8th FORUM-AE meeting Green flight and operations Workshop 19th & 20th January 2016 in Bruxelles,

Belgium

SATISFIED Project(SAT Improved uSe of Flight corrIdor for Emissions reDuction )( p g )

Alberto BlanchSENASA

SATISFIED Project(SAT  Improved use of flight corridor for emissions reduction)

Th i f th SATISFIED j t t th f ibilit f

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the SATISFIED project was to assess the feasibility ofimplementing flexible optimized oceanic routes through flightdemonstrations.

Key issues for the project are the following ones:1. Allow for a minimum of 50 flight trials in the EUR‐SAM corridor. o o a u o 50 g t t a s t e U S co do2. Identify routes which allow flying optimized route segments and delivering

reduction in emissions3. Identify the coordination actions required between the SAT’s Oceanic centres.4. Assess the economical, environmental and operational benefits of using flexible

routes.5. Demonstrate that forecasted benefits can be obtained without increasing the

workload on Controllers or Crewworkload on Controllers or Crew.6. Publish the results and stimulate through dissemination and communication the

application/extension of flexible routes through all the EUR‐SAM Corridor.

3

SCOPE: THE INVOLVED OCEANIC CENTRES

CANARIAS OCCSAL OCCDAKAR OCCATLANTICO OCC

4

SCOPE: THE AIRWAYS’ NETWORK v.s. FREE ROUTING

5

AENA ACTIVITIES (CANARIAS ACC)

Key coordination role in all the Operational activities Key coordination role in all the Operational activities

• Strategic activities:

o Reception of Updated Flight Intentions from AOC’s Head of OPS.

o Distribution to rest of OCCs, keeping the line open for possible rejections

• Tactical survey of SATISFIED flights.

E t d/C di t d th h O S i d H d f Oo Executed/Coordinated through Ops Supervisor and Head of Ops room

Global survey of the process, executed from the SATMA office (Canarias ACC)

• Full collaboration from the rest of OCCs

o No flight change rejections from other OCC

• No Safety issues

6

AIRLINE ACTIVITIES

• Provision of flights:

I t ti t l fli ht t S th A io Intercontinental flights to South America (EZE, GRU, SSA)

o Provision of Crews

o Provision of Flight Dispatcherso Provision of Flight Dispatchers

o FANS 1/A equipped fleet (A346 & A333)

• Internal coordination of the Static and Dynamic optimisation proceduresoptimisation procedures

• Provision of FDR and Flight Plan Data

7

RESULTS OF THE FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION CAMPAIGN

Iberia AirEuropaNOT Optimised 44 85

Dynamically Optimised 5 7

Operational Concept Approved by all stakeholders and

Statically Optimised 20 4

Total 69 96

Total planned flights 165

pp ydistributed through a Technical Note

p g

Total optimised flights 36

8

OPERATIONAL CONCEPTBased on two main processes:p

o Static Optimisation of the Flight Plan-20 (FP1);

o Dynamic Optimisation of the Flight Plan (FP2) + free route.

Flight Plan production with:Vertical

Updated cargo and passenger weight Updated Fuel weightUpdated Weather

Forecast

Horizontal

9

DESTINATIONS AND FLIGHT CALENDARDESTINATIONS

Flight Day Airline a/c Type Max. Nº of flights

EZE Tuesday Iberia A340-300/600 1x Day Wednesday

SBSV Th d Ai E A330 300 1 D

CALENDARStart: May 2013 March 2014

SBSV Thursday Air Europa A330-300 1 x Day

Start: May 2013 March 2014Min. of 50 Flights

10

RESULTS OF THE FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION CAMPAIGN

Iberia AirEuropaNOT Optimised 44 85

Dynamically Optimised 5 7

Operational Concept Approved by all stakeholders and

Statically Optimised 20 4

Total 69 96

Total planned flights 165

pp ydistributed through a Technical Note

p g

Total optimised flights 36

10/07/2014 11

RESULTS (continued): Iberia

12

RESULTS (continued): Flight examples

13

DEVIATIONS: MAINLY1. Flights would not cross the study area2. Flights could not be improved with current airspace structure3. Flight FDR is not always available (accepted).

14

ANALYSIS (2/2): Flight Performance SATISFIED vs. baseline

Baseline - Average values based on 45 flights (2012) EUR-SAM

Parameter Average Standard DeviationFuel Burn (ton) 43,03 2,03

Flown Distance (MNM) 2,25 0,04Flight time (h) 4,78 0,16

Baseline Average values based on 45 flights (2012) EUR SAM

Parameter Average Standard Deviation

g ( ) , ,

SATISFIED - Average values for flights outside the EUR-SAM corridor (8).

Parameter Average Standard DeviationFuel Burn (ton) 42,37 1,91

Flown Distance (MNM) 2,19 0,06Flight time (h) 4,61 0,18

Parameter Average Standard DeviationFuel Burn (ton) 42,30 1,60

Flown Distance (MNM) 2,28 0,07

SATISFIED - average values for flights inside the EUR-SAM corridor (28)

( ) , ,Flight time (h) 4,71 0,17

Average reduction in 500kg reduction in fuel burn of which corresponds to a 1.2% reduction in fuel burn.

15

ANALYSIS (1/2): Flight Performance AirEuropa

That the FP1 is in any case overestimating the fuel burn, but maintaining this overestimation on average constant (approx. 3 tonnes).

Average reduction of 600kg in fuel burn of whichcorresponds to a 2,5% reduction in fuel burn.

16

Extrapolation to scenarios

• Received one representative week of traffic from EUROCONTROL

• Extrapolated following Airbus and Boeing’s forecastsExtrapolated following Airbus and Boeing s forecasts

• Modeled 9 fixed scenarios (2013, 2020, 2030 at 30, 50 and 80%)

• Modeled a Progressive Implementation scenariog p

60000EUR‐SAM annual flights

40000

50000Total Flights

80%

20000

30000

Flights

50%

30%

0

10000 Progressive implementation

17

• Modeled 6 new aircraft types with improved fuel consumption

Assignment of fleet

• Modeled 6 new aircraft types with improved fuel consumption.• Substituted the old fleet based on Airbus’ forecasts.

Aircraft Type 2013 2020 2030A310 1A319 1A332 97 73 9A342 2A343 49 500

600Fleet evolution

2020‐2030 FleetA346 26 26 26B744 19 10B762 5B763 3 3B772 22 22 22 300

400

ly flights

2014‐2020 Fleet

2013 Fleet

B77L 5 5 5B77W 14 14 14MD11 4PRVT 5 5 5

2020 A35X 132 132 100

200Week

2020 B78X 54 542020 PRVT 7 72030 A35X 1972030 B78X 802030 PRVT 10

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

18

Total flights 253 351 561

• Random selection for the different scenarios

Selection of SATISFIED flights

• Random selection for the different scenarios

Distribution of SATISFIED flights in the different scenarios

500

600

300

400

ekly flights

Satisfied

100

200

Wee

Standard

02013 2020 2030 2013 2020 2030 2013 2020 2030 2013 2020 2030

30% 50% 80% ProgressiveImplementation

19

Implementation

• Using EUROCONTROL’s BADA for fuel consumption and CO2

Calculation of emissions’ coefficients

• Using EUROCONTROL s BADA for fuel consumption and CO2• Using EMEP/EEA for rest of contaminants• Calculated emissions for a standard (STD) and a SATISFIED (SAT) distance for the corridor for each aircraft typedistance for the corridor for each aircraft type

Aircraft type 

STD Fuel (kg) 

SAT Fuel (kg) 

NOx (kg) STD 

NOx (kg) SAT 

HC (g) STD 

HC (g) SAT 

CO (g) STD 

CO (g) SAT 

PM (g) STD 

PM (g) SAT 

A310  20,493.4  20,123.3  244.3  239.6  2,650.4  2,603.8  11,523.4 11,335.1 4,098.7 4,024.7 A319 9 079 1 8 915 2 143 1 140 8 1 947 1 1 912 7 8 755 2 8 628 8 1 815 8 1 783 0A319  9,079.1  8,915.2  143.1  140.8  1,947.1  1,912.7  8,755.2 8,628.8 1,815.8 1,783.0 A332  25,589.5  25,127.4  343.4  337.4  25,546.8  25,080.8  36,926.4 36,325.0 5,117.9 5,025.5 A342  28,073.0  27,566.0  415.7  408.1  31,483.3  31,233.6  38,790.2 38,386.6 5,614.6 5,513.2 A343  32,615.6  32,026.6  415.7  408.1  31,483.3  31,233.6  38,790.2 38,386.6 6,523.1 6,405.3 A346  38,618.0  37,920.7  415.7  408.1  31,483.3  31,233.6  38,790.2 38,386.6 7,723.6 7,584.1 B744  41,795.7  41,041.0  555.0  544.5  13,738.3  13,608.3  49,044.4 48,473.5 8,359.1 8,208.2 B762  16,941.4  16,635.4  268.3  263.2  10,649.4  10,447.2  24,736.6 24,346.0 3,388.3 3,327.1 B763  25,611.8  25,149.3  268.3  263.2  10,649.4  10,447.2  24,736.6 24,346.0 5,122.4 5,029.9 B772  32,632.1  32,042.8  455.7  447.6  36,886.2  36,664.9  45,449.1 44,961.7 6,526.4 6,408.6 B77L  32,209.7  31,628.0  455.7  447.6  36,886.2  36,664.9  45,449.1 44,961.7 6,441.9 6,325.6 B77W  33,917.2  33,304.8  455.7  447.6  36,886.2  36,664.9  45,449.1 44,961.7 6,783.4 6,661.0 MD11 32 447 4 31 861 5 587 3 575 9 34 612 7 34 309 5 40 933 3 40 448 5 6 489 5 6 372 3MD11  32,447.4  31,861.5  587.3  575.9  34,612.7  34,309.5  40,933.3 40,448.5 6,489.5 6,372.3 PRVT  3,613.8  3,548.5  47.7  46.9  649.0  637.6  2,918.4 2,876.3 722.8 709.7 

2020 A35X  36,725.4  36,062.2  415.7  408.1  31,483.3  31,233.6  38,790.2 38,386.6 7,345.1 7,212.4 2020 B78X  32,254.9  31,672.5  455.7  447.6  36,886.2  36,664.9  45,449.1 44,961.7 6,451.0 6,334.5 2020 PRVT  3,436.6  3,374.6  47.7  46.9  649.0  637.6  2,918.4 2,876.3 687.3 674.9 2030 A35X 34,230.4 33,612.3 415.7 408.1 31,483.3 31,233.6 38,790.2 38,386.6 6,846.1 6,722.5

20

2030 A35X  34,230.4  33,612.3  415.7  408.1  31,483.3  31,233.6  38,790.2 38,386.6 6,846.1 6,722.5 2030 B78X  30,063.7  29,520.8  455.7  447.6  36,886.2  36,664.9  45,449.1 44,961.7 6,012.7 5,904.2 2030 PRVT  3,203.2  3,145.3  47.7  46.9  649.0  637.6  2,918.4 2,876.3 640.6 629.1 

Results of emissions for fixed scenarios

90 000,0   

100 000,0   

Fuel and CO2 savings

20 0

25,0   CO, HC and PM savings

CO saved (t)

50 000,0   

60 000,0   

70 000,0   

80 000,0   

/year

Annual fuel saved (t)

CO2 saved (t)

10 0

15,0   

20,0   

t/year

HC saved (t)

PM saved (t)

10 000,0   

20 000,0   

30 000,0   

40 000,0   

t/

5,0   

10,0   

‐30% SAT

50% SAT

80% SAT

30% SAT

50% SAT

80% SAT

30% SAT

50% SAT

80% SAT

2013 2020 2030Scenario

‐30% SAT

50% SAT

80% SAT

30% SAT

50% SAT

80% SAT

30% SAT

50% SAT

80% SAT

2013 2020 2030ScenarioScenario

21

Results of emissions for progressive implementation scenario

• Progressive implementation provides better long term impact results.• While non-CO2 emissions represent less than 1%, its climate change impact is thought to account for 50% of total climate change impact.

Emissions savings

CO2 savings (t)

2 388 8CO2 saved (t)

700008000090000

100000

CO2 savings (t)

601 768,0   

2 388,8    NOx saved (t)

CO saved (t)

HC saved (t)

PM saved (t)2000030000400005000060000

601,768.03 t139,0   79,9   

38,2   0

1000020000

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

22

Results of associated costs for progressive implementation scenario

• Assuming 750€/t of jet fuel.• Assuming 20€/t of CO2 emitted (about 8% of total costs)

Progressive implementation scenario economic savings

25

Progressive implementation scenario economic savings

Fuel savings

15

20CO2 savings

10

M €

5 Total savings: 155,31 M€

23

02014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

ConclusionsCONCLUSIONS1. OPERATIONAL:

Conclusions

• The restrictions imposed by neighbouring fixed ATS route network environment, have not given theflexibility required for the flight planning systems to deliver the sought improvement.

• Existing flight planning systems are not ready to optimize only part of the total trajectory, since theobjective is the optimisation of the whole origin/destination route.

• High degree of coordination was established between 4 OCCs

2. FLIGHT PERFORMANCE:• The environmental operational assessment performed has shown possible reductions in fuel burn and

emissions of around 2-3% depending on the airline flyingemissions of around 2-3% depending on the airline flying.

• The reduction is only indication of a trend due to the small number of flights actually optimised by theprocedure.

• The reduction is most likely due to improvement of the flight plan with the updated aircraft load-sheet.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (progressive implementation scenario):• That the application of the SATISFIED process can save the equivalent of 1.8% in distance for each flight.

• That about 1.85 tonnes of CO2 could be saved on a per-flight basis with the introduction of theSATISFIED process.p

• That the progressive implementation of the SATISFIED process would save airlines 155 million Eurosduring the next fifteen years. Based on a forecast of 325,459 SATISFIED flights during the next 15 years,the economic savings are translated to 477€ saved per flight.

24

FUTURE STEPS & RECCOMENDATIONS• HOMOGENEITY of Fleet Capability

o The first prerequisite: to have all the aircraft crossing the EUR-SAM corridor, between certain flight levels, conveniently equipped with ADS-C and CPDLC (FANS1A).

• UPGRADE of ATM SYSTEM

The EUR/SAM corridor must develop a transition/modernization plan which allows adequately equippedo The EUR/SAM corridor must develop a transition/modernization plan which allows adequately equipped aircraft (e. g: FANS1/A) to take advantage of their systems by allowing reduced separation, while maintaining as far as possible compatibility with the rest of the traffic operations crossing the EUR/SAM corridor (“worse equipped aircraft”). Canarias ACC is working for reducing the separation to 50 NM and to allow free-route between certain levels in both cases for FANS1A equipped flights, what could be further extended to the rest of the corridor when agreed.

• ENCOURAGE procedure at airline level

o Encourage operators to take the necessary steps to obtain the approval of suitably equipped aircrafts in their fleets which would be aligned with the above mentioned modernisation plan and international requirements. q

o Once implemented, the AOC could plan strategically, rather than tactically, the flight plan in accordance with the new operational circumstances. Likewise, higher automation in the flight planning systems may significantly decrease the AOC workload and the coordination.

• ENVIRONMENTAL COSTSENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

o Given the proposed costs, 8% of the savings would be in the future due to environmental Market Based Measures (MBM) for CO2 emissions. Further savings thus can be expected if other pollutants such as NOx (critical in the cruise level) are included in the MBM programme.

o A further validation campaign could be envisaged based on the legacy left by SATISFIED when all the

10/07/2014 25

o A further validation campaign could be envisaged, based on the legacy left by SATISFIED, when all the issues/requirements that have come afloat from the SATISFIED project are solved.

Q & A

Thank you

10/07/2014 26

EJEMPLO DE OPERATIVA

FP1 FP2AOC ANSP

FP1 FP2

FP2FP1

FP2

NO

SI

ANSP  GCCC GVSV GOOY SBAO

SI/NOSI SI SI SI

C diCoordina 

FASES 1 2 3 4

AOC í FP1 FP2AOC envía FP1  FP2 ‐ ‐

ANSPs Recibe FP1 Recibe FP2 ‐ SI/NO

Tripulación FP1 estandard Recibe FP2  Pide autorización Sigue el FP 

10/07/2014 27

Tripulación optimizado autorizado