Dynamic Cost Indexing. Including climate impacts of NO x in a Dynamic Cost Indexing tool

Transcription

1 Innovative Cooperative Actions of R&D Technical Discussion Document 4.2 Including climate impacts of NO x in a tool Date: 29 April 2008 Contract reference: Prepared by: C06/12400BE Imperial College London

2 Contents 1. Introduction EMEP/CORINAIR Reporting approaches Applying NO x reporting methods to individual flights...5 Sample flight plans... 6 Selecting the NO x emission index Effect of altitude on the impact of NO x emissions...8 Applying altitude weights to sample flight plans Economic valuations of NO x emissions at altitude NO x calculation framework Detailed modelling of NO x emissions...14 References...15 Annex: Sample flight plans...16

3 1. Introduction Aviation contributes to changes in the climate through a number of mechanisms. Of these, the three believed to contribute most to changes in the radiative balance of the atmosphere are emissions of carbon dioxide, formation of contrails (and contrail-cirrus) and emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x ). In the upper troposphere, where most commercial flight takes place, NO x emissions increase ozone (O 3 ) and reduce methane (CH 4 ). As both ozone and methane are greenhouse gases, aircraft NO x emissions have both a warming effect (due to increased ozone) and a cooling effect (due to reduced methane). However, these effects have different spatial and temporal patterns and cannot be assumed to directly cancel out. The altitude at which NO x emissions take place is crucial to determining their impact. At current flight altitudes in the troposphere and lower stratosphere, NO x emissions are associated with ozone production. At the higher altitudes associated with super-sonic flight, NO x can catalyse ozone destruction. The background concentration is also significant; aircraft NO x emissions can decrease ozone production if the background NO x concentration is above about 0.3 ppbv (Grooß et al., 1998). Currently, NO x emissions from aircraft are regulated through the certification of new aircraft engines. Limits are set for emissions in the standard Landing-Take Off cycle. Emissions above 3000 ft are not regulated. As a result, there are no economic or regulatory incentives for airlines to reduce the climate impact of NO x emissions from their aircraft. The European Commission has committed to developing policy to address cruise altitude emissions of NO x during It is intended that such a policy would operate in parallel to the inclusion of aviation CO 2 emissions in the European Emissions Trading Scheme. In the context of emissions trading, the use of a multiplier for CO 2 emissions to reflect non-co 2 impacts from aviation (particularly NO x -induced effects) has received much discussion, but there are strong scientific and policy arguments against this approach (Forster et al., 2006). To accommodate a range of future NO x policies, the framework under development will incorporate a significant degree of adaptability. This flexibility could also allow the prototype tool to be used for discretionary selection of low impact flight trajectories. While there would be only limited fuel-saving benefits for airlines of this approach in the shorter term, it could be used as part of a branding strategy for publicising the green practices of an airline. It could also offer a differentiating green technology for access to designated airspace, as outlined in ACARE. In the long run, as emissions charging matures, it is likely that low impact flight trajectories will allow airlines to make more significant savings with regard to these charges. This discussion document sets out the background to the inclusion of the climate impact of NO x emissions in the framework. It begins with a discussion of the current UN guidance on reporting NO x emissions from aircraft. This is followed by the application of these reporting methods, at three levels of detail, to four sample flight plans on a route from London Heathrow to Frankfurt to highlight the issues associated with applying national reporting techniques to individual flights and to illustrate the differences between flight trajectories and between reporting methods. The effect of altitude on the radiative forcing by NO x is then discussed, and a weighted measure of the climate impact associated with a flight trajectory is derived to allow comparison between trajectory options.

4 Finally, the external economic costs of aircraft NO x emissions are discussed. In the absence of a defined cruise NO x pricing policy, these costs provide one indication of potential costs of a NO x charging policy and are used for illustration. 1.2 EMEP/CORINAIR Reporting approaches The EMEP/CORINAIR guidance is developed by the expert panels of the UNECE/EMEP Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections. Tiered approaches to reporting aviation NO x emissions are described (EMEP/CORINAIR 2007). The first is the Very Simple methodology. This derives a national estimate for aviation NO x emissions from aggregate fuel sale data and fleet average emission factors (Table 1). The total estimate of NO x is made up of two components: the landing-take off phase (LTO), which refers to all emissions below 3000 ft, and the climb/cruise/descent phase. This approach requires only the total fuel sold, the total number of LTOs and the selection of the appropriate fleet age and route type in Table 1. Table 1 Fuel consumption and NO x emission factors for representative aircraft types, Very Simple methodology (EMEP/CORINAIR 2007) (Data from Table 8.2, ibid.) Domestic 1 Fuel (kg) NO x (kg) LTO (kg/lto) Average fleet (B ) 825 LTO (kg/lto) Old fleet (B ) Cruise (kg/tonne) Average fleet (B ) 10.3 Cruise (kg/tonne) Old fleet (B ) 9.4 International 2 LTO (kg/lto) Average fleet (B767) LTO (kg/lto) Average fleet (short distance, B ) 825 LTO (kg/lto) Average fleet (long distance, B ) LTO (kg/lto) Old fleet (DC10) LTO (kg/lto) Old fleet (short distance, B ) LTO (kg/lto) Old fleet (long distance, B ) Cruise (kg/tonne) Average fleet (B767) 12.8 Cruise (kg/tonne) Old fleet (DC10) Domestic route length assumed to be 500 NM 2 International route length assumed to be 3000 NM

5 The Simple methodology incorporates some differentiation between aircraft types, using aircraft-specific emission factors. Emission factors (g/kg fuel) are available for taxi, take off, climb out, approach (and for the standard LTO cycle) (Table 2). These factors are directly defined for 19 aircraft types, with others defined by equivalence. Climb/cruise/descent emissions are calculated using the fleet average emission factors defined for the Very Simple methodology. Table 2 Example emission index data for B , Simple methodology (EMEP/CORINAIR 2007) (Data from Table 8.4, ibid.) Phase of flight EI NO x (g/kg fuel) Taxi out 4.27 Take off Climb out Approach 8.42 Taxi in 4.27 The Detailed methodology is used where data on the route length is available. For each defined aircraft type, the NO x emission factor describing all climb, cruise and descent emissions above 3000 ft is dependent on the route length. Table 3 Example climb/cruise/descent emission index data for B as a function of route length, Detailed methodology (EMEP/CORINAIR 2007) (Data from Table 8.4, ibid.) Route length (NM) Climb/cruise/descent EI NO x (g/kg fuel) Other approaches to NO x emission estimation have been adopted for the calculation of national or international NO x inventories. One option is to define emission indices above and below 9 km (FL295) (Ma and Zhou 2000). 1.3 Applying NO x reporting methods to individual flights The reporting methods outlined above are designed for reporting aggregated emissions (usually at the national level). To take NO x emissions into account in flight planning and inflight decision making, individual flights must be considered, rather than fleet-wide fuel sales

6 and aircraft movement data. Here, four sample flight plans are analysed using three NO x reporting techniques, which map to the EMEP/CORINAIR reporting tiers. All the calculations are based on a detailed breakdown of the flight plan (to allow differentiation between the emissions associated with different flight trajectories). The level of sophistication of the calculation depends on the selection of the NO x emission index applied for each flight leg (Table 4). Table 4 Selection of emission index values using the EMEP/CORINAIR reporting tiers Method EMEP/CORINAIR tier LTO Climb/Cruise/Descent 1 Very Simple Generic Generic 2 Simple Aircraft specific Aircraft specific 3 Detailed Aircraft specific Aircraft specific; distance specific Sample flight plans Each of the sample flight plans is for a Boeing (79.0 tonnes MTOW) for the route from London Heathrow to Frankfurt. Two waypoint routes and two cruise altitude options are considered, giving four routes in total (Figure 1). Flight plans DCI001 and DCI002 are close to a direct route, with a total distance of 409 NM. DCI001 has cruise at FL330, while DCI002 has cruise at FL230. DCI003 and DCI004 are longer (469 NM), with DCI003 at FL330 and DCI004 at FL230. Detailed flight descriptions are given in the Annex. Figure 1 Sample flight plans for London Heathrow to Frankfurt

7 Emissions calculations require calculation of the fuel burn for each flight leg. Although these are not included in the sample flight plans shown in the Annex, they are, of course, readily available in Lido OC and will be used in the DCI prototype tool. Fuel burn can also be estimated using typical performance characteristics for the aircraft type. The EUROCONTROL Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) provides summary tables for the climb/descent rates, speeds and fuel burn rates of 91 aircraft types as a function of flight level (Nuic 2004). The performance characteristics of over 200 more aircraft types are described by equivalence to one of the defined aircraft. The Boeing , used in these sample flight plans, is directly defined in BADA. To complete these calculations, a simple flight profile is modelled, assuming nominal aircraft take off mass and using flight distances specified in the flight plan. Climb/descent rates and speeds, as defined in BADA, are used to break the flight trajectory into segments allowing the performance characteristics of the aircraft to adjust with height. Modelling the flight trajectory in this way allows the fuel burn to be estimated for the full flight, and for the different phases of flight. For a tool in operational use, the functions performed in this calculation would take place internally within the flight management system. Selecting the NO x emission index The EMEP Very Simple methodology can be applied to the calculation of emissions for a single flight, if the total flight fuel burn is known. For the Very Simple methodology, the Heathrow-Frankfurt flight is assumed to be representative of an average short haul international fleet. As shown in Table 1, this results in selecting the emission factor for a B for the LTO cycle. Only two options, average fleet or old fleet, are available for climb/cruise/descent emission factors in this methodology. Here, the emission factor for average fleet (B767) is selected. The Simple methodology requires selection of the aircraft type, although the Boeing is not defined directly. Here, the LTO emission factors for the Boeing are adopted these are explicitly defined as equivalent to ICAO types B734, B735, B736, B737 and IATA types 734, 735, 736, 737, 73A, 73B, 73F, 73M, 73S, B86 and JET. Since the Boeing is the generic aircraft type used to select the LTO emission factors for the average short haul international fleet in the Simple methodology, in this case the Simple and Very Simple methodologies produce the same results for LTO emissions. For the Detailed calculation, the emission factor to be used for each route is determined by interpolating values defined for route lengths of 250 NM and 500 NM. Although the emission factor is lower for longer routes (see Table 3), due to the higher proportion of the flight spent in the cruise phase, the overall NO x emitted is still higher for the two longer routes (DCI003 and DCI004). The calculated NO x emissions associated with each of the four flight plans are shown in Table 5. Each of the three methods assumes that landing-take off emissions follow the standard cycle, so there is no difference in LTO emissions between flight plans. Of importance for the DCI framework (and NO x policy design) is the observation that, for this sample, each of the three methods gives the same ranking of flight routes according to NO x emissions, with the high, shorter route giving the lowest emissions. Whilst it is noted that,

8 for this sample, method 3 (using aircraft-specific and distance-specific emission factors) resulted in lower estimates for NO x emissions for each flight plan, more evidence would be needed before general conclusions could be drawn. Table 5 NO x estimates for the four sample flight plans, using the three tiered methods NO x (kg) Flight plan DCI NM high Flight plan DCI NM low Flight plan DCI NM high Flight plan DCI NM low 1. Very Simple ( average short haul international ) LTO (uses B ) Climb/cruise/descent (uses B767) Simple (requires selection of (nearest) aircraft type) LTO (uses B ) Climb/cruise/descent (uses B ) Detailed (interpolated emission factor for route lengths) LTO (uses B ) Climb/cruise/descent (uses B ) Within each method, the higher climb/cruise/descent emissions for lower routes (DCI002 and DCI004) are mainly attributable to higher fuel burns per NM at lower altitude. In each of these three methods, climb/cruise/descent NO x emissions are a function of fuel burn and are not otherwise adjusted for altitude effects. 2. Effect of altitude on the impact of NO x emissions Most aircraft NO x is emitted as NO, but rapidly converts to NO 2. Aviation is just one source of upper tropospheric NO x ; others include lightning and oxidation of N 2 O (Penner et al. 1999). In the stratosphere, ozone formation is dominated by the photolysis of oxygen by shortwave solar radiation. O 2 + γ O + O (1) γ denotes a solar photon. The shortwave radiation (<242 nm) required for this reaction does not penetrate to the upper troposphere. At commercial cruise altitudes in the upper troposphere, ozone is produced mainly via the oxidation of CO: OH + CO H + CO 2 (2) H + O 2 + M HO 2 + M (3) HO 2 + NO NO 2 + OH (4) NO 2 + γ NO + O (5)

9 O + O 2 + M O 3 + M (6) NET: CO + 2O 2 CO 2 + O 3 M denotes a third molecule, typically O 2 or N 2, which undergoes a change in energy and momentum in the combination reaction. Increasing the concentration of NO 2 in the upper troposphere increases the rates of reaction 5, which in turn increases the rate of ozone production in reaction 6. The HO 2 concentration is also closely linked to NO 2 and will influence the rate of reaction 4, with increased HO 2 increasing the rate of reaction. HO 2 is also linked to ozone destruction, via the reaction: O 3 + HO 2 OH + 2O 2 (7) Through similar oxidative processes, aircraft NO x emissions reduce the concentration of CH 4. So, changing the NO x concentration can change rates for both ozone production and ozone destruction. The net effect is that the ozone concentration in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere increases due to aviation NO x emissions. Higher in the stratosphere, aviation NO x emissions can reduce ozone. The amount of NO x emitted and the impact of those NO x emissions on climate is dependent on background atmospheric conditions and on the altitude of emission. A recent study has produced profiles of the sensitivity of radiative forcing by ozone and methane to emissions of NO x at different altitudes (Köhler et al. 2008). This identifies separate sensitivity values for short-term ozone increase, methane decrease and methanelinked ozone decrease. For each effect, the radiative forcing sensitivity at each flight level is expressed as the change in radiative forcing (in mw m -2 ) per Tg of nitrogen emitted. Radiative forcing is a globally and annually averaged measure of the radiative imbalance of the atmosphere. Radiative forcing is a useful metric as it is, to a first order, proportional to the change in global and annual average surface temperature. It measures the change in the equilibrium between incoming solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial radiation and is defined relative to reference conditions, typically the pre-industrial atmosphere. For aviation, radiative forcing measures the current effect of all air travel. As an illustration of this, if all air travel ceased next year, there would be zero radiative forcing from short lived effects like contrail, but radiative forcing from aviation CO 2 would remain positive for many decades because of the long atmospheric lifetime.

10 Flight Level Ozone Methane Ozone methane response Net Radiative forcing (mwm -2 /(Tg(N) year -1 )) Figure 2 Radiative forcing change as a function of flight level, normalized to NO x emitted (Köhler et al. 2008) The sensitivity values given in (Köhler et al. 2008) are used here to derive a weighting for NO x emissions. There are some caveats. The first is that the impacts have different spatial and temporal patterns. Radiative forcing is a globally and annually averaged measure, and provides one approach to the comparison of the climate impacts of different perturbations to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The sensitivities are calculated globally, and assume that the geographic distribution of air traffic does not change significantly. Table 6 shows a set of weighting values indicating the sensitivity of radiative forcing to the altitude at which NO x is emitted. Although based on sensitivity values for net radiative forcing, the weighting values are not intended to provide the radiative forcing associated with a single aircraft flight, but rather to inform comparison between route options to identify the one most likely to have the lowest NO x impact. Figure 2 indicates that only NO x emissions above FL305 are likely to contribute significantly to warming. Emissions below FL305 are here weighted 0. It is important to note that for an individual aircraft, the impact weighting will not be a true reflection of the radiative impact of emitted NO x, which would require a detailed chemicalradiative transfer model to be calculated. However, if all aircraft chose a flight level with a lower weighting factor, then the total effect would be expected to be a reduction in the radiative forcing from aviation NO x. It is also important to stress that these weighting factors refer to climate impacts only. For estimates of the air quality impacts, the unweighted sum of emissions below FL30 should be used. In the context of the framework, these sensitivity values are provided primarily as place-holder values to allow a possible altitude-based NO x charging scheme to be accommodated. Any such scheme would be likely to have coarser vertical resolution than the values supplied in Table 6.

11 Table 6 Illustrative weighting factors for the net climate impact of NO x as a function of FL FL (min) FL (max) Weighting factor below FL305 0 Applying altitude weights to sample flight plans Applying these altitude weights to the sample flight plans it is possible to derive a relative measure of the radiative forcing associated with each flight plan. The index has no units, and describes only a relative estimate of the impacts. In comparing two routes, a larger positive value indicates that a greater impact from NO x is more likely. Here, method 3 ( Detailed ) emission factors are used. The sample flight plans are for a relatively short route and all have relatively low cruise altitudes. As the net radiative forcing (and hence the weighting factor) becomes positive only above FL305, and then shows increases with altitude, the weighted warming impact from NO x emissions is small. Only the high altitude routes (DCI001 and DCI003) show positive index values, with the longer distance high route (DCI003) showing the largest index for radiative forcing (Table 7). This shows an impact index value 24% higher than that for DCI001, while the total NO x emissions (Table 5) are only 13% higher. Table 7 Radiative impact index of NO x emissions using altitude weighting Flight plan Radiative impact index DCI DCI002 0 DCI DCI004 0 The significant issue to note from this illustration of altitude weighting effects is that although DCI004 has the highest total amount of NO x emissions, it has the lowest radiative

12 impact index, because those emissions take place at an altitude where NO x emissions are associated with a net cooling effect. This demonstrates the importance of retaining the capability to include an altitude-weighted NO x pricing policy in the framework for the tool. This does not imply that flights DCI002/4 have no warming effect. The radiative impact of CO 2 will be larger for the low altitude flights and is separately addressed in the framework. 3. Economic valuations of NO x emissions at altitude Estimated external costs for a range of emissions are shown in Table 8. These values are used for illustration in the framework in the absence of a specific charging policy. Table 8 Project GAES (ENVISA for EUROCONTROL) Emissions unit costs (2006) Unit Costs ( /tonne) Low Base High CO H 2 O NO x SO x hydrocarbons CO Applying these costs to the four flight plans, we can draw estimates of the external economic costs associated with NO x emissions at altitude. These calculations do not assume altitude weighting as there is no pricing framework for this approach currently available. Method 3 ( Detailed ) emissions estimates are used to derive cost. Table 9 Illustrative external NO x emission costs per flight per flight Low Base High DCI DCI DCI DCI Based on the emission factor of 12.8 g/kg for cruise emissions for a typical international short haul fleet (Table 1), the costs in Table 8 suggest a cost of NO x per kg of fuel of For comparison, Table 8 suggests a cost of for CO 2 per kg of fuel.

13 4. NO x calculation framework This section considers the data required to allow NO x emissions (and an associated cost) to be included in the framework. Figure 3 shows the key inputs and outputs of the calculations required for including NO x emissions costs. FLIGHT TRAJECTORY NO x EMISSIONS COSTING Inputs FLIGHT PLAN AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE NO x EMISSION INDEX NO x PRICE PER TONNE expand flight plan to get flight leg fuel for each altitude band calculate flight leg NO x emissions Outputs Processing sum flight legs to get NO x emissions in each altitude band sum over all altitude bands TOTAL FLIGHT NO x EMISSIONS product of price per tonne and total flight emissions NO x COST Figure 3 NO x cost estimation schematic In the absence of a charging framework for altitude-weighted impacts, Figure 4 shows the schematic for calculations of the radiative forcing index which can be used to estimate the relative NO x impacts of alternative flight plans.

14 FLIGHT TRAJECTORY NO x EMISSIONS COSTING Inputs FLIGHT PLAN AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE NO x EMISSION INDEX NO x ALTITUDE SENSITIVITIES expand flight plan to get flight leg fuel for each altitude band calculate flight leg NO x emissions Outputs Processing sum flight legs to get NO x emissions in each altitude band weight NO x for altitude effect of emissions sum over all altitude bands FLIGHT PLAN NO x IMPACT INDEX Figure 4 Schematic for calculating relative NO x impacts taking into account altitude sensitivity

15 5. Detailed modelling of NO x emissions It is likely that any NO x policy will be based on the reporting techniques currently recommended for national emissions inventories. For this reason, this document has focused on these methods. However, more sophisticated techniques are available for determining the NO x emission index, taking into account detailed engine characteristics, aircraft operation and background atmospheric conditions. The most detailed approach to the estimation of NO x emissions is the Boeing-2 method (corrected by EUROCONTROL). This requires additional data to calculate emissions: Engine-specific fuel flow from ICAO engine emissions databank Correction for aircraft installation effects LTO emission index values from ICAO engine emissions databank Ambient pressure (flight level) Ambient temperature Mach number Relative humidity Saturation vapour pressure 1 For this approach detailed calculations are required, including curve fitting. A schematic of the calculation process is shown in Figure 5. EUROCONTROL CORRECTED BOEING-2 METHOD FUEL FLOW RATE NO x EMISSION INDEX ENGINE ID ENGINE EMISSIONS DATABASE independent of ambient conditions NO x EMISSION INDICES FROM ENGINE EMISSIONS DATABASE convert units and correct for installation effects INSTALLATION CORRECTED FUEL FLOW curve fit (log-log) against installation corrected fuel flow correct for ambient temp and pressure read-off EI using ambient corrected fuel flow correct for ambient humidity adjust EI for ambient conditions CORRECTED FUEL FLOW FOR AMBIENT CONDITIONS dependent on ambient conditions CORRECTED NO x EI FOR FLIGHT LEG Figure 5 Calculation schematic for EUROCONTROL-corrected Boeing 2 method 1 dew point pressure a humidity correction for fuel flow

16 To apply the Boeing-2 method to the sample flight plans, either assumptions about the aircraft powerplants and the ambient atmospheric conditions throughout the flight would be required, or such data could be extracted/estimated from Lido OC. It is unlikely that such calculations will be included in policy proposals in the near future, but the increased ability to differentiate between emissions in different phases of flight could provide a valuable improvement for the application of this tool to actively manage NO x emissions and impacts. The primary challenge for operational use would be the need for data on meteorological conditions to be incorporated in the calculations in real time. Aircraft are not normally instrumented to collect such data. The possibility of an interim scheme for inclusion in the framework, offering more detailed differentiation (particularly between climb and cruise phase and between lower and high altitude cruise), but supported by look up tables (rather than explicit calculation) will be explored further. References EMEP/CORINAIR (2007). "Emissions Inventory Guidebook." European Environment Agency Technical report 16/2007, Forster, P. M. d. F., K. P. Shine and N. Stuber (2006). "It is premature to include non-co 2 effects of aviation in emission trading schemes." Atmospheric Environment 40: Grooß, J.-u., C. Bruhl and T. Peter (1998). "Impact of aircraft emissions on tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. Part I: chemistry and 2-D model results." Atmospheric Environment 32(18): Köhler, M. O., G. Rädel, O. Dessens, K. Shine, H. L. Rogers, O. Wild and J. A. Pyle (2008). "Impact of perturbations to nitrogen oxide emissions from global aviation." Journal of Geophysical Research(doi: /2007JD008918, in press.). Ma, J. and X. Zhou (2000). "Development of a three-dimensional inventory of aircraft NO x emissions over China." Atmospheric Environment 34: Nuic, A. (2004). "Aircraft Performance Summary Tables for the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Revision 3.6." EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brétigny, France Note 12/04. Penner, J. E., D. H. Lister, D. J. Griggs, D. J. Dokken and M. McFarland, Eds. (1999). Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: A Special Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Groups I and III. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

17 Annex: Sample flight plans DCI001 LHR>FRA high (cruise 444 FL330 / en route charge ) (FPL-DCI001-IS -B738/M-SDRPWY/S -EGLL1500 -N0444F330 DVR6J DVR UL9 KONAN UL607 SPI UT180 DITEL T180 POBIX/N0414F230 T180 OSMAX OSMAX3E -EDDF0057 EDFH -EET/EGTT0008 EBUR0017 EDVV0041 EDUU0041 EDGG0047 OPR/DCI PROJECT DOF/ RMK/TCAS) State Ident Name Airway Time NM TAS (IAS) Level Latitude Longitude EG EGLL Heathrow 09R / DVR6J 0 0 CLB N 51:28:39 W 000:27:41 EG DET Detling DVR6J CLB N 51:18:14 E 000:35:50 EG DVR Dover DVR6J / UL CLB N 51:09:45 E 001:21:33 EG T O C UL (280) 330 N 51:09:12 E 001:33:24 EG KONAN Konan UL9 / UL N 51:07:51 E 002:00:00 EB KOK Koksy UL N 51:05:41 E 002:39:06 EB FERDI Ferdi UL N 50:54:45 E 003:38:13 EB BUPAL Bupal UL N 50:43:23 E 004:36:04 EB REMBA Remba UL N 50:39:44 E 004:54:51 EB SPI Sprimont UL N 50:30:53 E 005:37:25 EB DITEL Ditel UT180 / T N 50:20:41 E 006:23:48 ED BENAK Benak T N 50:20:34 E 006:28:33 ED POBIX* Pobix T N 50:20:00 E 006:49:38 ED AKIGO Akigo T N 50:18:20 E 007:01:11 ED OSMAX Osmax T180 / OSMAX3E 250 N 50:15:38 E 007:19:24 ED EPINO Epino OSMAX3E DSC N 50:14:30 E 007:26:59 ED B O D OSMAX3E (280) 230 ED T O D OSMAX3E (299) 230 N 50:12:48 E 007:35:18 ED LAGES Lages OSMAX3E DSC N 50:06:39 E 007:39:05 ED REDLI Redli OSMAX3E DSC N 50:01:14 E 007:48:03 ED EDDF Frankfurt OSMAX3E / 07L (280) DSC N 50:01:59 E 008:34:13 *POBIX is TOD (see notes at end of section)

18 DCI002 Innovative Cooperative Actions of Research & Development LHR>FRA low (cruise 416 FL230 / en route charge ) (FPL-DCI002-IS -B738/M-SDRPWY/S -EGLL1500 -N0416F230 DVR6J DVR L9 KONAN UL607 SPI UT180 DITEL T180 OSMAX OSMAX3E -EDDF0059 EDFH -EET/EBUR0017 EDGG0042 OPR/DCI PROJECT DOF/ RMK/TCAS) State Ident Name Airway Time NM TAS (IAS) Level Latitude Longitude EG EGLL Heathrow 09R / DVR6J 0 0 CLB N 51:28:39 W 000:27:41 EG T O C DVR6J 8 39 (280) 230 N 51:18:30 E 000:32:24 EG DET Detling DVR6J 230 N 51:18:14 E 000:35:50 EG DVR Dover DVR6J / L (301) 230 N 51:09:45 E 001:21:33 EG KONAN Konan L9 / UL (300) 230 N 51:07:51 E 002:00:00 EB KOK Koksy UL (300) 230 N 51:05:41 E 002:39:06 EB FERDI Ferdi UL N 50:54:45 E 003:38:13 EB BUPAL Bupal UL N 50:43:23 E 004:36:04 EB REMBA Remba UL N 50:39:44 E 004:54:51 EB SPI Sprimont UL (299) 230 N 50:30:53 E 005:37:25 EB DITEL Ditel UT180 / T (299) 230 N 50:20:41 E 006:23:48 ED BENAK Benak T N 50:20:34 E 006:28:33 ED POBIX Pobix T N 50:20:00 E 006:49:38 ED AKIGO Akigo T N 50:18:20 E 007:01:11 ED OSMAX Osmax T180 / OSMAX3E (299) 230 N 50:15:38 E 007:19:24 ED EPINO Epino OSMAX3E 230 N 50:14:30 E 007:26:59 ED T O D OSMAX3E N 50:12:48 E 007:35:18 ED LAGES Lages OSMAX3E DSC N 50:06:39 E 007:39:05 ED REDLI Redli OSMAX3E DSC N 50:01:14 E 007:48:03 ED EDDF Frankfurt OSMAX3E / 07L (280) DSC N 50:01:59 E 008:34:13

19 DCI003 Innovative Cooperative Actions of Research & Development LHR>FRA high (cruise 444 FL330 / en route charge ) (FPL-DCI003-IS -B738/M-SDRPWY/S -EGLL1500 -N0444F330 BPK5J BPK UM185 CLN UL620 BASNO UL603 TEBRO T150 BEGOK/N0415F230 T150 ROLIS ROLIS1E -EDDF0104 EDFH -EET/EGTT0009 EHAA0020 EDVV0042 EDGG0049 OPR/DCI PROJECT DOF/ RMK/TCAS) State Ident Name Airway Time NM TAS (IAS) Level Latitude Longitude EG EGLL Heathrow 09R / BPK5J 0 0 CLB N 51:28:39 W 000:27:41 EG BPK Brookmans Park BPK5J / UM CLB N 51:44:59 W 000:06:24 EG TOTRI Totri UM185 CLB N 51:46:30 E 000:11:48 EG MATCH Match UM185 CLB N 51:46:45 E 000:15:00 EG BRAIN Brain UM185 CLB N 51:48:40 E 000:39:06 EG DAGGA Dagga UM185 CLB N 51:49:19 E 000:47:39 EG CLN Clacton UM185 / UL620 CLB N 51:50:55 E 001:08:51 EG T O C UL (280) 330 N 51:53:54 E 001:23:24 EG ARTOV Artov UL N 51:54:19 E 001:25:33 EG REDFA Redfa UL N 52:06:52 E 002:29:16 EH TULIP Tulip UL N 52:22:03 E 003:51:26 EH BASNO Basno UL620 / UL N 52:21:00 E 004:34:30 EH SUPAM Supam UL N 52:09:20 E 005:20:14 EH ARNEM Arnem UL N 52:05:47 E 006:04:35 EH DIDAM Didam UL N 52:02:02 E 006:19:37 ED TEBRO Tebro UL603 / T N 51:53:39 E 006:35:16 ED ABAMI Abami T N 51:25:30 E 007:16:50 ED BEGOK* Begok T N 51:09:22 E 007:24:47 ED COL Cola T N 50:47:01 E 007:35:39 ED B O D T (280) 230 ED ROLIS Rolis T150 / ROLIS1E (299) 230 N 50:26:06 E 007:49:31 ED T O D ROLIS1E (299) 230 N 50:24:54 E 007:51:42 ED ETARU Etaru ROLIS1E DSC N 50:17:08 E 008:06:44 ED EDDF Frankfurt ROLIS1E / 07L (280) DSC N 50:01:59 E 008:34:13 *BEGOK is TOD (see notes at end of section)

20 DCI004 LHR>FRA low (cruise 399 FL190 / en route charge ) (FPL-DCI004-IS -B738/M-SDRPWY/S -EGLL1500 -N0399F190 BPK5J BPK M185 CLN L620 ARNEM L603 TEBRO/N0438F290 T150 BEGOK/N0406F210 T150 ROLIS ROLIS1E -EDDF0108 EDFH -EET/EHAA0021 EDGG0045 EDVV0047 EDGG0054 OPR/DCI PROJECT DOF/ RMK/TCAS) State Ident Name Airway Time NM TAS (IAS) Level Latitude Longitude EG EGLL Heathrow 09R / BPK5J 0 0 CLB N 51:28:39 W 000:27:41 EG BPK Brookmans Park BPK5J / M CLB N 51:44:59 W 000:06:24 EG T O C M (280) 190 N 51:45:54 E 000:04:06 EG TOTRI Totri M N 51:46:30 E 000:11:48 EG MATCH Match M N 51:46:45 E 000:15:00 EG BRAIN Brain M N 51:48:40 E 000:39:06 EG DAGGA Dagga M N 51:49:19 E 000:47:39 EG CLN Clacton M185 / L (305) 190 N 51:50:55 E 001:08:51 EG ARTOV Artov L N 51:54:19 E 001:25:33 EG REDFA Redfa L (305) 190 N 52:06:52 E 002:29:16 EH TULIP Tulip L N 52:22:03 E 003:51:26 EH BASNO Basno L N 52:21:00 E 004:34:30 EH PAM Pampus L (304) 190 N 52:20:05 E 005:05:31 EH NYKER Nyker L N 52:13:49 E 005:31:43 EH ARNEM Arnem L603 / L (303) 190 N 52:05:47 E 006:04:35 EH DIDAM Didam L N 52:02:02 E 006:19:37 ED TEBRO* Tebro L603 / T (303) 190 N 51:53:39 E 006:35:16 ED T O C T (280) 290 ED ABAMI Abami T N 51:25:30 E 007:16:50 ED BEGOK Begok T (288) 290 N 51:09:22 E 007:24:47 ED B O D T (280) 210 ED COL Cola T N 50:47:01 E 007:35:39 ED ROLIS Rolis T150 / ROLIS1E (301) 210 N 50:26:06 E 007:49:31 ED T O D ROLIS1E (301) 210 N 50:23:18 E 007:54:48 ED ETARU Etaru ROLIS1E DSC N 50:17:08 E 008:06:44 ED EDDF Frankfurt ROLIS1E / 07L (280) DSC N 50:01:59 E 008:34:13 *TEBRO is BOC (see notes at end of section) BEGOK is TOD (see notes at end of section) Notes common to all flight plans Aircraft is B (79.0 tonnes MTOW) Flight plans based on specific, not average (ISA), weather TAS/IAS as knots En route charge from CRCO (March 2008) Flight plans may contain multiple TOD/BOD and TOC/BOC flags