Efficiency and Environment KPAs Regional Performance Framework Workshop, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 21 23 May 2013 ICAO European and North Atlantic Office 20 May 2013 Page 1
Efficiency (Doc 9854) Doc 9854 Appendix D Efficiency addresses the operational and economic cost effectiveness of gate to gate flight operations from a single flight perspective. In all phases of flight, airspace users want to depart and arrive at the times they select and fly the trajectory they determine to be optimum. 20 May 2013 Page 2
Efficiency KPA Overview KPA Objective Indicator Efficiency Ensure that users [can?] use the most efficient routes focussing on the horizontal flight efficiency Average horizontal en route flight efficiency, defined as the difference between the length of the en route part of the actual trajectory (where available) or last flight planned route and the great circle. Note: specificities shall be considered for flights longer than 1000 nm where the optimum could differ from the great circle (wind optimal routes, etc.). 20 May 2013 Page 3
Optimum route vs direct route Wind optimum route is often longer than the direct route In particular for long haul flights Implies that optimal horizontal flight efficiency does not correspond to zero additional distance Does not make the indicator less useful Formula can be used to compute an additional indicator value corresponding to wind optimum trajectory (if data available) Indicators computed from actual and wind optimum trajectory can be compared Flight Time / Cost Direct Route Reducing additional distance increases cost Wind optimum Actual Reducing additional distance reduces cost Flight Plan Additional distance Area of normal use of indicator 20 May 2013 Page 4
Origin of horizontal trajectory inefficiencies Indicator option A Last Filed FPL Indicator option B Length of Trajectory Reference distance Extra distance Shortest Available Route Shortest Route Awareness and Choice Route Network Design City pair distance Planning (Great circle distance) Based on information known in advance Route & Airspace Availability Business need: Get from A to B = direct route Actual Trajectory Operations Difference due to planning limitations ATC Separation Fragmentation Wind-optimum Cost-optimum Tactical decisions based on updated information requires surveillance data Extra distance Reference distance 20 May 2013 Page 5
Example: efficiency difference between flight plan and actual trajectory Blue: last filed flight plan Red: actual trajectory Numbers: number of flights 20 May 2013 Page 6
Example: efficiency difference between flight direction on given city pair LFPG > EDDM Munich > Paris CDG (13%) Paris CDG > Munich (4.7%) Significant impact of military areas LFPG < EDDM 20 May 2013 Page 7
Efficiency KPA Origin of indicator Re use of indicator as defined in SES Performance Scheme Regulation The average horizontal en route flight efficiency of [(a) the actual trajectory, or (b) the last filed flight plan trajectory], defined as follows: (i) the indicator is the comparison between the length of the en route part of [(a) the actual trajectory derived from surveillance data, or (b) the last filed flight plan trajectory] and the corresponding portion of the great circle distance, summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the European airspace; (ii) en route refers to the distance flown outside a circle of 40NM around the airports; (iii) where a flight departs from or arrives at a place outside the European airspace, only the part inside European airspace is considered. Note: the SES indicator is expressed as a percentage: Sum of extra distance divided by the sum of corresponding portions of great circle distances 20 May 2013 Page 8
Introduction of the notion of Achieved Distance corresponding to a Flown Distance from N to X Corresponding portion of the great circle distance OD = achieved distance N X (needed to calculate the indicator at State level) Calculation of achieved distance N X for flight segment NX: (distance closer to destination + distance away from departure)/2 Important properties Sum of achieved distances of flight segments is always equal to total direct distance from O to D Actual, achieved and excess distances for flight segments are aggregatable (bottom up from State level to regional level) Iso-achieved-distance lines O Closer to dest. OD line In the above example: Extra distance: 85 60 = 25 Inefficiency = 25 / 60 = 0.42 = 42% N D X Away from dep. 20 May 2013 Page 9
Processing of domestic flights and overflights Domestic flight Measured area (State) Overflight Reference area (eg EUR region) Iso-achieved-distance lines Airport B TMA Airport B TMA D X D OD line Actual or FPL OD line Actual or FPL X N O Measured area (State) N O 40 NM Airport A 40 NM Airport A Non-SES States can choose reference area Required inputs: Trajectory and the coordinates of points O, D, N, X (Origin, Destination, entry, exit) Computed: Trajectory distance (NX), achieved distance (N X ) For the NX parts of all trajectories of IFR flights domestic, departing, arriving, or overflying IFR flights 20 May 2013 Page 10
Efficiency KPA Existing Data Source: http://prudata.webfactional.com/dashboard/eur_view_2012.html Note: For legislative reasons the SES dashboard publishes this indicator in the Environment KPA 20 May 2013 Page 11
Reporting Table Flight Efficiency Horizontal en-route flight efficiency B48 Name of selected reference area (provide list of FIRs in annex) B49 Data source for actual distance (surveillance data or SUR or FPL flight plan) B50 Total actual IFR distance km/year B51 Total achieved IFR distance km/year B52 Total extra IFR distance (=B50 B51) km/year B53 Horizontal en-route flight efficiency (=B52/B51) % 20 May 2013 Page 12
Efficiency KPA Conclusions Indicator Measures actual (flight plan data or radar data), achieved, and additional distance flown within an airspace volume (eg within a State) Can cope with overflights Additional distance can be computed separately for flights shorter and longer than 1000 nm Results are geographically aggregatable Represents the overall outcome of several influencing factors, for which different Stakeholders are accountable 20 May 2013 Page 13
Environment (Doc 9854) Doc 9854 Appendix D The ATM system should contribute to the protection of the environment by considering noise, gaseous emissions and other environmental issues in the implementation and operation of the global ATM system. 20 May 2013 Page 14
Environment KPA Overview KPA Objective Indicator Environment Contribute to the protection of the environment focussing on fuel savings and CO2 emission reductions CO2 emissions deriving from inefficiencies in flight efficiency (conversion of additional distance into CO2 emissions based on standard values formula). 20 May 2013 Page 15
Environment KPA Origin of indicator Defined by the COG PERF TF, considering the need for a simple solution not requiring detailed engine and fuel consumption data for individual flights. 20 May 2013 Page 16
Environment KPA Definition of indicator Reference excess fuel consumption: Total additional distance flown in the airspace volume (i.e. State) multiplied by a standard fuel consumption factor (value chosen by each State) Reference excess CO2 emission: Reference excess fuel consumption multiplied by 3.15 (net carbon content of kerosene) Trajectory Actual distance Achieved distance Additional distance Standard fuel consumption per km Reference excess fuel consumption Net carbon content of kerosene (3.15) Reference excess CO2 emission 20 May 2013 Page 17
Standard fuel consumption factor State can choose method the standard kerosene consumption per kilometer of a typical jet aircraft type States can select their own typical aircraft type, reflecting the composition of traffic in their airspace a calibrated average fuel consumption per kilometre flown, computed from the State s average annual traffic composition in terms of aircraft types, vertical traffic distribution and distance flown using the ICAO Fuel Savings Estimation Tool (IFSET) or any other modeling tool, if available recalibration needed every couple of years to take into account changes in traffic composition 20 May 2013 Page 18
Reporting Table B52 B54 B55 B56 Environment CO 2 emissions deriving from inefficiencies in flight efficiency Average en-route fuel consumption factor for the State (provide source and computation method in annex) Average en-route CO 2 emission factor for the State (=B54 * 3.15) Theoretical CO 2 emissions deriving from inefficiencies in horizontal en-route flight efficiency (=B52 * B55 / 1000) kg/km kg/km Tonnes/year 20 May 2013 Page 19
Environment KPA Conclusions Indicator Has low data requirements and is therefore easy to implement Because mostly based on additional distance already computed Publishes an approximation of excess CO2 emission, resulting from horizontal flight inefficiency The optimum indicator value is not equal to zero Hence the absolute value of the indicator should not be interpreted as representing the CO2 emissions caused by ANS. Indicator to be used for trend analysis only 20 May 2013 Page 20
Efficiency and Environment Discussion Do you see room for improvement of efficiency and environment performance in your State? En route At airports If yes, how do you make improvements? Route design? ATC routeing? Other approach(es)? Current data collection and National indicators Do you currently record trajectory data (flight plans, radar data)? Do you compute National efficiency or environment indicators? Your views Would you consider the proposed indicators as useful for your State? Would you consider it useful if the proposed indicators would be reported for all States in the EUR Region? What support would you expect or need to participate in this EANPG reporting process? 20 May 2013 Page 21