FAA REDAC Subcommittee on 		Environment & Energy

International Aircraft CO2 Standard

(March 17 2015 Update)

Sahara Desert

Laszlo Windhoffer

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

1

Background & Objectives

Concerns over aviation’s impact on climate change

Aircraft contribution to greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced via:

Aircraft Technologies, Operational Improvements, Alternative Fuels, Policies

International aircraft-level CO2 standard is being developed under the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)

Encourage CO2 emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved by expected market forces

Encourage fuel burn reduction technologies

Avoid unintended consequences on how aircraft are operated

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

CO2 CE Initial Analysis 

(MDG & FESG)

2012

2015

2014

2013

2016

CAEP10

CAEP9

SG

SG

SG

Sample Problem Analysis (MDG & FESG)

MDG→FESG

CE ANALYSIS

STRINGENCY OPTION

DEVELOPMENT

INDUSTRY  RESPONSE

DEVELOPMENT

DATA

WG3

WG3/WG1

Metric

 Values

Sample 

Problem Data

CO2 STANDARD

ICAO ANNEX 16 VOL. III (draft applicability & regulatory limit)

CERT PROCEDURES

TECH ANALYSIS

CE Analysis

Data

CO2 SCALING METHOD

DEVELOPMENT

Forecast, Retirement Curves, Δmetric values, Industry Response, CO2 Scaling Method  

WG3/MDG

SP

WG3

WG3

Insert Applicability & Limit

Draft ETM (if req’d)

WG3

CO2 CE Final Analysis 

(MDG & FESG)

Nov 2015

ANALYSIS PREPARATION

FESG

WG3/FESG/MDG

Analysis Framework

Production Assumptions

MDG/FESG

Analysis Cases

In-Production/

Reporting Req’ts

Near-term CO2 Standard Schedule

SP

Major Milestones to-date (1)

July 2012: CO2 Metric System in May 2012

Instantaneous metric based on “specific air range” (e.g. distance / fuel mass), evaluated at 3 weights and corrected by floor area

February 2013: Draft ICAO Annex 16 Vol. 3 (i.e. CO2 certification requirement) 

Draft flight test procedures and measurement methodology

November 2013: Stringency Options

Assessed curve shapes for various aircraft types

Defined boundaries and potential stringencyoptions for use as the basis of CAEP CO2 cost effectiveness analysis

Notional CO2 standard stringency options: (i.e. regulatory levels)

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

Major Milestones to-date (2)

September 2014: Technology responses

Specific aircraft technology responses (pass/fix/fail), and associated non-recurring costs

September 2014: Draft, wide-range of in-production (InP) applicability options

Scope, Dates of Applicability, Triggers, Regulatory Level(s)

Processes:

No in-production (InP) applicability and no voluntary action

Voluntary Reporting  

Voluntary Type Certification	

Mandatory Reporting

Mandatory Type Certification of selected InP types

Mandatory Type Certification of all InP types

September 2014: Modeling framework (scenario cases / data) for CAEP CO2 cost effectiveness analysis

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

Applicability to In-Production Airplanes

Current work is focusing on mandatory in-production (InP) applicability options with a Type Certification (TC) process

September 2014 draft options remain as possibilities

Key elements of the mandatory, TC-based InP applicability options include:

Scope: Same Max Take-Off Mass range as for NT

Dates of Applicability: 2023, 2025, 2028

Triggers: Certificate of airworthiness and/or change criteria

Regulatory Level: Single or separate levels for InP/NT

Process: Type Certification

Options should aim for an appropriate balance between costs, administrative burden and the robustness of data

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

CO2 Standard Analysis Framework

Cases consider applicability to new types (NT) in 2020 or 2023, and to in-production types (InP) in 2023, 2025 or 2028

Case for NT and InP: Full Technology Response / Out of Production

Analysis of stringency options using all technology responses defined by WG3/WG1 –and– aircraft are assumed to go out of production at the implementation dates if they cannot be made compliant to a stringency option level. To inform both InP and NT applicability. 

Case for NT-Only: Alternative Response / Production

Analysis of stringency options at the implementation dates for NT-only applicability using responses informed by market considerations since manufacturers would not have a legal deadline to bring InP types to levels required under an NT-only standard. Thus, although an aircraft may be technically eligible for response, in practice market forces could influence the manufacturer to not have some aircraft types respond; for example, when the costs to respond outweigh the benefits generated by the improvements.

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

CO2 Standard Next Steps

Mid/End 2015: Complete CAEP main cost effectiveness analysis round 1/round 2, respectively

End 2015: Develop a Public CO2 Databank

End 2015: Finalize InP applicability options

End 2015: Finalize outstanding topics re Annex 16 Vol. 3

Draft environmental technical manual, change criteria, specialized aeroplane types

Feb 2016: Insert applicability and regulatory level into final Annex 16 Vol. 3

Feb 2016: Decision on applicability and regulatory limit

End 2018: Annex 16 Vol. 3 implemented in ICAO Member State legislative frameworks

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

Questions?

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

CO2 Metric System

CO2 emissions ∝ fuel burn

Main drivers of CO2:

Two major metric types categories were assessed:

Instantaneous and Mission Performance Measurement

CAEP technical analyses resulted in selection of an instantaneous metric based on:

Specific Air Range (e.g. distance / fuel mass) evaluated at 3 weights

Correlated with Maximum Take-Off Mass (i.e. normalize for fairness)

Corrected by a floor area factor

Key criteria such as fairness, ease of certification, account for fundamental aircraft performance, and limiting unintended consequences

‹#›

Federal Aviation

Administration

# image3.jpeg

# image4.jpeg

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image1.jpeg