D6.3 Publishable Summary Report

D6.3 Publishable Summary Report WP / Task N : D6.3 Lead Contractor (deliverable responsible): FS Due date of deliverable 01/12/2011 Actual submission date: 11/04/2012 Report Period: 6 month 12 month 18 month Period covered: from: Month 1 to: Month 16 Grant Agreement number: 265867 Project acronym: RETROFIT Project title: Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleet wise Implementation of new Technology Funding Scheme: Support Action Start date of the project: 01/11/2010 Project coordinator name, title and organisation: M. Knegt, Fokker Services Tel: +31 886280202 Fax: +31 886280211 E-mail: martin.knegt@fokker.com Project website address: www.fokkerservices.com/retrofit_fp7 Duration: 16 months PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT

List of authors Full Name Dave Chilton Ad de Graaff Erik Baalbergen Johan Kos Evert Jesse Emile Kroon Harry Tsahalis Company Information Fokker Services ADCUENTA NLR NLR ADSE Fokker Services PARAGON Document Information Document Name: Document ID: D6.3 Version Date: 10/08/2012 Author: D. Chilton Security: PUBLIC Approvals Coordinator Knegt FS WP leader Knegt FS Name Company Date Visa Documents history Page 2/48

Version Date Modification Authors 0.1 11/04/12 Initial draft version D. Chilton 1.0 17/04/12 Final version D. Chilton 2.0 07/06/12 Final version with comments from EU Project Officer 2.1 10/08/12 Final version with comments from EU Project Officer M. Knegt J. Kos E. Baalbergen M. Knegt Page 3/48

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 8 2 INTRODUCTION...10 2.1 CONTEXT OF THE RETROFIT PROJECT...10 2.2 BACKGROUND...10 2.3 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT...11 2.4 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT...11 2.5 INTENDED READERSHIP...11 3 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION...13 3.1 THE DEFINITIONS...13 3.2 THE OUTCOME OF THE INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND WORKSHOP...13 3.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE INITIAL STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP...14 3.4 EXPERIENCE WITH PREVIOUS RETROFIT PROGRAMS...15 4 TECHNOLOGY INVENTORY...18 4.1 TECHNOLOGY LONG LIST...18 4.2 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP...18 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SHORT LIST FOR RTD ACTIVITIES...19 5 AIRWORTHINESS AND CERTIFICATION...22 6 INTEGRATION...24 6.1 PROPOSALS FOR COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS...24 6.2 INDUSTRIAL CONSEQUENCES...31 6.3 WORKFORCE RELATED TO THE THREE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGIES...33 7 RTD FUNDING AND TECHNOLOGY TAKE UP...35 7.1 SUPPORT FOR RTD...35 7.2 SUPPORT FOR CERTIFICATION...36 7.3 SUPPORT FOR NEAR TERM RETROFIT OPPORTUNITIES...36 8 FINAL WORKSHOP...40 Page 4/48

8.1 PRESENTATIONS BY THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM MEMBERS...40 8.2 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS...40 8.3 COST BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS...41 8.4 POINTS OF DISCUSSION...41 9 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK...43 9.1 THE RETROFIT PROJECT HAS CONCLUDED A NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES:...43 9.2 THE RETROFIT PROJECT RECOMMENDS:...43 10 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION...44 11 REFERENCES...45 12 APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AND REFERENCE GROUP CONSULTATION...47 13 APPENDIX B: FINAL WORKSHOP GROUP...48 List of figures and tables Figure 1: payback time vs. aircraft conversion time dependent on average time savings 25 Table 1: Retrofit technologies chosen by the consortium members of the RETROFIT project 23 Table 2: Community benefit of retrofit for SESAR compatibility under different assumptions 26 Table 3: Operator benefits of re-engining 27 Table 4: Operator capital related costs due to re-engining 27 Table 5: reduction of external costs 27 Table 6: Cost savings per year to the operator 28 Table 7: Consortium risk overview 30 Page 5/48

Glossary AHMS AOG APU ATA ATC ATM CMS CO2 DOA EASA EC EIB ETS EU FAA FDM FMS FP FS FSS GE GM GPS HBR HUMS IFEC IRU MRO Acronym Signification Advanced Health Monitoring System Aircraft-on-Ground Auxiliary Power Unit Air Transport Association of America Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Management Continuous Monitoring System Carbon dioxide Design Organisation Approval European Aviation Safety Agency European Commission European Investment Bank Emissions Trading Scheme European Union US Federal Aviation Administration Flight Data Management Flight Management System (EU) Framework Programme Fokker Services Flight Support Structure General Electric (EASA) Guidance Material Global Positioning System High Bypass Ratio Health and Usage Monitoring System In-Flight Entertainment and Connectivity Inertial Reference Unit Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul NEO New Engine Option (Airbus A320) NLR OEM Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium, National Aerospace Laboratory Original Equipment Manufacturer Page 6/48

PW RETROFIT ROI RTD SES SESAR SESARJU SESAR IP STC STF SWIM TCH TRL UDF USA VIP Pratt & Whitney Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleet wise Implementation of new Technology Return On Investment Research and Technology Development Single European Sky Single European Sky ATM Research SESAR Joint Undertaking SESAR Implementation Packages Supplemental Type Certificate: a document issued by the FAA approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification. Shear Thickening Fluid System Wide Information Management Type Certificate Holder Technology Readiness Level Unducted Fan United States of America Very ImPortant Page 7/48

1 Executive Summary The RETROFIT project analyses the possibilities and attractiveness of retrofitting new technical solutions, which are developed or available for new aircraft types, into the large existing fleet of commercial aircraft. A new generation of aircraft is only at the horizon. Existing aircraft still have a long life to serve, whereas the operational environment is changing. Airlines are confronted with emission trading, new noise rules, increasing fuel prices, new safety and security demands, a new air traffic management (ATM) environment where older aircraft generally do not comply with the new ATM standards without modifications, and passenger expectations to enjoy the highest levels of comfort possible. An overview of the project outcome is given which covers stakeholder requirements, technology inventory, airworthiness/certification, integration and technology take up. The project has involved external stakeholders from the aeronautics industry through a workshop. This resulted in an inventory which provides a list of candidate technologies composed of present and future technologies that may be retrofitted to existing aircraft. The inventory was executed in a number of steps, from an Initial Long List, refer to deliverable report D2.1 [D21] containing a first inventory of candidate technologies to the final version of the Technology Inventory as described and included in deliverable report D2.5 [D25]. In the course of setting up the Technology Inventory, recommendations with respect to Research and Technology Development (RTD) for retrofits were collected and experiences with previous (and current) retrofit programs were analysed. Certification issues have been considered: the final long list of the technology inventory has been reviewed to determine if certification of the proposed changes is feasible (certification guidance available) and if the certification effort becomes a limiting factor. The project also looked at the cost benefit of a few possible mature retrofit options that were chosen by the team as being worthwhile to investigate further. These were: Avionics for SESAR compatibility; New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft; Taxiing by internal power. The purpose was to investigate if these potential retrofits would be cost effective and could ultimately be attractive for funding entities to support the retrofits. Also the European industrial involvement of these retrofits was studied. Finally, recommendations are issued. For the aeronautics sector in general the project recommends: to stimulate the air transport sector and the research community to look for retrofit opportunities in view of the extended use of aircraft in the European theatre; Page 8/48

To stimulate the sector to come forward with new retrofit proposals in the future; To stimulate Performance and Improvements Packages initiatives. As far as research programmes funded by the European Commission are concerned, the project recommends the following: to require that any RTD proposal for technology development for new aircraft addresses the potential for retrofit. In promising cases for retrofit the RTD proposal should in addition dedicate a work package to this topic; to take specific action to decrease the certification cost and time of retrofits. The high certification cost due to the currently needed repetition of costly tests is preventing the economical application of many new technologies. On the other hand, the recent progress in virtual (that is, software model based) testing reveals a potential to reduce the certification cost of retrofits. It is therefore recommended to stimulate the research on virtual testing and to encourage virtual certification. to stimulate the research and development on the specific retrofit topics: o To incorporate research topics for retrofits in the next call of the RTD Framework program, through feasibility studies ( level 0), maturing promising technologies through Level 1 projects and integrate retrofit technologies in Level 2 projects. o To demonstrate retrofit technologies in Clean Sky and SESAR. o To stimulate and facilitate the implementation of retrofits that also benefit societal issues like environmental protection, reduce oil dependency, increase safety and security and ensure mobility by the use of TEN T, structure and regional funds Details of the RETROFIT project can be found on: http://www.fokkerservices.com/retrofit_fp7 Page 9/48

2 Introduction 2.1 Context of the RETROFIT project The RETROFIT project analyses the possibilities and attractiveness of retrofitting new technical solutions, which are being developed or which are available for new aircraft types, into the large existing fleet of commercial aircraft. A new generation of aircraft is only at the horizon. Existing aircraft still have a long life to serve, whereas the operational environment is changing. Airlines are confronted with emission trading, new noise rules, increasing fuel prices, new safety and security demands, and a new ATM environment where older aircraft generally do not comply with the new ATM standards without modifications, and passenger expectations to enjoy the highest levels of comfort possible. The project first addressed the stakeholder requirements and investigated current and future technology options to retrofit into existing aircraft. Next, it addressed the need to perform additional research to make retrofits attractive as well as the question if specific research activities should be integrated in the EC framework programs. It addressed the certification issues related to retrofits and it investigated the industrial spin off. It also made a cost benefit analysis based on existing airline fleets and potential applications of new technical solutions. Finally, it assessed funding mechanisms for promising business cases. The results of the project have been widely disseminated. Promising cases can lead to a substantial economic activity in many European countries. Details on the project and the applied definition of retrofit are given in deliverable report D1.1 [D11]. 2.2 Background The European aeronautical industries and their supply chains, the research centres, and the universities are continuously developing, integrating and validating new technologies and processes in order to ensure industrial competitiveness answering the needs of its customers and of the European society. The aeronautical Research and Technology Development (RTD) mainly focuses on developments of technologies and processes that will finally be applied in new aircraft and engines or new derivatives of existing aircraft and engines. Aeronautical research and technology development is stimulated already for many years by the European Commission through Framework Programmes. The Transport Programme in the 7th Framework funds a large number of RTD projects addressing the need for more environmentally friendly, passenger friendly, and cost effective air transport, involving both small and targeted (Level 1) projects and integrated (Level 2) projects. In addition, the public-private joint technology initiatives Clean Sky and SESAR are operational. Besides the European funded projects, national programmes in the EU Member States are also stimulating RTD of aeronautical technologies and processes. However the development of new technologies and processes in RTD programmes is generally not focusing on retrofits. New technologies and processes are aimed at newly developed aircraft, whereas the fleet-wise application of these new technologies and processes through retrofits would allow obtaining societal and economic benefits earlier Page 10/48

and on a much larger scale, since a large portion of the future transport fleet will still consist of aircraft in service today. The project, and in particular work package 5, is aimed at disseminating the information regarding the possible benefits of retrofit for Europe, by linking the benefits to European Union (EU) policy and identifying the possible roles that the European Commission (EC) together with the European Investment Bank (EIB) can fulfil. It is envisaged that EC and EIB will have a role in supporting and promoting retrofits in the form of facilitating earlier introduction of new technologies by financial stimulation. The goals of the project are not limited to commercial interests and are expected to deliver many societal benefits by the reduction of CO2 and other emissions as well as increasing safety. 2.3 Purpose of this document This document contains the results of the project RETROFIT and summarizes the project by giving brief explanations of the first work packages: - Project requirements identification - Experience with previous retrofit projects - Technology inventory - Airworthiness and certification The results of the last 2 work packages are discussed in more detail: - Integration - Technology take up 2.4 About this document Chapter 3 describes the project requirements identification and the initial goals. Chapter 4 charts the steps taken towards realisation of the list of technologies and also includes a list of proposed RTD technologies. Chapter 5 is a summary of the airworthiness and certification effort presented to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Chapter 6 presents the summary and conclusions of the consortium members selected retrofit proposals. Chapter 7 is targeted at promoting the potential benefits of retrofitting for Europe and how the EIB and EU could have a role to play. Chapter 8 is a short account of the final workshop. Chapter 9 is a summary of conclusions and future work. 2.5 Intended readership This report was made under contract from the European Commission and serves to give recommendations on how to proceed on the topic of retrofits. Page 11/48

Page 12/48

3 Project Requirements Identification 3.1 The definitions The definition of retrofit is: To change the design or the construction, or to include, modify or substitute parts or equipment of aircraft already in operation, in order to incorporate improvements that were not existing, available or used at the time of original manufacture. Modifications are defined as changes not covered by the original approved type certificate for the product. Conversions are a special type of modifications as these change the original role or mission of the aircraft, such as converting passenger aircraft to freighters or aerial tankers, VIP aircraft, patrol or fire fighting aircraft. These types of modifications are not part of the study. Retrofits are different from Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) activities, as these involve inspection, maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft and aircraft components without including novel parts or modifying the aircraft or its components. The objective is to define suitable retrofit opportunities within the civil aviation sector by: Understanding the rationale behind previous retrofit projects Knowing the requirements and the decision factors relevant for future retrofit opportunities Identifying future research needs for retrofit technologies Identifying suitable (sufficiently mature, available, economically feasible and certifiable) technologies to incorporate in existing civil aircraft Performing a cost benefit analysis on these mature technologies Addressing certification issues Matching the opportunities for funding with European Incentives Identifying possible industrial conglomerates/partnership to take up possible retrofit opportunities and the effects on the workforce 3.2 The outcome of the initial questionnaire and workshop To enable a better understanding of the market place and the drivers for retrofit actions the consortium formulated a questionnaire which was delivered to a representative group of stakeholders. The grouping of questions reflected general, specific and technical aspects of the project. The following list is a summary of outcome of the questionnaire and the reference group input that was received in a workshop which was set up as an early project activity and held on 2 March 2011. More information about this consultation can be found in Appendix A. Page 13/48

The main conclusions of the initial consultation were: Retrofits could increase comfort levels for passengers. Company image can be an important incentive for retrofitting (green image, winglets, CO2 compensation, comfort etc.) Within the business segment there is a strong demand for state of the art interiors. Reduction of delays could be stimulated; Cost of fuel for holding patterns, shorter turnaround time. Problems with existing systems (reliability, maintenance costs etc.) create an incentive to modify or retrofit an aircraft system. Return on Investment (ROI) is the main decision factor; uncertainties and long ROI make retrofits unattractive. Leased aircraft are less attractive for retrofits as leasing companies often require that the aircraft will be returned to its original configuration and retrofits often benefit the user rather than the owner. A role for the EU could be to stimulate retrofits in order to reduce emissions, reduce noise, ensure mobility whilst reducing congestion and create extra high level jobs. Note: The revenues from an Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) could be used to provide an incentive for green retrofits. (The revenue generated by the ETS is delivered directly to the Member States and not centrally distributed.) When comparing the large commercial civil market to the defence market several key differences make it more attractive for military aircraft to be retrofitted. (Aircraft lifetime, mission requirements, regulations.) 3.3 Conclusions from the initial stakeholder workshop Main barriers for retrofits are the non-recurring costs and risks involved accompanied by limited ROI or intangible benefits. Another barrier is the ownership of the aircraft (leased vs. owned). Aircraft that are owned by airlines are more likely to be retrofitted than the ones that are leased. In order to overcome the commercial risks a retrofit program should be shared by modifying a larger fleet of aircraft whist retrofit packages need to be optimised to reduce downtime of the aircraft. From the first analysis of technologies one can see that retrofitting of new or advanced technology engines is seen as a potential on the side of the manufacturers. However airlines and MRO companies are more sceptical due to high risk and cost involved, and to the fact that such programs need to be performed on large fleets instead of individual aircraft. However upgrades of existing engines are seen as more beneficial. Aerodynamic updates are more widely accepted. New upgrades that have little effect on the existing aircraft structure seem to have the best potential. Page 14/48

Modernizing the cabin is also seen as a potential retrofit activity. Retrofits can be applied when the cabin is refurbished (normally 5 to 7 years) giving 5 or 6 opportunities during the aircraft s planned useful life. The use of alternative fuels is only profitable if the price for alternative fuel is lower than kerosene. Retrofit has the largest potential in advanced equipment solutions, and specifically in the area of ATM compliance The use of onboard diagnostics systems is generally seen to have a potential for reducing the cost of maintenance and simultaneously increasing reliability (as it should help with quicker troubleshooting and therefore reduces man-hour cost and potentially unnecessary removal of components.) As the spectrum of these types of technologies is wide, the benefits of implementation of these systems are still unclear and the applicability of this technology as a retrofit solution is most likely on component level (for example, included in avionic upgrades). Regarding passenger connectivity the participants had widespread opinions. Summarizing one can say that this technology will find its way into aviation as requirements for continuous connectivity to the internet. This would result in improved inflight entertainment capabilities most likely in combination with social media. Involvement of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) in retrofit programs is essential as supplier of certified data, certification and configuration management and having the potential to reach a broad customer base. However OEM interests of selling new aircraft are conflicting with investing in older aircraft beyond mandatory requirements. If there is a good business case there seems to be little need for additional public funding opportunities except for small retrofit batches. EU funding via the EIB would reduce costs and could act as a catalyst for retrofits assuming that the business case is good. 3.4 Experience with previous retrofit programs The purpose of the investigation into the experiences with previous retrofit programmes was to obtain insight in the factors and conditions that impact the decisions for executing retrofit activities, in particular for fleet-wide retrofit initiatives (refer to deliverable report D2.3 [D23]). The investigation into previous retrofit programmes was based on literature found on the internet. Results of retrofit programmes (for example, implementation costs, logistics, operational benefits), whether successful or not, are not made publicly available. The majority of such programmes are either conducted in-house by an airline or OEM, or are a result of private ventures between airline(s) and the retrofit solution provider, and in all cases propriety information is involved. Moreover the project did not include additional financial resources specifically for procurement of costly reports from studies conducted for specific retrofits market segments. The results of the investigation into previous retrofit programmes consisted of a categorized listing of past and present retrofit programmes and solutions. The Page 15/48

investigation could not cover all possible retrofits as the scope would be too broad given the limitations of information that is publicly available. Despite the limitations encountered, results found during the study do lead to an overall positive conclusion. Retrofits are generally one-off endeavors that are driven by necessity rather than by market competition conditions or strategies for continuous product performance improvement. However, cases included in the deliverable report D2.3 [D23] indicate that retrofits are carried out more frequently than thought and retrofits are becoming an activity for which the respective needs, business cases and market potential is constantly growing and diversifying. Retrofits are not necessarily targeted to ageing and/or out-of-production aircraft only. The findings of this study included retrofits in the following categories: - Avionics - Engines - Real-time large-volume data communications for aircraft operational monitoring and safety - Aircraft cabin modifications and conversions - In-flight entertainment - Airframes and structural components (for flight efficiency and drag reduction, retrofits concerning airframe and structural components health (SHM) and usage monitoring (HUMS), and the associated information and communication technology (ICT) and communications capabilities) From the varying cases over time identified in the study, reasons for aircraft upgrades and modifications vary. However on a top level main reasons and/or incentives include initiatives initiated by mandates (such for engines, avionics) and negative events (aircraft tracking and data communications), keeping the product up-to-date with improvements introduced by OEMs per customer requirements and expectations (increase in functionalities, energy consumption and emissions reduction) or by airlines per passenger requirements and expectations (weight reductions, increased capacity, comfort, connectivity) and rationalization of operational costs (maintenance, repair, reduction of spares count). In addition to the previous there is also an emerging need to retain and modernize certain aircraft types (whether in production or not) to either maintain certain segments and benefits of airlines routes business models (city-pairing, freight) in the face of absence of appropriate contemporary in-production aircraft models vs. older and outproduction aircraft models that were designed to do so, or the need for airlines to maintain operational capacity to counter delays in new aircraft deliveries or for deferral of aircraft orders (in times of financial markets strain and reduced access to lending capital). One of the promising trends that could contribute as a multiplier for access to and expansion of retrofits programs could be in the form of the so-called Performance Improvements Packages (PIPs) programs. These refer to programs mainly initiated and carried out by either Engine OEMs or Airframe OEMs or both. In the case for engines Page 16/48

these are programs for development and fleet-wide deployment of technical improvement packages for the more popular in-service engines (addressing engine performance improvement per reductions in fuel-burn, emissions, and noise). Such programs are far more numerous than re-engining projects (that are initiated by airframe OEMs) as these do not require structural changes to pylons or wings of in-service aircraft. PIPs are not exclusive to long-time in-service engine models as they are also developed and deployed for clean-sheet aircraft models being delivered now (for example, Boeing B787 and B787-8). With respect to Airframe OEMs, PIP developments encompass a range of changes (including for engines in coop with Engine OEMs) mainly to improve aircraft aerodynamic characteristics to improve or reduce certain operational characteristics (access to airports, reduction of aerodynamic drag thereby increases or reductions in cruise performance, fuel-burn, range, MTOW accordingly) and avionics, as also the product offering in the form of new cabin concepts and cabin systems applicable through retrofit s. Performance Improvement Packages have and are developed by such Airframe OEMs as Airbus, Boeing, and Bombardier. Surprisingly, PIPs have been found to not be exclusive only to established Airframe OEMs nor only for contemporary aircraft models, there are also applicable to outproduction aircraft models such as in the case of Super98 (USA) that in the past halfdecade has been developing and certifying a range of PIPs to revive the DC / MD -series aircraft models as also the out-of-production Boeing B717 and B727 series aircraft models. Such aircraft are in wide use in US markets, and are not fully replaceable by contemporary aircraft models. However PIP development projects have been centered almost exclusively on turbo-fan aircraft models and much less on turbo-prop models for which in the market today only two main Airframe OEMs are present, ATR (EU), Bombardier (CAN). Other than turboprop aircraft models in-service today that are manufactured by ATR and Bombardier, all other in-service turboprop aircraft are no longer in production (for example turboprop aircraft produced by, Fokker, Fairchild, Dornier, Saab), hence retrofit market potentials are evident. The Performance Improvement Package (PIP) scheme could be seen as a blueprint for the creation of retrofit initiatives. The PIP scheme may also be extended to include aircraft systems upgrades or replacements. The PIP scheme may also allow the creation, access, and involvement of groupings (Tier-level suppliers, SMEs, Academic Institutes, Research Establishments) to cooperate or to oversight with OEMs. In this way the PIP scheme would broaden the spectrum of integration and allow for the introduction of newer technologies that are a derivative of long-time RTD initiatives. Page 17/48

4 Technology inventory In the Technology Inventory a list of candidate technologies was composed of present and future technologies that may be retrofitted to existing aircraft. The inventory was executed in a number of steps, from an Initial Long List containing a first inventory of candidate technologies to the final version of the Technology Inventory as described and included in deliverable report D2.5 [D25]. In the course of setting up the Technology Inventory, recommendations with respect to Research and Technology Development (RTD) for retrofits were collected and experiences with previous (and current) retrofit programs were analysed. 4.1 Technology Long List First, an Initial Long List of candidate technologies for retrofit was set up. The information about existing and new technologies that are considered for retrofitting presently or in the (near) future was initially collected from various sources, including the RETROFIT project consortium members who participated in successive Framework Programmes, national programmes (as far as available), European FP6 and FP7 projects, and the stakeholder interviews held in January and February 2011. The technologies were categorised according to topics in the following technology categories: Re-engining, Alternative fuels, Aerodynamics, Cabin, Structures, Avionics, Equipment, Security technology, Safety technology, and Other. The technology inventory was originally set up as an MS Excel sheet of which the information is included in deliverable report D2.1 [D21]. In a schematic overview the detailed information is provided on all technologies, amongst other: specification of technology and relevant issues, Technology Readiness Level (TRL), references and required RTD for application. Each technology has been assessed to see if it provides one of the following benefits: Improving basic efficiency of flight; Reduction of operational losses; Reduction of airport noise; Reduction of pollutant emissions; Improvement of well-being of passengers; Improvement of ATM compatibility. 4.2 Stakeholder workshop The Initial technology list in report D2.1 [D21] was presented to the participants of the Technology working session of the Reference Group meeting held at Fokker Services in Nieuw-Vennep on 2 March 2011. The working session s participants were allocated to different teams, with each team supervised by a project partner and comprising a variety of stakeholders. The participants of the workshop are presented in Appendix A. The discussion was based on the initial long list of technical possibilities for retrofits as included in deliverable report D2.1 [D21]. Page 18/48

The questions posed to the workshop participants were: 1. Which technologies are missing from the list? 2. Indicate in the Initial Long List those technologies that are potentially attractive in the timeframe from now up to 2020. 3. Present the top 5 of most attractive technology items. Stakeholders, and in particular operators and system manufacturers, see little need for RTD. Manufacturers and MROs see some benefits and needs for specific research in particular areas. The top 5 of most attractive technology items was: Wing tip devices; Weight reduction technologies in the cabin; In-flight entertainment (IFE) & communications; Avionics to improve flight efficiency & for ATM compatibility; Compatibility with alternative fuels. The results of the workshop are reported in the combined project deliverable report D1.3/D2.4 [D13D24]. The Initial Long List was updated with feedback received during the discussions. Among other things, an indication of whether or not the technology is considered as potentially attractive by the stakeholders was added as a new property for each technology in the long list. The team concluded that: - The development of wing tip devices that would not require structural modifications to the aircraft wings would be an interesting RTD topic. - Cabin weight reduction will use technologies that are already developed for new aircraft and interiors. - IFE and communications can be derived from technologies developed for new aircraft. The integration into older aircraft needs attention however. - Avionics for ATM compatibility should be investigated. - Alternative fuels need demonstrations to test the long term effects on engines. The long list was updated with the information collected during the workshop and the analysis of experiences with previous (and current) retrofit programs. As the initial long list is very extensive, a more concise variant was abstracted containing the most relevant technologies. This final long list is included in deliverable report D2.5 [D25]. 4.3 Recommendations and short list for RTD activities General recommendations with respect to Research and Technology Development (RTD) for retrofits include Research in particular areas; Page 19/48

System or component integration into older, existing aircraft; Validation and demonstration; Long-term impact on technology and maintenance, and certification of retrofits (for example, allowing simulations for small retrofits). Furthermore, it is recommended to include retrofit aspects in RTD programs, including integration / interfacing aspects of the new technologies in existing aircraft. To prepare the recommendations for the European Commission, additional analysis was carried out by the consortium. The summary of RTD topics was updated with latest insight and analysed in a consortium meeting to develop a short list of RTD needs considering such issues as contents, relevance for the market, technological feasibility and the extent and kind of RTD needed. The TRL levels in this table are the technology readiness levels from the point of view of retrofit application. Such a TRL level can be quite different from the TRL level of the same technology for application in new aircraft. For example major integration issues in existing aircraft lead to a TRL level of at most 4 from retrofit point of view. The TRL levels are further explained and amplified in the Report on initial long list which is to be found in retrofit deliverable D2.1 [D21]. To give an insight as to the Type of EC project more information is explained in the executive summary. The analysis resulted in the recommendation for the EC to stimulate the research and technology demonstration on the following 10 retrofit topics (refer to deliverable report D2.2 [D22]): Technology Cost-efficient implementation of Single European Sky ATM Research requirements (SESAR) on existing aircraft, for example, through a validated and certifiable uniform SESAR box to be interfaced with existing avionics suites. Feasibility and implementation of advanced, stand-alone (i.e., not tied into main avionics) Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) for structures and none-critical systems on existing aircraft, supported by RTD on air-ground communication and more advanced data communication (integrated data-power, wireless transmission) in existing aircraft. Wireless data communication in existing aircraft for integrated configurable network solutions for, for example, advanced In- Flight Entertainment and Connectivity, cabin management and safety. Air-ground and at-gate communication in existing aircraft, for example, for Advanced Health and Usage Monitoring System (AHUMS), black boxes, turn-around operations, connectivity Page 20/48 TRL Level RTD Required Type of EC project 1 or 2 YES Level 0/1 3 YES Level 1 3 or 4 YES Level 2 3 or 4 YES Level 1

with maintenance base and IRU fault detection. Engine systems and components retrofit development, rig testing, demonstration, and flight qualification such as combustion chamber retrofit for Nitrogen Oxide reduction. Development of a retrofit kit for nacelle and composite fan casing, for weight reduction, aerodynamics benefits (laminar flow) and potentially also reduction of noise. The long term performance of alternative, non-drop-in fuels (incl. synthetic fuel and biofuel) in existing engines without (major) modifications on existing aircraft, such as the effect on the gas path, the effect on the engine maintenance on the long term, and the effect on the engine washing. Integration and validation of new parts for the exchange of secondary structures by composite parts, for weight reduction and other structural benefits. Feasibility of a glass cockpit replacing analogue instruments in existing aircraft. (because of the differences in avionics and generic FMS applications the design and development is often per type for small / medium operators) Alternatives to main engine based taxiing for existing aircraft, such as taxiing on internal power using electric motors in the main undercarriage, to allow main engines on idle setting or switched off during taxiing. 4 YES Clean Sky 4 YES Clean Sky 3 YES Clean Sky 3 Yes Per type Yes Per Type 4 Possibly Clean Sky Page 21/48

5 Airworthiness and Certification The final long list of the technology inventory has been reviewed to determine if certification of the proposed changes is feasible (certification guidance available) and if the certification effort becomes a limiting factor. The objective of the task number 3 was to provide an overview of the certification implications of the new technologies as presented in the technology inventory. In deliverable report D3.1 [D31] the certification implications were discussed for each group of technologies from the technology inventory by identifying and describing aspects that may play a role in certification. (The extent of these aspects only becomes clear in an actual certification process.) Additionally several specific technologies were evaluated in order to provide an impression of certification issues that could exist. It must be noted that it is difficult to give definite information about certification of certain technologies in a generic way. Certification of technologies is an interactive process with the certification authorities and the real extent of the effort can only be defined when the actual certification process is actually initiated and all details are known. All proposed changes can be certified. An important question in the retrofit perspective is at what cost a change can be certified. Some of the proposal for re-engining will result in classification as a substantial change. For a substantial change a new Type Certificate must be applied for and the whole aircraft certification must be redone. In view of the certification cost involved it is highly unlike that a substantial change will be performed. The discussed technologies are wide spread so that an accurate impact of the certification effort cannot be made. For this reason the certification chapters provided in the report are high level and generic. In addition it must be noted that a certification applicant can propose a certification plan, but final approval is provided by EASA. This means that the exact certification effort can only be established after agreement of the certification plan by EASA. Even when EASA approves a certification plan then it is still possible that during the certification EASA requires compliance with additional certification requirements. This can happen when an accident investigation uncovers an unsafe condition. In discussions with stakeholders it was stressed that the certification of retrofits is expensive and time consuming. It was suggested that the certification process could be shortened if EASA would apply procedures as used by the FAA. It was also suggested that certification could be quicker and more cost effective if the retrofits were to be certified by the OEMs. This would prevent a situation whereby individual retrofit providers need to certify retrofits on their own, leading to multiple certifications. If the OEMs would be more active in retrofits, time and cost could be saved. However in most cases the OEMs are focusing on new product development. Good experience has been gained with upgrades that for example Boeing developed for its products. Page 22/48

To explain the technology and the maturity thereof it was decided to include extra information with regards to the expected certification category the scale of usage up until now and also the need for further research and development. The following EASA classifications exist: Substantial change ; Significant change ; Non-significant change. The non-significant changes can be subdivided in major and minor changes. A substantial change is a product level design change which is so extensive that a substantially complete investigation of compliance with the applicable requirements is required, and consequently a new type-certificate has to be applied for. A significant change is a product level change to the type-certificate to the extent that it changes the general configuration or the principles of construction are not retained or the assumptions used for the certification of the product to be changed do not remain valid, but not to the extend to be considered a substantial change. For a substantial change the latest requirements must be used during the certification of the change. Both for the by the change affected areas as well as unaffected areas. For a significant change the areas affected by the change need to comply with the latest certification requirements. Page 23/48

6 Integration The project looked at the cost benefit of a few possible mature retrofit options that were chosen by the team as being worthwhile to investigate further. The purpose was to investigate if these potential retrofits would be cost effective and could ultimately be attractive for funding entities to support the retrofits. Also the European industrial involvement of these retrofits was studied. In the deliverable report D4.1 [D41] a schematic overview of all technologies and the evaluation aspects is provided. Currently the main drivers are re-engining projects and winglet/sharklet programmes. Alternative fuel (bio-fuel) is a definite future technology that is being promoted by the European Union. Drop-in fuels do not require any retrofit and are therefore outside the scope of the study. Alternative fuel, including bio-fuel, is a retrofit technology whenever the alternative fuel is non-drop-in fuel. Support and assistance to third world countries to replace old aircraft by modern aircraft could possibly be provided as a form of development aid or an initiative from the European Investment Bank. The employment in European MRO companies could receive a major boost by being part of consortia preparing and performing the retrofit work to make the aircraft conform to the service standards. 6.1 Proposals for Cost Benefit Analysis In order to choose three mature retrofit candidates a proposal was made by the lead contractor and agreed upon by the members of the consortium. All retrofits were considered including the ones listed in Table. The table represents the choice of the consortium members made during work package 4 and explained in the deliverable report D4.1 [D41]. Technology EASA Usage RTD Classification Required Replace whole engines with new ones; Significant Large scale No Combustor / high pressure system performance and Significant Large scale Yes durability upgrade; (if thrust increases by more than 10% classed as significant) Alternate fuels, not considered a retrofit by the Non significant Trial stage Yes consortium; (non-significant unless composition of fuel changes or thrust is increased above 10%) Nacelle serrated trailing edges; Non significant Small scale Yes Active or passive suction laminar flow; Significant Under development and trial stage Winglets / Sharklets for Boeing 737, Airbus A320; Significant Large scale PIP program Yes Yes Page 24/48

Riblets in paint surface and other drag reducing coatings; Non significant Small or Large scale Zonal dryers; Non significant Large scale No Exchange of secondary structures by composite parts for weight reduction; Cabin Operation, Functioning, Safety Network and Cabin Management System (hard lined or wireless); In flight or on ground Advanced Health and Usage Monitoring Systems; Flight Data Management monitoring & improvement: Advanced flight data analysis; Upgraded Flight Management System to meet SESAR requirements; (Normally cockpit upgrades are considered Non Significant). No Non significant Small scale Limited Non significant Trial stage Yes Non significant Under development and trial stage Yes Non significant Trial stage Yes (Non) Significant Under development Taxi with internal power; (main undercarriage) Non significant Under development and prototype tests Lithium batteries for secondary power; Non significant Trial stage Yes The Shear Thickening Fluid luggage Fly bag; Non significant Experimental Yes Automatic Fire Suppression System; Non significant Large scale No Yes Yes Lightweight surveillance system for cockpit access, cabin or cargo surveillance; Non significant Small scale No Table 1: Retrofit technologies chosen by the consortium members of the RETROFIT project As resources and time were limited it was decided that three potential mature retrofits would be subject of a cost-benefit analysis. The agreed technologies for cost-benefit analysis in Task 4.2 were: Avionics for SESAR compatibility Reasoning: If only new aircraft would be adapted for the future SESAR ATM concept the full benefit will only be achieved when much of the current fleet in Europe would be replaced. This could take 30 years or more. With retrofitting the benefits for the community will be available much earlier. The team proposed to investigate the attractiveness of a newly developed SESAR box. New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft Page 25/48

Reasoning: the A320 is one of the most numerous narrow body aircraft, burning a large fraction of the air transport fuel. The A320 NEO is developed using the latest state of the art Pratt & Whitney and General Electric engines. These promise a fuel saving of between 10 to 15% per flight, which will have a large economic and environmental benefit. Assuming Airbus involvement, a relatively low threshold retrofit programme could be accomplished. Taxiing by internal power Reasoning: although the actual cost gain per aircraft movement will be relatively small, the accumulated benefits can be significant for the European and global air transport industry. This particular study is interesting because it involves benefits for the operators, benefits for the airports and benefits for the community as a whole. Cost benefit of avionics retrofit for SESAR compatibility The benefits of the SESAR ATM system for the operators and the European Community are dependent on the number of aircraft equipped with a compatible avionics system (navigation and communication). Currently delivered aircraft are already largely compatible (forward fit). However, most aircraft of the existing fleet are not SESAR compatible, and these are expected to remain in service for several more years or even decades. Retrofitting existing aircraft with SESAR compatible avionics would enable the operators and the European Union to benefit much earlier from the potential SESAR benefits. It is assumed for this cost benefit analysis that the ground infrastructure will be in place for SESAR and that a uniform SESAR avionics box could be developed and installed as soon as the SESAR ATC system becomes fully operational. It is therefore assumed that a generic unit will be developed which encompasses all capabilities required for SESAR compatibility. This is basically communication (digital upload and download), connection to the SWIM database and 4D navigation based on GNSS. For individual aircraft types different interface modules would need to be developed as an add-on device. It is assumed that for competitive reasons two manufacturers will independently develop and sell such a unit. This study has been executed with simple financial models, with many assumptions concerning the fuel price, ETS charges and the future European financial situation. The results should therefore not be seen as absolute, but as indicative. The assumptions and analysis applied are described in detail in deliverable report D4.2 [D42]. The cost benefit analysis was limited to 50% of the European A320 and B737 fleet. It assumed that 2000 aircraft would be retrofitted. Figure shows the results, expressed as a payback time for the investment per aircraft by the operator, based on 2000 retrofits. Page 26/48

4.50 Payback period (years) 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 average time saving 2.5 minute/flight 5 minutes/flight 9 minutes/flight 0.00 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 Unit price (k ) per aircraft Figure 1: Payback time vs. aircraft conversion time dependent on average time savings The Retrofit consortium analyzed the potential time benefit resulting from SESAR ATC. This would result in a 2.5 minute/ flight gain due to delay free flight and a 2.5 minute/ flight gain due to direct routing. (Note that other Single European Sky (SES) elements such as the unification of the European airspace and the use of military airspace by civil airlines will have an additional time benefit of up to 9 minutes). The investment in equipment and the cost of installing the SESAR box is estimated at 1.250.000 per aircraft. Comparing a 5 minute gain in time and an investment of 1.250K would result in a payback period of a little over 2 years, again assuming that the SESAR box is feasible, the SESAR ATC system would be fully operational and investments in ground infrastructure is fully synchronized. Table 2 provides the calculation for the community benefits, dependent on the number of aircraft converted and the time saved per flight, taking 1354 flights per year per converted aircraft. Page 27/48