Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T01:06:20.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing environmental impacts of aviation with innovative air traffic management technologies

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace The AJ Air Traffic Management Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

V. Williams ,
R. B. Noland ,
A. Majumdar ,
R. Toumi ,
W. Ochieng  and
J. Molloy
V. Williams
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
R. B. Noland
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
A. Majumdar
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
R. Toumi
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Physics Department, Imperial College, London, UK
W. Ochieng
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
J. Molloy
Affiliation:
Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commercially-driven air traffic management (ATM) innovations typically aim to increase air space capacity and/or reduce delays. Here, their potential application for environmental mitigation is discussed. Both carbon dioxide (CO2) and non-CO2 climate impacts are considered, as are noise and air quality issues. We outline the technological, scientific and political barriers to an integrated approach to applying ATM technologies to environmental mitigation. These issues highlight the need to improve comparison and prioritisation of the emissions and effects of aviation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 111 , Issue 1125 , November 2007 , pp. 741 - 749
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Forster, P.M.D.F., Shine, K.P. and Stuber, N.. It is premature to include non-CO2 effects of aviation in emission trading schemes, Atmos Environ, 2006, 40, pp 1117–1121.Google Scholar
2. International Civil Aviation Organization, Environmental benefits associated with CNS/ATM initiatives: Model for assessing global aviation emissions and potential reduction from CNS/ATM measures, 2000.Google Scholar
3. SESAR Consortium, Air Transport Framework: The Current Situation. SESAR Definition Phase — Milestone Deliverable 1, 2006.Google Scholar
4. Franssen, E.A.M., Van Wiechen, C.M.A.G., Nagelkerke, N.J.D. and Lebret, E.. Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2004, 61, pp 405–413.Google Scholar
5. Haines, M.M., Stansfeld, S.A., Job, R.F.S., Berglund, B. and Head, J.. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children, Psych Medicine, 2001, 31, (2), pp 265–277.Google Scholar
6. Stansfeld, S.A., Berglund, B., Clark, C., Lopez-Barrio, I., Fischer, P., ÖhrströM, E., Haines, M.M., Head, J., Hygge, S., Van Kamp, I. and Berry, B.F.. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study, The Lancet, 2005, 365, pp 1942–1949.Google Scholar
7. Thomas, C. and Lever, M.. Aircraft noise, community relations and stakeholder involvement, in Towards Sustainable Aviation, 2003 Upham, P. et al. (eds.), Earthscan, London, pp 97–112.Google Scholar
8. Carlsson, F., Lampi, E. and Martinsson, P.. The marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: does the time of the day matter? Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment, 2004, 9, pp 373–385.Google Scholar
9. Civil Aviation Authority, Noise exposure contours for Heathrow Airport 2004, Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, Report 0501, 2005.Google Scholar
10. Civil Aviation Authority, Noise exposure contours for Stansted Airport 2004. Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, Report 0503, 2005.Google Scholar
11. Kershaw, A.D., Rhodes, D.P. and Smith, N.A.. The influence of ATC in approach noise abatement, 3rd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar, Napoli, 2000.Google Scholar
12. Dowling, A.P. and Hynes, T.. Towards a silent aircraft, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1110), pp 487–494.Google Scholar
13. Brooker, P., Delivering safety in the context of environmental restrictions. CAA Paper 2004/08, 2004.Google Scholar
14. Department for Transport, The future of air transport, White Paper, www.aviation.dft.gov.uk, 2003.Google Scholar
15. Department for Transport, Project for the sustainable development of Heathrow — air quality technical report, http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/environmentalissues/secheatrow-sustain/, 2006.Google Scholar
16. Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Atlantic’s plans to cut carbon emissions gain ground as airports prepare for December trials, Press Release 4 Dec 2006, www.virgin.com/news.Google Scholar
17. Penner, J.E., Lister, D.H., Griggs, D.J., Dokken, D.J. and McFarland, M. (Eds), Aviation and the global atmosphere: A special report of intergovernmental panel on climate change working groups I and III, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999.Google Scholar
18. Sausen, R., Isaksen, I., Grewe, V., Hauglustaine, D., Lee, D.S., Myhre, G., Kohler, M.O., Pitari, G., Schumann, U., Stordal, F. and Zerefos, C.S.. Aviation radiative forcing in 2000: An update on IPCC (1999), Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2005, 14, (4) pp 555–561.Google Scholar
19. International Civil Aviation Organization, Operational opportunities to minimize fuel use and reduce emissions, ICAO Circular, 303-AN/176, 2004.Google Scholar
20. Stuber, N., Forster, P.M.D.F., Rädel, G. and Shine, K.. The importance of the diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing. Nature, 2006, 441, pp 864–867.Google Scholar
21. Williams, V., Noland, R.B. and Toumi, R.. Reducing the climate change impacts of aviation by restricting cruise altitudes, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2002, 7, (6), pp 451–464.Google Scholar
22. Williams, V. and Noland, R.B.. Variability of contrail formation conditions and the implications for policies to reduce the climate impacts of aviation, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2005, 10, (4), pp 269–280.Google Scholar
23. Spichtinger, P., Gierens, K., Leiterer, U. and Dier, H.. Ice supersaturation in the tropopause region over Lindenberg, Germany, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 2003, 12, (3), pp 143–156.Google Scholar
24. Mannstein, H., Spichtinger, P. and Gierens, K.. A note on how to avoid contrail cirrus, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2005, 10, pp 421–426.Google Scholar
25. Williams, V. and Noland, R.B.. Carbon dioxide and time penalties associated with in-flight trajectory adjustments to avoid contrail formation, Submitted to 7th USA/Europe ATM R&D Seminar, Barcelona, 2007.Google Scholar
26. EUROCONTROL, Performance review report: an assessment of air traffic management in Europe during the calendar year 2005, Performance Review Commission, 2006.Google Scholar
27. Helios Economics and Policy Services, The impact of fragmentation in European ATM/CNS. Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission, EUROCONTROL, 2006. http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/fragmen-tation.pdf.Google Scholar
28. Majumdar, A. and Polak, J.. A framework for the estimation of European airspace capacity using a model of controller workload, Transportation Research Record, 2001, (1744), pp 30–43.Google Scholar
29. EUROCONTROL, Long-term forecast IFR flight movements 2006-2025, 2006.Google Scholar
30. EUROCONTROL, Air traffic management strategy for the years 2000+, (1,2), EUROCONTROL, Belgium, 2003.Google Scholar
31. European Commission, Study on the implementation rules of economic regulation within the framework of the implementation of the single European sky, Final Report, TREN/f2/28-2002, Brussels, 2003.Google Scholar
32. SESAR Consortium, Air transport framework: the performance target,s SESAR definition phase — Milestone deliverable 2, 2006.Google Scholar
33. IATA, Key priorities for developing next generation ATM systems, Speech by Giovanni Bisignani to the Civil Air Navigation Service Organization (CANSO) conference, Maatstricht, Netherlands, February 13, 2007, www.iata.org.Google Scholar
34. International Civil Aviation Organisation, Operational opportunities to minimize fuel use and reduce emissions, ICAO Circular, 303-AN/176, 2004.Google Scholar
35. International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO’s policies on charges for airports and air navigation services, Seventh Edition, Doc 9082/7, 2004.Google Scholar
36. Guibert, S. and Guichard, L.. Paradigm SHIFT — Dual airspace concept assessment, 4th EUROCONTROL Innovative Research Workshop, Bretigny, France, 2005.Google Scholar
37. Mead, R., Industry initiative promises fuel savings, environmental benefits and greater safety, ICAO J, 2006, 61, (4), pp 6–8 & 31.Google Scholar
38. MFF Consortium, Flight trials over the Mediterranean, Mediterranean Free Flight Newsletter, (4), 2006.Google Scholar
39. Ehrmanntraut, R., Performance parameters of speed control & the potential of lateral offset, Eurocontrol Experimental Centre Note 22/05, 2005.Google Scholar
40. Bourgois, M., Cooper, M., Duong, V., Hjalmarsson, J., Lange, M. and Ynnerman, A.. Interactive and immersive 3D visualization for ATC, ATM 2005 – 6th USA/Europe R&D Seminar, Baltimore, 2005.Google Scholar
41. Peeters, P., Gössling, S. and Williams, V.. Air transport greenhouse gas emission factors, Tourism and Climate Change Mitigation Conference, 11-14 June 2006, The Netherlands, 2006.Google Scholar
42. Green, J.E.. Greener by Design, Proceedings of the AAC-Conference: 30 June to 3 July, 2003, Friedrichshafen, Germany, 2003, pp 334–342.Google Scholar
43. Brooker, P.. Civil aircraft design priorities: air quality? climate change? noise? Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1110), pp 517–532.Google Scholar
44. Cairns, S. and Newson, C., Predict and decide: Aviation, climate change and UK policy, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, 2006.Google Scholar
45. European Commission, Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees Celsius: The way ahead for 2020 and beyond. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/future_action/com_2007_2_en.pdf. Google Scholar
46. Bows, A. and Anderson, K.L.. Policy clash: Can projected aviation growth be reconciled with the UK Government’s 60% carbon-reduction target? Transport Policy, in press.Google Scholar