Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NOTES OF
Workshop to support EU member countries in the calculation of
aviation emissions under UNFCCC and CLRTAP reporting
based on EUROCONTROL data
November 11, 2015
The meeting was held at EUROCONTROL HQ premises and also via WebEx
simultaneously.
These notes try to reflect what has been said and decided upon during the workshop as a
complement to the rest of the documentation published on the EIONET Forum. Some comments and
footnotes have been added to facilitate the comprehension of and/or to complete what has been
said during the workshop.
EUROCONTROL express its apologies for the WebEx technical problems that occurred during the
meeting that prevented the participation of some of the representatives of the EEA member
countries who were connected via WebEx.
Table of Contents
Participants list ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1. Welcome: background information on the workshop and its objectives ...................................... 4
1.1. EUROCONTROL Welcome ....................................................................................................... 4
1.2. EEA Welcome .......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Presentation of the EUROCONTROL method to calculate aviation fuel consumption and
emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, including revisions compared to last year ............. 5
3. Comparison of EUROCONTROL estimates with UNFCCC/LRTAP estimates (EEA’s ETC/ACM) ....... 7
3.1. The EEA member countries method versus EUROCONTROL method .................................... 7
3.2. Fuel sold versus EUROCONTROL fuel burnt calculation ......................................................... 8
3.3. Methane (CH4) and unburnt hydrocarbon (HC) ...................................................................... 8
3.4. NOX .......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5. N2O .......................................................................................................................................... 9
4. Emission Web Portal ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.1. Reports in excel ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.2. Country-specific access ......................................................................................................... 10
5. Other questions by the EEA’s member countries ......................................................................... 10
5.1. VFR ........................................................................................................................................ 10
5.2. Domestic flights .................................................................................................................... 10
5.3. Emissions factors, PAH and PM ............................................................................................ 11
5.4. Military flights ....................................................................................................................... 11
5.5. LTO ........................................................................................................................................ 11
5.6. Association aircraft type/engine type ................................................................................... 12
5.7. Aircraft tail number versus aircraft type ............................................................................... 13
5.8. Remarks, request, proposals from EEA’s member countries ............................................... 15
5.9. AOB ....................................................................................................................................... 15
6. List of Actions ................................................................................................................................ 15
Participants list
EEA (1) and ETC/ACM (2)
Name Position WebEx/HQ
Contact: [email protected]
Carina ZELL-ZIEGLER ETC/ACM, Research Assistant HQ
Sabine GORES ETC/ACM, Senior Researcher HQ
Spyridoula NTEMIRI EEA, Project officer - Climate change mitigation HQ
EEA Member Countries Name State
(alphabetical order) WebEx/HQ Email address
Sabine SCHINDBACHER AUSTRIA WebEx [email protected]
Caroline DE BOSSCHER BELGIUM HQ [email protected]
Xavier FRIPIAT BELGIUM HQ [email protected]
Madlena OŽANIĆ CROATIA WebEx [email protected]
Andre TAMMIK ESTONIA WebEx
Kari GRÖNFORS FINLAND WebEx [email protected]
Michael KOTZULLA GERMANY WebEx [email protected]
Vanda Úlfrún Liv HELLSING
ICELAND HQ [email protected]
Emilia HANLEY IRELAND WebEx [email protected]
1 European Environment Agency 2 European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation
EUROCONTROL Directorate Pan European Single Sky
Support to SES-related Policies (DPS/POL Name Position WebEx/HQ
Contact: [email protected]
Andrew WATT Head of Unit DPS/POL HQ, welcome session
Mark WHITELEY Senior Expert Aviation Environment HQ
Nuria TORRES MEANA Assistant HQ
Robin DERANSY Senior Expert Aviation Environment WebEx
Stefano MANCINI Aviation Environment Performance Manager HQ
Jurgen TOCK Data Specialist HQ
EEA Member Countries Name State
(alphabetical order) WebEx/HQ Email address
Daniela ROMANO ITALY WebEx [email protected]
Kristina DARMANIN MALTA HQ [email protected]
Theo RINDLISBACHER SWITZERLAND WebEx [email protected]
1. Welcome: background information on the workshop and its objectives
1.1. EUROCONTROL Welcome
EUROCONTROL welcomed and thanked the EEA, the ETC/ACM and the EEA member country representatives, as well as DG Clima, the sponsor of the EU inventories.
EUROCONTROL explained its privileged position as an international organisation working on the safety of air navigation, being able to collect and provide aeronautical information that can be used to calculate aviation traffic and emissions.
EUROCONTROL mentioned that, in addition to the activities related to this workshop, the EUROCONTROL environment team has also been involved in other activities co-operating with and supporting European institutions.
EUROCONTROL has also been involved with the EEA, EASA, and the EC in the production of the 1St edition of the European Air Transport Environmental Performance Report (ATER). A document which will be published early next year.
Another of the activities is performing studies forecasting aviation emissions in the short-term (some months), the mid-term (7 years ahead), and the long-term (up to 2035-2050). EUROCONTROL experts on environment and traffic forecasting, working with EASA, have developed a new capability to convert a traffic forecast into a fleet forecast. The fleet forecast for 2035 traffic is known already. Fleet forecast data can be processed by EUROCONTROL through IMPACT (3)) to produce an estimation of the fuel burnt and emissions. EUROCONTROL will be publishing information about this capability in the Air Transport Environmental Report next year.
Moreover, with the agreement of DG CLIMA and the EEA, EUROCONTROL confirmed its decision of financing the expansion of the capabilities of calculating the fuel burn and emissions inventory to include the 44 European Member States of ECAC (the European Civil Aviation Conference). Within ICAO (the International Civil Aviation Organisation), ECAC states are obliged to deliver every 3 years the national action plans on CO2 emissions reductions for an aviation perspective. Within Europe, in a task force lead by the ECAC and the EU, it was agreed that it will be common material developed which will form the core of what each individual state would submit to ICAO; which have to be done by the end of this year. On that core content, there is a section on fuel burnt and emissions. EUROCONTROL has recently calculated the fuel burnt and emissions for the 44 ECAC states, for all the years from 2005 to 2014, and consequently further back in time than the baseline year of 2010. A EUROCONTROL project to forecast the emissions due to aviation in 2035 for all the ECAC states is also in progress. As San Marino will join EUROCONTROL soon, of the 44 ECAC states, 42 will be EUROCONTROL member states and so only 2 ECAC states (Azerbaijan and Liechtenstein) will not be a member of EUROCONTROL in the near future.
3 http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/impact
EUROCONTROL emphasized its pleasure on reaching this stage of its collaboration with the EEA on supporting the EEA and the EEA’s member countries, following a documented method, re-engineering the calculations back to 2005, knowing that the information provided is of helping the EEA member countries sort out their own emissions inventories for the CLRTAP and the UNFCCC.
1.2. EEA Welcome
The EEA welcomed and thanked EUROCONTROL, the ETC/ACM, and the representatives of the EEA member countries.
The EEA mentioned the list of the reports and documents, already published on the EIONET forum, that were delivered by EUROCONTROL between June and October 2015. Compared to previous years, this year the data from every EEA member country (4) have been included in the inventory reports and the description of the method has been put into a single document. Although these deliverables were sent after the due date, the EEA hopes that the EEA member countries will have the time to analyse them - helped by the studies delivered by the ETC/ACM, uploaded on the EIONET forum as well - and could share their findings, comments, and ideas with the EEA and EUROCONTROL.
The EEA highlighted that the main objectives of this workshop were to shed light on the EUROCONTROL deliverables, to identify the differences between the information in the EUROCONTROL deliverables and that in the EEA member countries’ reports and methods, and to analyse these differences and try to find possible ways of improvement.
2. Presentation of the EUROCONTROL method to calculate aviation fuel
consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, including
revisions compared to last year
EUROCONTROL made a technical presentation explaining the method used to calculate the amounts of aviation fuel burnt and greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants emitted (5).
One of the sources of inaccuracy in the EUROCONTROL method, apart from those mentioned in “D3.2 - European Aviation Fuel Burn and Emissions System for the EEA - 2015.02 (from 23.9.2015)”, can be in the LTO 6results for those airports where the annual number of movements (either arrivals or departures or both) is around 100. If the annual number of movements is less than 100 then the default ICAO taxi-out and/or taxi-in times are used, (slide 13 of the presentation (5)) whereas the CODA (7) taxi-out and/or taxi-in times are used if the annual number of movements is 100 or more. Consequently, for some airports, one year the ICAO taxi times are used and the next year the CODA taxi times are used. The results of this switching back and forth between ICAO and CODA taxi-times
4 EU28 + Norway, Iceland, Turkey and Switzerland. Lichtenstein has no flights flying under civil instrument flight rules (IFR) recorded. 5 See slides “ECTL-EEA- European Emissions Inventory System” 6 Landing and take-off, the following phases of a flight:
• Taxi out (from the aerodrome gate to the aerodrome runway).
• Take off.
• Climb out (up to a height of 3000 ft.).
• Final approach (from a height of 3000 ft.).
• Landing.
• Taxi in (from the aerodrome runway to the aerodrome gate). 7 EUROCONTROL’s Central Office of Delay Analysis
can be seen in big differences in the fuel burnt and emissions generated in the LTO phase from one year to another for the smaller airports.
EUROCONTROL invited the EEA and its member countries to send their comments or questions about the EUROCONTROL method and deliverables to the EUROCONTROL Fuel and Emissions Inventory team ([email protected]) with the EEA Inventories team ([email protected]) on copy.
ACTION 1: EUROCONTROL, following several discrepancies between some results shared by some of the EEA member countries and those delivered by EUROCONTROL, to improve the method:
1. Get better aircraft / engine matches to increase the accuracy of the LTO data (and even the climb-cruise-descent data);
2. Continue to use average annual taxi-in and taxi-out times for airports with less than 100 arrivals/departures per year so as to avoid using the default ICAO taxi-out and taxi-in times as much as possible;
3. , Find an agreed and more accurate method of calculating certain species such as:
a. NOx [for AEM Version 2.5.3 onwards], CO2, H2O and SOx, see Slide 20 (5);
b. PM (8)),
c. methane (CH4), total unburnt hydrocarbon (HC), NOX, and N2O
4. Get better sources for the emissions factors;
5. Make more regular updates of the system data (such as on a monthly basis).
ACTION 2: EUROCONTROL to make available the following files:
1. To be uploaded on to the EIONET:
1.1. the file with the annual CODA taxi times (Taxi-times 2005-2014.xlsx);
1.2. the AEM system constants file (AEM.CONSTANT_PARAMS.txt);
1.3. the AEM VOC-TOG constants file (AEM.VOCTOG_CONSTANTS.txt);
1.4. the AEM ICAO standard atmosphere data file (AEM.STANDARD_ATMOS.txt).
2. Available upon request by e-mail to : [email protected]:
2.1. the LTO calculation, without piston or turboprop engine aircraft data;
2.2. the AEM {type of aircraft + type of engine} combination data file
(ACT_PRF.aircraft_engine.txt);
2.3. the AEM engine emissions data file, without piston or turboprop engine aircraft data
(ACT_PRF.ENGINE_LTO_VALUES.txt);
2.4. the AEM airport time-in-mode data file (APT.airport_time_in_mode.txt);
8 Particulate matter
3. Comparison of EUROCONTROL estimates with UNFCCC/LRTAP estimates
(EEA’s ETC/ACM)
Sabine GORES and Carina ZELL-ZIEGLER, representing the ETC/ACM, presented their comparison of
EUROCONTROL estimates with their UNFCCC/CLRTAP estimates; see the slides.
EUROCONTROL commented that in general, the aggregated amount of fuel burnt and the number of
flight movements were very often similar, providing evidence of some common bases for
calculations. However, some points still needed to be analysed.
ACTION 3: EUROCONTROL to analyse the differences between EUROCONTROL estimates and the UNFCCC/CLRTAP estimates (ETC/ACM) over the years that these comparisons have been done;
3.1. The EEA member countries method versus EUROCONTROL method
EUROCONTROL commented that to analyse these differences, the methods used by the countries to
obtain their results should also be known to be able to be compared against the EUROCONTROL
method. For example, some questions that would be relevant for understanding differences with the
results from the member countries methods are indicated in the following table:
Some questions about fuel burnt and emissions calculation method
EUROCONTROL method Member country method
1 Have APUs (auxiliary power units) been taken into account?
No APUs have been taken into account, results concerns only fuel burnt and emissions from aircraft engines
2 Which phases of flight are included: Gate to gate? Aircraft stand is also calculated?
Gate (9) to gate: from the gate at
the departure airport to the gate at the arrival airport, using LTO average time by airport (CODA or ICAO).
3 Which method is used to obtain the amount of fuel burnt: Quantity of fuel sold? Quantity of movements by aircraft type? - if so, what it is considered to be a movement? Which are the aircraft types used and its associated performance? How the flight phases have been calculated?
The calculation used is a mix of a Tier 3A and Tier 3B calculation.
Concerning the movements:
- UNFCCC: 1 flight = 1 movement, reported in the aerodrome of departure.
- CLRTAP:
1 domestic flight = 1 movement, reported in the departure phase of flight.
1 international flight = 2 movements, reported as follows:
1.1. 1 movement in the aerodrome of departure
1.2. 1 movement in the aerodrome of
9 The gate should be understood to mean either the gate or the parking area from which the aircraft departs.
Some questions about fuel burnt and emissions calculation method
EUROCONTROL method Member country method
destination
3.2. Fuel sold versus EUROCONTROL fuel burnt calculation
EUROCONTROL commented that certain major airlines very often operate multi-leg flights, loading
fuel in one country, to avoid doing so elsewhere. Such behaviour can confuse the results if just the
amount of fuel sold is used in a country as a measure of the fuel burnt.
Switzerland held that for national inventories, the total amount of fuel burnt can be calculated
summing the total amount of fuel sold. Switzerland uses a bottom up method to calculate the fuel
burnt: first calculating the fuel burnt of each movement and then comparing the total result with the
total quantity of fuel sold at Switzerland’s airports for the same period. Both results have usually a
little percentage of difference. Switzerland uses then a modelling that split the total amount of fuel
sold in domestic and international flights, based on the above mentioned bottom up calculation.
Moreover, Switzerland proposed to compare the total fuel sold and the total fuel burnt
EUROCONTROL results for one year, all EEA countries together, and compare the total results, also
splitting them into domestic and international. If big differences without justification appear,
something is probably wrong with the modelling or national specifics are relevant with regard to fuel
load.
EUROCONTROL replied that this could be an interesting experience, but could not be done by
EUROCONTROL as they don’t have records on fuel sold.
EEA’s ETC/ACM replied that national fuel sold is known by every member country. The fuel activity
data that EEA has received from Member countries under the GHG inventories are already
processed and may not reflect the actual fuel sales. The actual fuel sales are, however reported to
Eurostat under the Energy Statistics Regulation. As such, the ETC/ACM could try to compare first
with the fuel totals reported under the GHG inventories, avoiding domestic splits, and then including
domestic splits. At a second step, the comparison with the fuel sales available by Eurostat could also
be explored.
ACTION 4: EEA’s ETC/ACM to compare EUROCONTROL total fuel burnt totals with EEA’s member
countries total fuel reported, with and without domestic splits.
3.3. Methane (CH4) and unburnt hydrocarbon (HC)
See also 5.3 Emissions factors, PAH and PM.
EUROCONTROL recognized that, as had already been pointed out by some of the member countries,
the EUROCONTROL method over-estimates the amount of methane produced. Indeed it is suggested
that a modern aircraft engine is a net sink of methane, as the methane in the air is also burnt in the
engine but so little is produced by the engine. In the EUROCONTROL method, the amount of
methane emitted is calculated by subtracting the amounts of all the other hydrocarbons emitted
that EUROCONTROL knows about from the total amount of unburnt hydrocarbons emitted.
Moreover, the problem goes back to exactly what is being measured in the aircraft data and what
are considered to be unburnt hydrocarbons, i.e.: have the oxygenated hydrocarbons (aldehydes,
ketones, etc.) been included in the total amount of hydrocarbons or it is it just the pure
hydrocarbons?
Switzerland added that their methane calculation is based on hydrocarbons and that the
hydrocarbons figures come from the engine data. For countries that are using a lot of small aircraft
with piston engines, which pollute more, hydrocarbons emissions are higher.
ACTION 5: EUROCONTROL, following MALTA’s kind remark, will correct the definition of HC
mentioned in the “Abbreviation&acronym&otherterms” sheet inserted in the fuel burnt and
emissions Excel worksheet;
3.4. NOX
EUROCONTROL commented that the NOX figures come from the engine data.
3.5. N2O
EUROCONTROL N2O figures are currently calculated applying the following average formula, based
on the EMEP Guidebook 2013 (10) rules, without taking into account the distance:
When the flight phase is CRUISE, for DOMESTIC and INTERNATIONAL flights, the
estimated fuel burnt (in kilograms) during the CRUISE phase is multiplied by 0,0001.
When the flight phase is LTO, for DOMESTIC flights, the number of movements is
multiplied by 0,1; for INTERNATIONAL flights, the number of movements is multiplied
by 0,2.
4. Emission Web Portal
Jurgen TOCK, representing the EUROCONTROL PRISME team, presented the EUROCONTROL
Emission Web Portal proposal.
4.1. Reports in excel
EUROCONTROL added that this web portal, when it will be put in place, will not replace the excel
spreadsheets that have been being delivered during the recent years to the EEA member countries.
BELGIUM commented that they are implementing a tool for calculating emissions where these excel
spreadsheets will be used.
EEA emphasized that keeping the regularity and a standard format of EUROCONTROL documents
and data is extremely important for the countries and represents a very important part of
EUROCONTROL credibility. Furthermore, the EEA highlighted that it is already envisaged in the web
portal specifications document that users should be able to export the information in different
formats (i.e. excel spreadsheets). The EEA further suggested that these specifications are uploaded
in the Eionet Forum so that comments on the exact format (or other comments relevant to the
10 2013 NFR: 1.A.3.a, 1.A.5.b Civil and military aviation Version Guidebook 2013, Updated August 2014, Table 3–3 Emission factors and fuel use for the Tier 1 methodology using jet kerosene as fuel.
technical specifications and design of the Web Portal) can be provided by the countries to
EUROCONTROL and the EEA.
ACTION 6: EUROCONTROL to maintain the excel spreadsheets as they have been delivered this year
to EEA. If any update or change affects these spreadsheets from one year to the next, it should be
indicated by EUROCONTROL.
ACTION 7: EEA to upload the technical requirements document to the Eionet Forum so that the
member countries have access and can provide comments.
4.2. Country-specific access
GERMANY found this web portal to be very interesting and agreed on the idea of country-specific
access.
5. Other questions by the EEA’s member countries
5.1. VFR
Switzerland asked whether EUROCONTROL data includes VFR (11) data.
EUROCONTROL replied that EUROCONTROL’s data concerns only civil IFR flights (12).If there is a flight
plan, the flight will be in the EUROCONTROL system and be included except if the flight has been
flagged as a military one.
5.2. Domestic flights
Switzerland and Belgium recognized the high quality of the EUROCONTROL model, especially for
international flight movements and fuel consumption calculations. However, differences of up to
50% can be reported on domestic flights, where, as is probably the case for other small countries,
most of the aircraft flying are small aircraft.
Belgium set out that 1) for international reporting, Belgium uses EUROCONTROL international flights
data; 2) however, for domestic reporting, Belgium uses the files received from airports, where all
flights are included, and then applies their own method to calculate the emissions, even if Belgium
has still to solve the emissions factors question.
EUROCONTROL replied that this question would need to be analysed in detail (included in ACTION
3). The EUROCONTROL calculation follows the same method for domestic and for international
flights. Some possible explanations for discrepancies could be 1) the large amount of short flights,
where the percentage of inaccuracy is higher than for long flights; 2) for LTO flight phases, the use of
the standard ICAO taxi times, instead of the CODA annual average taxi times per airport (see point 2
Presentation of the EUROCONTROL method to calculate aviation fuel consumption and emissions of
greenhouse gases and air pollutants, including revisions compared to last year ); 3) the possible large
11 Visual Flight Rules
12 flights flying under civil instrument flight rules
amount of VFR and/or military flights among these short flights, while EUROCONTROL data includes
only civil IFR.
5.3. Emissions factors, PAH and PM
Switzerland asked how the estimations of PAH (13) and other fractions of HC ( 14) are calculated, as
no engine specific input data are available. Concerning methane, engines are burning more methane
that the one they are producing. EUROCONTROL replied that there is an US EPA (15) document
which gives a set of multiplayers, from where the calculation of the various VOC (volatile organic
compounds) elements is done just by multiplying by the appropriate multiplayer. PAH, as well as PM,
has no specific input data available for engines, therefore EUROCONTROL generates the emissions
indices from a “third order approximation” method, which is published, based on the smoke number
given in the engine data, even if only given for turbojet and turbofans engines. Concerning methane,
please see 3.3 Methane (CH4) and unburnt hydrocarbon (HC).
Belgium added that they calculate the domestic emissions using their own system (see 5.2 Domestic
flights), Belgium is looking for emissions factors for piston engines and helicopters and is interested
in using the emissions factors of the Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA). Belgium asked
Switzerland if they were using FOCA database.
Switzerland’s representative, Mr. Theo RINDLISBACHER, replied that he is the author of the FOCA
database. Belgium could contact him directly to have more information. Moreover, Mr. Theo
RINDLISBACHER, is the European leader of the Particulate Matter Task Group of ICAO CAEP (16), that
is developing a Non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) emissions measurement standard method for
the most common engines, which are listed in the ICAO databank. In February 2016, this proposal
will probably be agreed at ICAO CAEP with the member states. It will assure that until 2020 for all in-
production engines the nvPM mass and number would be reported for the LTO part. Switzerland
pointed out that the main goal with this standard method is to get the data to improve the model
and the impact assessment from aircraft PM.
5.4. Military flights
Switzerland asked whether military aircraft on civil airports were disregarded.
EUROCONTROL replied that all flights that have been identified as military are disregarded. Initially
EUROCONTROL thought to remove all aircraft types identified as military aircraft types, rather than
flights which are flagged as military flights, but in fact there are a few flights using military aircraft
that are civil flights, for example, there is an Alpha Jet flown by the Red Bull acrobatic team.
5.5. LTO
Switzerland asked why for LTO emissions flight phases were not adjusted to be closer to the real
world (as is already done for taxi times) as there is hardly any aircraft taking off at 100% thrust.
13 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
14 Unburnt hydrocarbons
15 United States Environmental Protection Agency
16 http://cfapp.icao.int/Environmental-Report-2013/files/assets/basic-html/page95.html
EUROCONTROL recognized to be using the ICAO standard time for take-off and climb out, even if
they agreed with Switzerland comments. EUROCONTROL informed that ICAO is in the process of
redefining these phases, which will probably be updated with a 10 phase LTO system. Once this new
system will be validated, EUROCONTROL will adapt their LTO system accordingly.
5.6. Association aircraft type/engine type
Finland was wondering if the differences found in NOX, CO and other emissions between
EUROCONTROL and Finland results could be due to different engine types used. Finland wanted to
know about the possibility of EUROCONTROL
1. rerunning the calculations for Finland using a certain engine for a specific aircraft type, i.e.
CFM56-5B4/2P for A320s;
2. including the engine types in the reports to facilitate the identification and the analysis of
differences in results
EUROCONTROL replied that, in EUROCONTROL system, every aircraft type is identified by a code
that is the ICAO code for that type of aircraft and it is also associated with just one type of engine
(17).In the real world, some aircraft types have only one engine type associated to them. But certain
aircraft types have several engines associated to them; the A320, in particular, has as many as 20
different types of engine associated with it now. Every year EUROCONTROL reviews the aircraft
type/engine type associations, trying to match the most appropriate type of engine to each of the
most popular aircraft types. Quite often there is an engine type in use which has not been taking
into account in the EUROCONTROL system and this is clearly an element of inaccuracy. On the other
hand, these improvements might lead to spending a considerable effort in updating and
recalculating previous data; so there is a decision to take considering the effort needed and the
added value of the changes when they will be implemented.
EUROCONTROL added that, instead of updating the entire set of data back to 2005 each time that
an update of the aircraft type/engine type association is done, EUROCONTROL could analyse for
every year the most accurate associations as possible, rerun the system year by year taking into
account the specific associations for each year, and propose to the member states a version of past
years reports that could be considered as fixed and will probably not be updated anymore. Future
updates of the aircraft type/engine type associations will be then done only on the previous year’s
data. On time series, this decision will generate throughout several years some differences in fuel
burnt and emissions for those aircraft types that have been updated.
EUROCONTROL, replying to the first specific question raised by Finland, said that possibility of re-
running the calculations for a particular country using a certain engine for a specific aircraft type
could probably be possible to do for the LTO phases, as the aircraft types/engine types associations
could be customized directly by the EUROCONTROL Fuel and Emissions team. But fuel burnt and
emissions for CCD flight phases’ emissions cannot be calculated just by changing certain
multiplication factors; it is not a linear system: AEM has to be used with its limitations on the aircraft
types/type of engine associations available in BADA.
17 See “D3.2 - European Aviation Fuel Burn and Emissions Inventory System for the European Environment Agency (for data from 2005)”, Version 2015.02 (23 September, 2015), specially sections 1.3 “The EUROCONTROL method – an overview” and 4.2.1.2.1 “The ACT_PRF.aircraft_engine.txt file”.
ACTION 8: EUROCONTROL to investigate the possibility of re-running the calculations for a particular
country using a certain engine for a specific aircraft type.
Switzerland asked how the aircraft/engine associations were made by EUROCONTROL, taking into
account that the engines types data is often missing in flight plans.
EUROCONTROL replied that EUROCONTROL flight plans often specifies the engine types, but this
information is not 100% sure as it is entered by hand and could present some errors (like keeping
the same engine for consecutives flights, without updating it; or making mistakes when entering the
engine type). A table is maintained by EUROCONTROL in order to keep track, correct, harmonise and
to prepare the associations aircraft types/engine types to be modelled using BADA (18) types for the
CCD (19) flight phases. Improving the aircraft type/engine type associations impacts more the LTO
flight phases than the CCD flight phases, CCD flight phases being limited by the types available in
BADA.
Switzerland pointed out that for some large aircraft like the Boeing 787, the engine variants could
cause differences in pollutant emissions of the order of 50%, depending on the engine type.
Switzerland was wondering if these possible errors were taken into account in EUROCONTROL
model.
EUROCONTROL agreed with Switzerland comments and replied that, in their system, all engines are
modelled first. EUROCONTROL recognized that their system, because of its complexity, tends to be a
little behind on having the latest version of the engines available in the BADA model, while new
engines are supposed to be cleaner.
5.7. Aircraft tail number versus aircraft type
Switzerland asked why EUROCONTROL is not using aircraft tail numbers, which is a unique number
assigned to every aircraft, to identify a given aircraft and match the right engine with it. It could also
be a way of accurately updating the changes of engine(s) for every aircraft identified.
EUROCONTROL admitted to not be sure whether the tail numbers were recorded in EUROCONTROL
flight plans. EUROCONTROL was aware that such tail number/aircraft type/engine type associations
exists, i.e. the Campbell-Hill's database. EUROCONTROL recognized that the more data concerning
the aircraft is given in the flight plan; the closer it will be possible to match the modelling in to the
actual combination of aircraft type and engine type.
EUROCONTROL also added that the way of working with aircraft types instead of, for example, tail
numbers could be explained by the historical activities and interest of EUROCONTROL around air
traffic simulations and the development of the BADA system, both based mainly on aircraft types
and their associated performances. EUROCONTROL is now increasing its interest in using real data
and working very hard to adapt its various modelling tools to extract information from different
18 EUROCONTROL database known as the Base of Aircraft Data; http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/bada 19 Climb-Cruise-Descent:
• Climb (from a height of 3000 ft. up to the cruise level).
• Cruise (perhaps with small climbs and/or descents).
• Descent (down to a height of 3000 ft.).
databases. Already work with real data in AEM (20) is difficult; in IMPACT (3) it is even more difficult
as not only the BADA should be implemented but also the ANP (21).
ACTION 9: EUROCONTROL to check if the tail number is available in the flight plan and if so, if it
could be considered as a possible and more accurate method to match engine(s) and aircraft.
Switzerland explained that they are maintaining a data warehouse based on the tail number,
especially for the domestic flights inventory, extracting information from several databases. Having
aircraft tail numbers and be able to associate them with other data represents a considerable effort.
Switzerland asked if other member countries are using aircraft tail numbers as an approach for
modelling and/or they have had similar experiences.
None of the member countries replied to Switzerland’s question, probably very much due to the
technical problems experienced with the WebEx connexion.
Switzerland added that one of the problems that can be observed when using tail numbers are that
some counties, for example the USA, can assign the tail number already given to an aircraft that is
not flying anymore, to another aircraft that is completely different from the previous one. Other
countries, Switzerland included, assign a unique tail number linked to every particular aircraft
forever, so aircraft type and performances can be then associated to the unique tail number.
EUROCONTROL pointed out that there was a balance to find between what is wanted to be achieved
in terms of accuracy and what it is wanted to be achieved in terms of verification or validation of the
system. Each time EUROCONTROL changes something in the system, and this change implies a
significant change on the results, the historical data have also to be recalculated in order to have the
same method and data treatment for the entire set of reports back to 2005. The impacts of these
changes in the data have also to be detected and justified. For example, some aircraft type/engine
type associations and the geographical scope of some member countries have been updated this
year; these changes have required the recalculation of the entire data back to 2005 and the analysis
of the impact of these changes. Improvements should be done step by step, otherwise it could be
difficult to analyse the impact of every update on the results produced.
Switzerland added, as a comment that as Switzerland’s system is based on tail numbers
identification while EUROCONTROL’s system is based on aircraft types, comparing both data in detail
or trying to use EUROCONTROL tools, as IMPACT, or to match EUROCONTROL results with their
results was not possible.
EUROCONTROL kept the idea to add tail numbers to the IMPACT tool, but the tool used for the
inventory reports is AEM, which is based on aircraft types.
ACTION 10: EUROCONTROL to add aircraft tail number to the IMPACT tool.
20 EUROCONTROL’s Advanced Emission Model tool, http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/advanced-emission-model-aem
21 Aircraft Noise and Performance Database, an international data resource for aircraft noise modellers
5.8. Remarks, request, proposals from EEA’s member countries
The EAA asked about the possibility of EUROCONTROL taking into account remarks, requests, or
proposals for improvements sent by the EEA’s member countries, and if so when the deadline to
send them to EUROCONTROL should be.
EUROCONTROL replied that the above mentioned requests or proposals from the EEA and its
member countries were very welcome. However, as already mentioned, an analysis of the expected
effort, time, possibilities for and consequences of the implementations versus the expected effects
of the improvements should be done. Concerning the deadline for contributions, EUROCONTROL
recalled two important contributions that have to be put in place before launching the calculations
process:
1. the updated version of the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank (AEED) is received
between January and March every year, its reception can be considered as the real start of
verifications and updates;
2. the contract financed by DG CLIMA to assure a technical assistance to collect and prepare
the data needed for the reports.
The EEA proposed to the member countries to send their comments, requests, or proposals for the
next batch of EUROCONTROL fuel burnt and emissions calculations by the end of 2015.
ACTION 11: EEA’s member countries and EUROCONTROL, to send their comments, requests, or
proposals for the next batch of EUROCONTROL fuel burnt and emissions calculations if possible by
the end of January 2016.
ACTION 12: EUROCONTROL to try to reply as soon as possible to the questions that have been
addressed by the EEA, the ETC/ACM and EEA’s member countries concerning the EUROCONTROL
method and data, replying to the requestor(s), in copy [email protected] and
ETC/ACM representatives.
5.9. AOB
The EEA listed the next milestones between the EEA, the ETC/ACM, and the member countries.
The EEA and EUROCONTROL mentioned as well the next steps for the updating of the EMEP/EEA
Guidebook.
6. List of Actions
ACTION 1: EUROCONTROL, following several discrepancies between some results shared by some of
the EEA member countries and those delivered by EUROCONTROL, to improve the method: ............. 6
ACTION 2: EUROCONTROL to make available the following files: ......................................................... 6
ACTION 3: EUROCONTROL to analyse the differences between EUROCONTROL estimates and the
UNFCCC/CLRTAP estimates (ETC/ACM) over the years that these comparisons have been done; ....... 7
ACTION 4: EEA’s ETC/ACM to compare EUROCONTROL total fuel burnt totals with EEA’s member
countries total fuel reported, with and without domestic splits. ........................................................... 8
ACTION 5: EUROCONTROL, following MALTA’s kind remark, will correct the definition of HC
mentioned in the “Abbreviation&acronym&otherterms” sheet inserted in the fuel burnt and
emissions Excel worksheet; .................................................................................................................... 9
ACTION 6: EUROCONTROL to maintain the excel spreadsheets as they have been delivered this year
to EEA. If any update or change affects these spreadsheets from one year to the next, it should be
indicated by EUROCONTROL. ................................................................................................................ 10
ACTION 7: EEA to upload the technical requirements document to the Eionet Forum so that the
member countries have access and can provide comments. ............................................................... 10
ACTION 8: EUROCONTROL to investigate the possibility of re-running the calculations for a particular
country using a certain engine for a specific aircraft type. .................................................................. 13
ACTION 9: EUROCONTROL to check if the tail number is available in the flight plan and if so, if it
could be considered as a possible and more accurate method to match engine(s) and aircraft. ....... 14
ACTION 10: EUROCONTROL to add aircraft tail number to the IMPACT tool. ..................................... 14
ACTION 11: EEA’s member countries and EUROCONTROL, to send their comments, requests, or
proposals for the next batch of EUROCONTROL fuel burnt and emissions calculations if possible by
the end of January 2016. ...................................................................................................................... 15
ACTION 12: EUROCONTROL to try to reply as soon as possible to the questions that have been
addressed by the EEA, the ETC/ACM and EEA’s member countries concerning the EUROCONTROL
method and data, replying to the requestor(s), in copy [email protected] and
ETC/ACM representatives. .................................................................................................................... 15
