduction of fuel consumption andCO2 emissions. The mandate given toEUROCONTROL in 2005 to developimplementing rules on air traffic flowmanagement in close cooperation withthe Commission is an important steptowards achieving an optimal use ofairport slots, thus avoiding unneces-sary holding patterns.

As a Member of the EuropeanParliament and the TransportCommittee, it is my obligation to worktowards well-balanced legislation gov-erning the inclusion of aviation in theEU-ETS. However, it is equally impor-tant to make full use of the greatpotential of all other measuresdesigned to increase technologicalstandards and fuel efficiency.Otherwise, I see a realistic threat thatemissions trading will not have theexpected positive effects on our envi-ronment. ■■

For further information, please contact:

Robert WienerEuropean ParliamentT +32 2 284-7687F +32 2 284-9687ulrich.stockmann@europarl.europa.euwww.ulrich-stockmann.de

35

IndependentPlatform

The aviation industry is an importantand fast-growing contributor to human-induced global warming. In recent

years climate change hasbeen on top of the policyagenda, as knowledge aboutaviation’s atmosphericimpacts and mitigation costshas improved with the newIntergovernmental Panel onClimate Change and Sternreports respectively. There isnow a broad consensus in theEuropean Union that aviationshould not be excluded fromthe global effort to tackle cli-mate change.

When the Kyoto Protocol was signed,almost ten years ago, the need toreduce emissions from aviation wasaddressed. However, given the interna-tional character of the aviation industry,the parties decided to tackle aviation’simpact on climate through the UN body

that regulates the sector. In Article 2,the protocol asks parties to “pursue lim-itation or reduction of emissions ofgreenhouse gases not controlled bythe Montreal Protocol from aviation (…),working through the International CivilAviation Organization (ICAO).”

Yet, in October 2007, the ICAO GeneralAssembly will not be evaluating theprogress made in the implementation ofmeasures. The Assembly will not vote onthe implementation of any policy instru-ment to reduce the impact of aviation onclimate in the near future. According tothe European Commission: “action takenso far through ICAO has mainly con-tributed to improving the understandingof the global climate impacts of aviation,and ICAO’s 188 member countries havenot been able to agree on regulatorystandards or emissions charges applica-ble to CO2 emissions, and an attempt toidentify and agree a suitable efficiencyindicator for aircraft has failed.”

However, ICAO is not only failing to meetthe requirements of the parties to theKyoto Protocol, it is also blockingMember States from limiting emissionsfrom aviation unilaterally.

In 1996 ICAO was firmly against theintroduction of kerosene taxes. In 2004 aresolution was adopted, recognisingthat: “ICAO guidance is not sufficient toimplement greenhouse gas emissionscharges internationally”, and askedStates “to refrain from unilateral imple-mentation of such charges prior to 2007Assembly”. The only window of opportu-nity kept open in 2004 was the Assemblyresolution supporting the development ofvoluntary emissions trading, even thoughthe possibility of setting up a scheme atICAO level was considered unattractiveand should not be pursued further.

Given ICAO's slow progress, in 2005 theEuropean Commission identified policyoptions to be pursued at EU level toreduce emissions from aviation. TheCommission stressed the need to go“further and beyond traditional technicalstandards and voluntary action”, andfocus has been placed on emissionstrading and emissions charges as morepromising ways to address the climateimpact of aviation. Emissions trading wasconsidered the best way forward in linewith the ICAO recommendation.Following this Communication, whichreceived broad support from theEuropean Parliament and Council, theCommission proposed in December2006 the inclusion of aviation in the EUEmissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

This proposal is the first step towardsaddressing emissions from internation-al aviation, but there is little doubt thatfurther steps will be necessary to guar-antee the necessary reductions.According to the impact assessmentthat was presented with the proposal,

36


Emissions tradingfor aviation: only a first step

by João Vieira,Policy Officer,

European Federationfor Transport and

Environment (T&E)


the reduction of aviation emissions willbe around 3%, equivalent to less thanone year’s growth.

Improvements to the current proposalare still possible, and should beexpected if the opinion of EuropeanParliament is kept in line with its 2006resolution on “Reducing the climatechange impact of aviation”.

There are several issues addressed bythe Parliament resolution of June 2006that were not fully integrated in theCommission proposal, presentingopportunities to improve the environ-mental effectiveness and cost-effec-tiveness of the scheme:

■ To ensure that non-CO2 gases areaddressed through NOx emissionsreduction measures and air trafficmanagement, but not to rule out theuse of a ‘multiplier’ in case suchmeasures fail to be implemented.

■ Revise the current “stabilisation capat 2004-2006 levels” in line with theKyoto agreement and EU climatetargets.

■ Increase the amount of emissionallowances to be auctioned, since itis the most fair and efficient way ofdistributing allowances, avoid‘windfall profits’ and ensure the pol-luter pays principle applies to avia-tion.

■ Keep the geographical scope asbroad as possible (all flights arriv-ing and departing EU airports).

If these steps are taken by Ministersand the Parliament, integration of avia-tion in the EU-ETS could be a signifi-cant step forward.

But it is increasingly clear that a muchbroader overall strategy to reduceemissions from aviation is necessaryand will require action from all players.

Air traffic management

Although reforms to air traffic manage-ment could optimise routes andreduce emissions (SESAR aims toreduce CO2 by 10% per flight) anequally important challenge is to useair traffic management (ATM) as aninstrument to avoid the formation of cir-rus clouds and contrails. Althoughthere is still some scientific uncertaintyas to the extent of the contribution ofthese clouds to global warming, thereis a certain consensus that there is acontribution. Applying the precaution-ary principle would mean that earlyaction should be taken.Given this, it is essentialthat ATM systemsaddress the need toadapt their mechanismsto make aircraft avoidareas where the proba-bility of the formation ofsuch clouds is high, andthe work to develop poli-cies, processes andtechnologies to allowthis should start as soonas possible, perhaps through SESAR.

A third important issue regarding thedevelopment of ATM activity in the nearfuture is the potential contribution oforganisations such as EURO-CONTROL in supporting the implemen-tation of economic policy instrumentsfor aviation. Indeed, ATM organisationshave access to information that coulddetermine the amount of pollutant emis-sions of each flight, being a naturalcandidate to become ‘charges collec-tor’ if any charges related to that pollu-tion are to be implemented.

With this is in mind, ATM organisationsshould plan for such a developmentand improve the methods of calcula-tion of the various impacts of aircraft

on environment. Amazingly, consider-ing the lack of progress on aviationemissions at international level, evenemissions trading, the last remainingpolicy under discussion, is underattack.

Some ICAO delegations, led by theUnited States, are pushing to limitimplementation of emissions tradingonly to carriers registered in Stateswhere the system operates, or whoseStates ‘mutually agree’ to be part of thescheme. If this approach is successfulit would of course kill the systeminstantly. To discriminate against air

carriers on the basisof their ‘nationality’would not only goagainst the ChicagoConvention, but alsobe harmful to the com-petitive position of theairlines inside the sys-tem. The absurdity ofthe 'mutual agree-ment' strategy is obvi-ous when one consid-ers what the response

of the United States would be ifEuropean airlines refused to applyAmerican security regulations whenlanding at US airports.

Given this, and since emissions trad-ing is considered by policy-makers tobe the best way to begin addressingthe contribution of aviation to climatechange, any move from ICAO to blockthis first step in the EU should be con-sidered to be unacceptable and coun-terproductive by the industry as awhole. Counter-productive becausethe remaining options would involvedirectly managing demand for aviation,instead of incentivising the improve-ment of its environmental performancethrough more flexible economic instru-ments. ■■

37

E u r o p e a n Fe d e r a t i o n f o rTRANSPORT and ENVIRONMENT

It is increasinglyclear that a much

broader overall strategy to reduce

emissions from aviation is

necessary and will require action

from all players

IndependentPlatform

Also in February, the International CivilAviation Organization (ICAO) held ameeting of its Committee on AviationEnvironmental Protection (CAEP) whichproposed guidelines to States for incor-porating aviation emissions into theiremissions trading schemes. The guide-lines should be endorsed by the ICAOCouncil and Assembly in Septemberthis year.

At first sight, these seem encouragingsigns of a widespread desire to makeprogress in environmental protection.However, the news is not as good as itmight seem. The IPCC report is verymuch of the type “if obese people wishto become more healthy, here aresome statistics they should note”, whilethe ICAO guidelines are “points to bearin mind when eating more healthily”.

Creating the necessary political will

There is no doubt that a growing bodyof public opinion supports concertedaction – after all, climate change isrightly perceived to be a global prob-lem. Chinese CO2 emissions impactother regions and are increasing atsuch a rate that they are expected torival those of the USA – currently theworst offender – within a generation.However, without widespread politicalsupport and commitment to makingprogress, the outlook is unclear. Anysuccessor to the Kyoto Protocol, theintergovernmental environmental pact,must include not only the recalcitrantdeveloped nations, such as Australia(all those cattle, sheep and wild ani-mals passing wind!) and the USA, butalso the newly emerging industrialforces, notably Brazil, China and India.

The air transport industry is one area inthe global economy where there is astrong desire to make progress. Amajor voice is the Air Transport ActionGroup (ATAG), an industry-wide coali-

tion launched by the International AirTransport Association (IATA), Airbusand Boeing at the beginning of the1990s. Philippe Rochat is ATAG’sExecutive Director. His career in avia-tion includes two three-year terms asSecretary General of ICAO. ATAG isworking with its industry partners toprovide clear information and factsabout the aviation industry’s environ-mental impact and its commitment toenvironmental responsibility.

Air transport is often unjustly targetedas a major atmospheric polluter. “Thisis not very fair”, Rochat observes.“Politicians and the media do notrecognise what we have achieved inthe past and plan to achieve in thefuture.” The recent IPCC report notedthat aviation contributes a global totalof 2% to worldwide emissions of carbondioxide (CO2) – about the same as asingle medium-sized industrialisednation such as the United Kingdom.This figure is unchanged from the lastIPCC review seven years ago, althoughthe report noted that this proportioncould rise to 3% by 2050.

38


Air transport and the environment The need for a political will

by John F. Brindley,aviation analyst and writer

The environment has alreadymade the headlines in the early

weeks of this year, notablywith the publication in February

of a new report by the UnitedNations-sponsored

Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC).

Its main conclusion was thathuman activity was almost

certainly a key factor in “globalwarming”, although – like moststudies – it was unable to put

a precise figure on the long-term consequences.


The current emphasis on global warm-ing and climate change has altered theairline industry’s environmental focus.When jet airliners entered service, theemphasis was on aircraft noise. “This isstill important in the context of airports”,Rochat noted, pointing out that in theUSA “according to the Federal AviationAdministration, noise and local air qual-ity have a higher priority than climatechange.”

The airlines have worked hard on envi-ronmental issues within their controland will continue to do so.Nevertheless, one fundamental prob-lem is that air transport is the industrythat will have the most difficulty in mov-ing away from its traditional fuel,Rochat noted. In addition, airlines arecriticised for not paying taxes on fuelused for international services but, hepointed out, in the transport sector, avi-ation is the only industry that fully cov-ers its infrastructure costs through air-port and ATC charges. Road and railtransport infrastructures are all sub-sidised, sometimes to a considerabledegree.

Government support is the key

The IPCC reported that, if air transportinfrastructure can be made more effi-cient by the authorities, overall fuel con-sumption could be reduced by up to12%. This is surely a worthwhile targetfor governments to aim for.

Europe should be the region where themost progress can be made in the shortterm, given the Single European Sky(SES) Programme. Rochat stressed thatthe obstacles to successful implementa-tion of the SES are not technical butpolitical. “The issue of military airspaceand the resulting negative impact on theefficiency of commercial traffic flowsshould be addressed more vigorously.”

The problem of parking and departureslots affects a large number of hubsaround the world. For instance, it is notuncommon for aircraft to queue for morethan an hour at New York’s KennedyInternational Airport, wasting numeroustonnes of fuel before getting airborne.Europe has proved to be more efficientthan other regions at addressing airportcongestion during peak hours, thanks toEUROCONTROL’s Central FlowManagement Unit (CFMU), Rochatpointed out. He is encouraged by initialresults from trials in the United Kingdomwhere aircraft are towed to the vicinity ofthe take-off runway before starting theirengines.

Emissions trading

Another European initiative that willimpact the air transport industry is emis-sions trading, which is scheduled to beintroduced in 2011 for flights within theEuropean Union (EU), with extension tocover flights to and from the EU the fol-lowing year. However, IATA Director

General and CEO, Giovanni Bisignani,said that: “An emissions trading schemeis preferable to taxes and charges, pro-vided that it is well designed and thatthere is efficient infrastructure.” Aboveall, from the airlines’ standpoint, compet-itive distortions must be minimised.

The US Government has opposedextending the plan to non-EU carriers,saying that it is “unlawful” and that aglobal solution is preferable, rather thana regional or national approach. A cynicwould say that the USA knows full wellthat getting agreement on a global levelcould take many years. The current USAdministration is unlikely to consider theapplication of mandatory emissionstrading to aviation.

Outside Europe, some progress hasbeen made, notably in Asia, where IATAhas been able to persuade governmentsto shorten some long-haul routes by“straightening” them in geographicterms. However, given the technologyoffered by satellite navigation, globalpositioning systems and the like, there isroom for much more improvement, par-ticularly on trans-oceanic and trans-polar routes. One highly inefficient pro-cedure, given the availability of technol-ogy, is that aircraft flying trans-oceanicservices cannot alter their assignedflight paths at any stage during the actu-al over-water sector, except in cases ofreal emergency. ■■

39

Philippe Rochatstresses that the airline industry is committed to building on past successes,noting that IATA member airlines improved their fuel efficiency by 5% in 2004and 2005 alone. GiovanniBisignani reinforced themessage recently, sayingthat the Association’s members can do much morein the coming years, provided they get the political support they need.

Review

The EUROCONTROL Karlsruhe Teamhas been at the sharp end of air trafficcontrol (ATC) for over 30 years, and‘systems’ is their key-word. They haveworked with those who plan systems,those who pay for systems, those whoproduce systems, and those who oper-ate and use systems. Jürgen Hein,Head of the EUROCONTROL SoftwareTeam in Karlsruhe, is "very pleased tobe celebrating the 30th anniversary". Heand his team are "proud to have driventhe development, maintenance and for-mulation of requirements to support theprovision of air traffic control services inone of the most important ATC centresin the core area of Europe”.

In 2006 the Karlsruhe Centre handledapproximately 1,400,000 movements,with a peak day of over 4,700 flightsand a peak hour of over 300 flights.

Original concept

In the late 1960s, civil aircraft move-ments increased to such an extent thatby 1970 traffic was approximately dou-ble the forecast made in 1965 (whenplans for the creation of MaastrichtUpper Area Control Centre (UAC) werebeing proposed). This traffic density,combined with airspace limitations anda complex route structure, specificallyin the upper airspace of the FederalRepublic of Germany, made it neces-sary to redefine the operational con-cept. In order to deal with the increasein traffic and to achieve an optimumdegree of safety, it was considerednecessary to integrate the civil and mil-itary air traffic control functions in theFederal Republic of Germany.Consequently, Belgium, Luxembourg,the Netherlands and the FederalRepublic of Germany decided that an

ATC centre needed to be built to con-trol the upper airspace in south-westGermany. Their intention wasdescribed in a “Declaration of Intent”which was officially approved by the EUROCONTROL PermanentCommission in 1970 – and so theKarlsruhe concept was born.

EUROCONTROL took advantage of thework that had already been done in thebuilding and setting-up of its first UACin Maastricht and used that Centre as ablueprint for Karlsruhe. In 1971, EURO-CONTROL staff were recruited, and thebuilding was inaugurated in 1972 . ATCoperations with Bundesanstalt fürFlugsicherung (BFS) controllers startedwith a Karlsruhe Automatic DataProcessing and Display System (KARL-DAP A). This system was used for theprovision of air traffic control in theupper airspace above 24,500 feet with-in a geographical area roughly corre-sponding to central and south-westGermany. KARLDAP 1 was modelledon the MADAP system used atMaastricht UAC and provided integrat-

ed radar data and flight plan process-ing. Since both systems used the samestandards, an automatic exchange offlight data could be ensured, with theaim of reducing telephone coordinationto a minimum.

However, just before the Centre wasdue to become operational, the basicpolitical framework changed, and in1976 the Permanent Commissionapproved the German request for theBFS to take over responsibility for theKarlsruhe UAC infrastructure by 1983.A special contract between the BFSand EUROCONTROL was agreed,under which software development andmaintenance for the KARLDAP systemwas to continue to be carried out by ateam of EUROCONTROL staff. TheSoftware Team Karlsruhe is now part ofthe EUROCONTROL Directorate of AirTraffic Management Strategies,Stakeholder Implementation Service.

In 1993, German ATC was “privatised”,and the air traffic control bodyDeutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS)

40

Review

EUROCONTROL's Software Teamcelebrates 30 years of operationalservice in Karlsruhe

”


became the national service provider.The Software Team continued to per-form ATC tasks in Karlsruhe until 1995when the agreement between EURO-CONTROL and DFS changed.Although the DFS took over responsibil-ity for the system, EUROCONTROL wasstill required to supply staff to maintainKARLDAP. After 1995, DFS staff andcontractors joined the team in order toreplace EUROCONTROL staff whowere retiring.

On 26 February 2007, the KarlsruheSoftware Team celebrated 30 years ofsuccessful software development andmaintenance for the KARLDAP system.It has been an impressive partnershipthat has worked well over the decades.The DFS has given notice of terminationof the contract, which comes to an endon 30.6.07. The contract has beenreplaced with a special agreement thatwill permit between five and eightEUROCONTROL staff members to stayin Karlsruhe. The KARLDAP system isscheduled to be replaced with a newsystem in late 2008 or early 2009. ■■

41

1977-200726.2.77 Karlsruhe UAC begins operations with the KARLDAP-A system (sep-

arated radar and flight plan processing). The system consists of IBMmainframes (360/158) and peripheral computers (Telefunken TR86).Radar data processing is performed by a hardware plot processor.

7.12.80 The KARLDAP-1 system (derived from the MADAP system in theMaastricht UAC) is introduced, with integrated radar and flight plan pro-cessing. The hardware plot processor is used as back-up. Interface withODS and radar data input is performed by a peripheral computer com-plex (TR86). AFTN communication and input of MET messages is per-formed by DCTS, a system based on mini-computers (Mitra15).

1983 One of the first activation message (ACT) exchanges is implementedbetween Maastricht and Karlsruhe UAC. Connections with ZKSDFrankfurt follow.

1985 The hardware replacement of the KARLDAP main computer complex(mainframes and peripherals) begins.

1988 Transition to a UNIX-based software development system. A hardwarereplacement study begins for the KARLDAP Peripheral ComputerComplex (KPCC) and Operational Display System (ODS) incorporatinglocal area networks and 2k x 2k raster displays.

1989 The communication system KIDS (based on personal computers)replaces DCTS. OLDI connections using the OLDI Short-Term ICD withZurich, Reims and Prague is implemented.

1993 The new KARLDAP PCC (Concurrent Computer) and ODS (Hughes)come into operation. KUAC is one of the first centres to be equipped withcolour raster-scan displays.

1994 The DFS decides on a common procurement with Maastricht to useCOPS-compliant displays. The KADS (Karlsruhe Advanced DisplaySystem) software contract is awarded to Siemens.

Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) is implemented

1995 The communication system is re-hosted (KDCS replaces KIDS).

1996 KADS is integrated into the KARLDAP system and the new operationsroom becomes operational.

1999 New mainframes and peripherals (s/390) come into operation.

2001 Traffic throughput increases via horizontal splitting of sectors (level-splitconcept).

2003 New message-logging system (AMLS) is implemented to replace ageingIBM printers.

2004 Basic Mode-S radar data processing is implemented. Migration of thebatch system from OS/390 to z/OS.

2005 KARLDAP is extended to include the Berlin upper airspace.

2006 Conspicuity Codes concept and Mode-S evaluation are implemented.

“For the last thirty years a EUROCONTROL Team

has been providing anexcellent service to theKarlsruhe ATC Centre,”said Víctor M. Aguado,

EUROCONTROL Director General.

“Continually adapting to the challenging aviation

environment and changinginformation technologyneeds, the Team has successfully met theCentre’s operational

and growing traffic requirements.

Datelines

This year's programme was entitled"The future of air traffic manage-ment" and focused on how theindustry should progress, how itshould be regulated and organised,and how its technology base shouldbe defined and developed in orderto meet the challenges of the next-generation ATM systems.

EUROCONTROL stand

In line with this, EUROCONTROL'sstand had a running theme dividedinto two parts: "Delivering today",which described the short- andmedium-term programmes it wascurrently working on, namely theDynamic Management of theEuropean Airspace Network(DMEAN); and "Shaping the future",which detailed its long-term goals,namely the Single European SkyATM Research Programme(SESAR).

DMEAN, which looks to meet thecapacity demand and flight efficiencyrequirements up to 2010, featured fivemain projects:

■ capacity network planning (unlock-ing capacity);

■ airspace design (increasing flexibili-ty and efficiency);

■ pre-tactical phase (meeting civil andmilitary requirements);

■ day of operations (meeting civil andmilitary requirements);

■ airports and network (collaborativedecision-making).

SESAR, which will combine opera-tional, technological and economicsolutions to allow the development ofair traffic up to and beyond 2020, dis-played three main projects:

■ SESAR;■ OATA;■ TMA 2010+.

EUROCONTROL experts from the rele-vant divisions were on hand to providevisitors with further information aboutthese projects and explain howEUROCONTROL's collaboration withthe aviation industry in general looks toaccommodate the vast growth expect-ed in the number of flights (16 millionby 2020) in a safe, efficient and sus-tainable manner with a minimum delay.

Conference

The Conference brought togetherimportant figures from all sections ofthe aviation market to see how the insti-tutional, political and technical ele-ments of the next-generation ATM sys-tem could be successfully merged.Once again it was designed to providedelegates with new opportunities toengage with industry leaders to betterunderstand the implications of devel-oping advanced technologies and thechallenges that remain. The speaker

42

Datelines

13-15 February was that time of year again when the long-awaited annual MaastrichtATC Exhibition and Conference took place. Attracting a record 4,300 attendees from 82 countries this year, Maastricht ATC has definitely become the premier event of theindustry, a must for the world's leading suppliers of ATC and ATM equipment and services, as well as the key specifiers and buyers in the market.

Maastricht ATCExhibition and Conference


line-up included representatives fromthe fastest-growing aviation areas ofthe world and key decision-makersfrom Europe and North America, withnew voices from State transport depart-ments, aviation environmental groupsand technology providers. The newinteractive panels to encourage debateand audience participation proved par-ticularly popular.

EUROCONTROL's Director General, MrVíctor Aguado, co-chaired the eventand opened the Conference with akeynote address touching on safety,capacity, costs, the technical and reg-ulatory front, FABs and the future.Other presentations on behalf of theAgency were given by Jean-RobertCazarré, Director Civil-Military ATMCoordination, on developing next-gen-eration ATM systems with specific ref-erence to civil-military interoperability;Joe Sultana, Head Airspace NetworkPlanning and Navigation, who usedEUROCONTROL's slogan 'Deliveringtoday and shaping the future' as abasis for his speech, during which hereferred to DMEAN and SESAR; and BoRedeborn, Director ATM Strategies,who focused on EUROCONTROL'sperspectives on the Single EuropeanSky and SESAR. Mr Redeborn alsochaired the session on 'The challengesof developing next-generation ATMsystems' and 'The solutions for devel-oping next-generation ATM Systems'.

EUROCONTROL winsaward

As the one of the biggest days in thecalendar for the air traffic control indus-try, and the annual meeting place forATC professionals worldwide, it was aprestigious moment for EURO-CONTROL's ATM Safety Project, whenit was awarded the prize for"Contribution to European ATM".

Between 2004 and 2006, EURO-CONTROL implemented and deliveredmore than 90% of its Strategic SafetyAction Plan. In 2006 it launched a new

programme called the European SafetyProgramme for ATM (ESP) with specificactions for navigation serviceproviders, regulators, airlines and air-ports. Over 16 countries have receivedEUROCONTROL support, including on-the-job training in safety managementunder the project 'Support to air navi-gation service providers on safety man-agement system implementation'(SASI).

The award was accepted by Dr ErikMerckx, Deputy Director ATMProgrammes, and Peter Stastny, Headof the Safety Regulation Unit, who gavea joint statement saying "We aredelighted with the recognition that thisaward brings to both the EURO-CONTROL Safety Project and the dedi-cated team of safety professionals whohave been providing tremendous sup-port to air navigation service providersand regulators. We have trained over500 safety experts in more than 20countries and are starting to see thebenefits in terms of increased levels ofsafety maturity across Europe. Theconsiderable results achieved throughthe Project represent a significant stepforward for EUROCONTROL in advanc-ing European aviation safety, and wereonly possible through the concertedeffort of everyone involved."

Over the last six years at MaastrichtATC, Jane's Awards have beenrecognising excellence within theair traffic management industryand raising awareness ofsignificant contributionsto air traffic safety,capacity and efficien-cy. This year theypresented a total ofsix awards. ■■

43

"It is clear that ADS-B will be a hot subject in thecoming year and will continue to be one of our keypriorities", said Alex Wandels, CASCADE ProgrammeManager at EUROCONTROL. This was very much thefeeling on 15 February, the last day of the event. TheExternal and Public Relations Unit and CASCADEProgramme organised an ADS-B Workshop, whichexceeded all expectations by attracting more than120 attendees. Several presentations were made ona range of topics, including "The path to CASCADEimplementation", "An international solution for theFAA's ADS-B Programme", "First ADS-B ground sta-tions and planned developments", "The ADS-B mar-ket in Europe", and "Breaking into the professionalADS-B ground station market". There was also plen-ty of opportunity for interaction through the questionsand answers sessions. ■

EUROCONTROL organises

ADS-B Workshop

Dr Erik Merckx,Deputy Director ATM

Programmes, EUROCONTROL (left),

and Peter Stastny, Head of the Safety

Regulation Unit,EUROCONTROL

(right)

44

On 6 March the EUROCONTROL Agency heldjointly with the European Commission aWorkshop on Functional Airspace Blocks(FABs). The workshop attracted approximately200 participants from 35 different EuropeanStates and the USA, representing some 20international organisations and companies.

The workshop shed light on the whole spec-trum of ongoing FAB initiatives, their complexi-ty levels and the applied methodologies. It cov-ered not only the status of the most relevantFAB initiatives in Europe but also EUROCON-TROL and European Commission’s ideas ofpan-European harmonisation of FAB activities.

“It is clear that the implementation of function-al airspace blocks is more than just an air-space issue. Their implementation must alsoaddress security, social, legal, economic andtechnical aspects" Mr Alex Hendriks, EURO-CONTROL Deputy Director ATM Strategiesand Chairman of the FAB Workshop, stated inhis closing remarks.

“FAB s are the motor for defragmentation and,while reflecting the air traffic demands, FABs

must provide economi-cal and operationalbenefits,” reinforced MrChris North, represen-tative of the EuropeanCommission at theFAB Workshop. ■■

Fraport traffic figures – February 2007

Frankfurt airportbegins the spring withnew record figures

NATS pioneers biggest ATC advance since radar

3.8% more passengers

and 4.4% more airfreight

in February13 March 2007 – In the reporting month of February2007, Frankfurt Airport (FRA) again achieved new recordtraffic figures. Airfreight tonnage reached its highest levelever, and FRA also registered new February records foraircraft movements and maximum takeoff weights, whichare important for calculating airport charges. (source: FRAPORT press release)

7 March 2007 – A set of computer-based predictivetools developed by NATS will trigger the biggest change inair traffic control since the introduction of radar.

iFACTS – Interim Future Area Control Tools Support – willfurther improve safety and provide controllers with a set ofadvanced support tools, which will enable them toincrease the amount of traffic they can comfortably handle.In trials, the system has delivered significant capacityincreases.(…) (Source: NATS news release)

DatelinesDatelines

mor

e an

dm

ore

FUA Workshop6 March 2007


7 March 2007 - The FAA willhire and train more than 15,000controllers over the next decadeunder a comprehensive plan thatmatches staffing to air traffic.

The updated controller staffing plan, releasedtoday, takes into account anticipated retire-ments and changes in traffic. It ensures thatthere are the “the right number of people inthe right facilities at the right time,” said FAAAdministrator Marion Blakey.

The “good news” in the report, according toBlakey, is that the FAA hired 1,116 new con-trollers in fiscal 2006, increasing the totalnumber of controllers employed to 14,618.

Even more – nearly 1,400 new controllers –will be hired this fiscal year. (…) (Source: FAA press release)

On 20 December 2006, ROMATSA successfully completedISO 9001:2000 Certification for all its activities. The QualityManagement System Certificate was handed over by Bureau VeritasCertifications to the ROMATSA General Manager.

The prime objective of the certification was to implement and certify aquality management system based on EN ISO 9001:2000 family standards by the end of 2006, in accordance with the EuropeanCommission Regulation nr.2096/2005.

Industry NewsIndustry News

Staffing plan meetschallenge of changes in traffic and retirements

FAA Air TrafficOrganisation

ISO 9001:2000 certifiedRomatsaISO 9001:2000 certified

© Ir

ish

Avia

tion

Auth

ority

DatelinesOn 22 March, the Director General welcomed Mr Alessandro Bianchi, Minister of Transport ofItaly (left). The Minister was briefed on the EUROCONTROLAgency’s role in air traffic management, Functional AirspaceBlocks and the SESAR Programme.

On the same day, the DirectorGeneral received Mr Peter VassilevMutafchiev, Minister ofTransport of Bulgaria. TheMinister was given an overview ofEUROCONTROL, the Agency’s relationswith the European Community and itsrole in the Functional Airspace Blocks.

On 28 February, various EUROCONTROL's officials attendedthe Prime Minister of Turkey's visit of the SeniorAudit Board. Representatives from Turkey included Mr HakanAydin, Mr Sami Iskender, Mr Isik Eyugbglu, Mr Karpuzcu and MrsBerrin Berke. The visit was spread over two days, the first ofwhich took place at EUROCONTROL's Headquarters. Following acourtesy meeting with the Director General and an overview ofthe Agency, the visitors were informed about the role of theCentral Route Charges Office. Information was also provided onthe financing of the Agency and the Audit Board's mission andactivities, as well as the Internal Audit. The day finished with a tourof the CFMU operations room. On 1 March the group visited theMaastricht operations room.

46

EUROCONTROL Director ATM Programmes, MrGuido Kerkhofs, addressed delegates at theEnvironment in ATM Consultation Workshop held atthe Organisation’s Headquarters, Brussels on 18January.

Representing over 30 different organisations coveringall sectors of the European ATM system, delegatesdiscussed the EUROCONTROL Environment DomainAction Plan, covering the Agency's action on ATMenvironmental issues for the coming three years. MrKerkhofs concluded the meeting with the followingobservation: "Environmental challenges to ATM arealready here and are growing rapidly. Doing nothing isnot an option. The stakeholders recognise this; theyhave asked us to set up more permanent workingarrangements so that we can steer this importantprogramme of work in partnership together". ■■

Environment in ATMConsultationWorkshop 18 January 2007

Datelines

Visits &Agreements


Visits & Agreements

16-20 April 200746th Annual Conference of International Air Traffic Controllers AssociationsIstanbul, Turkey

19-22 April 2007"AERO 2007" 16th International Trade Exhibition Friedrichschafen, Germany

19-20 September 2007CFMU User ForumEUROCONTROL Brussels’ Headquarters, Belgium

26-28 October 2007IFATCA European Regional MeetingPrague, Czech Republic

28-31 October 200752nd Annual Conference and ExpositionMarriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington DC

On 23 January EUROCONTROL officials welcomed a delegation from the Civil Aviation Universityof China. The programme of the visit included a generaloverview of EUROCONTROL, presentations on European airtraffic management and European airspace, as well as a tourof the CFMU operations room.

The Director General met Mr Binali Yildirim (Turkey'sMinister for Transport and Communications), MrAli Ariduru (Director General Civil Aviation), and his Deputy,Mr Haydar Yalçin in Ankara on 10 January to discuss mat-ters of common interest, in particular the ratification of therevised Convention and bilateral cooperation with and supportfor EUROCONTROL in technical, operational and organisa-tional fields.

Nex

t eve

nts

EUROCONTROL website:www.eurocontrol.int

The Summer 2007 issue of Skyway will focus on

ATM performance

4 May 20074 May 2007Brussels Headquarters

Registration closing date:25 April 200725 April 2007

VLJ WorkshopVLJ Workshop

© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)April 2003

This document is published by EUROCONTROL in the interests of exchange of information.It may be copied in whole or in part, providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included.The information contained in this document may not be modifiedwithout prior written permission from EUROCONTROL.

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.

For more information,contact EUROCONTROL External and Public Relations,General Secretariat Directorate96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, BelgiumTelephone: +32 2 729 90 11Fax: +32 2 729 91 98

© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) March 2007

This document is published by EUROCONTROL in the interests of exchanging information.It may be copied in whole 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 from EUROCONTROL.

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

For more information, contact EUROCONTROL External and Public Relations,General Secretariat Directorate96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, BelgiumTelephone: +32 2 729 34 20Fax: +32 2 729 91 98e-mail: [email protected]

Aviation and the environment · 30 years of operational service in Karlsruhe Datelines 42...

Documents

Transcript of Aviation and the environment · 30 years of operational service in Karlsruhe Datelines 42...