PARE Deliverable 2.1 PDF

Deliverable D2.
Progress towards Flightpath 2050 goals
(initial report)
30.06.2018
www.pareproject.eu
2
About this document
This is a formal deliverable under WP2 of the PARE project financed by the Horizon 2020 of the
European Commission (Grant agreement N° 769220). The following document aims to assessment
of the progress towards each Flightpath 2050 goal, benchmarks from WP1 is used to measure the
progress from the state of the art. The assessment is based on the results of major EU programmes
(like Clean Sky, SESAR and other H2020 projects), research in Member States, including new
acceding and associated states (like Ukraine). It also includes advances in other sectors that can
have an impact in aerospace technology.
Dissemination level
The following dissemination level is set for this report/deliverable in accordance with the contract
with the Commission Services: PU - Public.
PU -Public
PP -Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE - Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Revisions
REVISION DATE AUTHOR
1st draft, v. 0.10 22.06.2018 Oleksandr Zaporozhets
1st draft, v. 0.11 30.06.2018 Oleksandr Zaporozhets

3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 8
1 Methodological definition the benchmark of progress from the state of the art 16
towards the 23 Flightpath 2050 goals
1.1 Technology maturity assessment 16
1.2 Technology Readiness Level of the technology 20
1.3 Technology Readiness Assessment 23
1.4 Other Types of Technology Maturity Assessment 31
1.5 Key Enabling Technologies in EC: general approach 37
1.5.1 European ―three-pillar bridge‖ to pass across the "valley of death" 38
1.5.2 An integrated KETs policy at EU-level 40
1.6 TRL Scale in Horizon 2020 42
1.7 Technology Readiness Level Calculator 45
1.8. Technology Project Readiness Level Methodology 48
1.9 Recomendations for Usage of Technology Readiness Level Methodology and 57
Calculator in ACARE Goals Assessment
2 Meeting societal and market needs 63

2.1 Air Traffic Capacity 69
2.1.1 Runway Capacity and Dynamic Separation 71
2.2 Ground infrastructure and multimodal transport 79
2.3 Choice of most efficient mobility solutions 80
2.4 Overall ground plus air travel time 82
2.5 Air Traffic Management (ATM) and weather 83
3 Maintaining and extending industrial leadership 86
3.1 Retaining and strengthening market share 91

3.2 Cutting-edge at the full range of technologies 94
3.3 Efficient development and life-cycle management 96
4 Protecting the environment and the energy supply 99
4.1 Reduction of Noise and Emissions 103

4.2 Emissions Free Taxying at Airports 104
4.3 Design and manufacture bearing in mind recycling 106
4.4 Sustainable Alternative Fuel Sources 107
4.5 Atmospheric Research, Weather and the Environment 109
4
5 Ensuring safety and security 113
5.1 Ultra-low accident rate in commercial flight 117

5.2 Weather hazards and risk mitigation 118
5.3 Integrating drones in manned airspace 121
5.4 Comprehensive and unobtrusive security measures 122
5.5 Resilience to external and internal threats 125
5.6 High-bandwidth data resilient to cyberattacks 128
6 Prioritising research, testing capabilities and education 130
133
1.1 6.1 European Research and Innovation Agenda
1.2 6.2 Industry- Research-Academia clusters 135
1.3 6.3 Test, Simulation and Development Facilities 136

138
1.4 6.4 Young Talent and Women in Aviation
1.5
1.6 References 141
5
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Technology Maturity 17

Figure 1.2: Typical coincidence between maturity state and strategic relevance of a technology 17
Figure 1.3: Elements of theoretical technology maturity models and their operationalization 18
Figure 1.4: Technology risk matrix depending on the extent of dependent business and insecurity 20
of technology strategy
Figure 1.5: NASA TRL scale 21
Figure 1.6: Technology Highlights from EU funded external aircraft noise projects: Serrated 22
Nozzle
Figure 1.7: Not only in Europe: application on Boeing-747 23
Figure 1.8: Schematic of DOE Technology Readiness Levels 24
Figure 1.9: TRL benefits vs R&D issues network 30
Figure 1.10: Hype Cycles 32
Figure 1.11: Roger's Bell Curve 32
Figure 1.12: TRAs, TMPs, Technology, and Risk Management 35
Figure 1.13: TRA/TMP Process 35
Figure 1.14: Risk versus TRL and complexity 36
Figure 1.15: Project phases and generalised institutional expectation of TRA outcome 36
Figure 1.16: Project phases and generalised commercial expectation of TRA outcome 37
Figure 1.17: A European integrated initiative to pass the KETs "Valley of Death" 39
Figure 1.18: Technology Readiness Levels Scale 41
Figure 1.19: The EU Framework Program, with its three levels and the intended research objective 42
Figure 1.20: Maturation Timeline for Technology Readiness Level 44
Figure 1.21: Algorithm for estimating the level TRL 46
Figure 1.22: An example of the presentation of the result of the balance assessment and 51
dynamics of the project development according with 6 key parameters on the radar chart
Figure 1.23: The matrix structure of the integrated TPRL assessment of the state of scientific and 51
technical projects (* Sublevels and tasks for each of the parameters are determined separately)
Figure 1.24: Model of business processes implemented in self-assessment and expert evaluation 53
of the technological level of projects
Figure 1.25: Research and Technology Acquisition and Product Development Chart 58
Figure 2.1: Timeline for Challenge 1: Meeting societal and market needs (Strategic Research and 66
Innovation Agenda, 2017)
Figure 2.2: In 2017, strong growth saw traffic back on the most-likely scenario from the 2013 67
forecast
Figure 2.3: The four scenarios capture adaptability and inward- versus outward-looking 68
perspective
Figure 2.4: In CG18, the additional capacity planned is more concentrated at the busiest airports 69
Figure 2.5: Demand exceeds capacity by 1.5M flights in 2040, climbing to 3.7M in Global Growth 69
Figure 2.6: In Regulation and Growth, Summer delay jumps from 12 to 20 minutes per flight, 70
driven by flow management regulations
Figure 2.7: Technological, operational and societal/human dimension of goal 1 Benchmarks 72
Figure 2.8: Increased adoption of an A-COM at European Airports 73
Figure 2.9: NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator results for analysis and assessment of ACARE 78
Challenge 1 Goal 1 ―Air Traffic Capacity‖
Figure 2.10: Airport Capacity Constraints 80
Challenge 1 Goal 3 ―Choice of most efficient mobility solutions‖
Challenge 1 Goal 4 ―Overall ground plus air travel time‖
Figure 2.13: Weather Information Management Systems 84
6
Challenge 1 Goal 5 ―ATM and weather‖
Figure 3.1: Aviation innovation combines both product complexity and long lead-time to-market, 87
typically 10 to 20 years
Figure 3.2: Timeline for Challenge 2: Maintaining and extending industrial leadership 90
Figure 3.3: Narrowbodies passenger capacity and range comparison 92
Figure 3.4: Widebodies passenger capacity and range comparison 92
Figure 3.5 Airbus A320 via Boeing 737deliveries 93
Challenge 2 Goal 6 ―Maintaining and extending industrial leadership‖
Challenge 2 Goal 7 ―Cutting-edge at the full range of technologies‖
Challenge 2 Goal 8 ―Efficient development and life-cycle management‖
Figure 4.1: Timeline for Challenge 3: Protecting the environment and the energy supply 102
Figure 4.2: Expected advances on noise reduction with NRT1 and NRT2, as well as the Noise 103
Abatement Procedure
Challenge 3 Goal 9 ―Reduction of Noise and Emissions‖
Challenge 3 Goal 10 ―Emissions Free Taxying at Airports‖
Challenge 3 Goal 11 ―Design and manufacture bearing in mind recycling‖
Challenge 3 Goal 12 ―Sustainable Alternative Fuel Sources‖
Figure 4.7: Benchmarks for goal 13 110
Figure 4.8: The Sentinel families of European environmental satellites 111
Figure 4.9: Maturity Plan for the Sentinel family 111
Figure 4.10: Meteosat Third Generation Satellite Maturity Plan 111
Figure 4.11: Polar System Second Generation (EPS-SG) Projection 112
Challenge 3 Goal 13 ―Atmospheric Research, Weather and the Environment‖
Figure 5.1 - Timeline for Challenge 4: Ensuring safety and security 116
Challenge 4 Goal 14 ―Ultra-low accident rate in commercial flight‖
Challenge 4 Goal 15 ―Weather hazards and risk mitigation‖
Challenge 4 Goal 16 ―Integrating drones in manned airspace‖
Figure 5.6 - Key themes, under which GASeP specific goals and targets could be pursued 123
Challenge 4 Goal 17 ―Comprehensive and unobtrusive security measures‖
Figure 5.8: Resilience cycle depicting possible actions associated with the different phases 126
Figure 5.9: Recommendations and goals for future aviation security concepts 126
Challenge 4 Goal 18 ―Resilience to external and internal threats‖
Challenge 4 Goal 19 ―High-bandwidth data resilient to cyberattacks‖
Figure 6.1 - Timeline for Challenge 5: Prioritising research, testing capabilities and education 132
7
Challenge 5 Goal 20 ―European Research and Innovation Agenda‖

Challenge 5 Goal 21 ―Industry- Research-Academia clusters‖
Challenge 5 Goal 22 ―Test, Simulation and Development Facilities‖
Challenge 5 Goal 23 ―Young Talent and Women in Aviation‖
List of Tables
Table 1.1: The main levels in the TRL method for technology assessment (adapted from NASA 25
and DOD practice)
Table 1.2: Technology Readiness Levels in the European Space Agency (ESA) 27
Table 1.3: Technology Readiness Levels in the European Commission (EC) 29
Table 1.4: Benefits of use of TRA 34
Table 1.5:Colors used in the calculator TRL 46
Table 1.6: Technology Readiness Level Questionnaire 58
Table 2.1: The action areas for Challenge 1 of the ACARE perspectives 64
Table 2.2: Technology Readiness Level Questionnaire results for ACARE Challenge 1 Goal 1 74
Table 3.1: R&D intensity of aviation amongst the main industrial domains 86
Table 5.2: Indicative list of GASeP goals and targets 123
8
Executive Summary
The overall objective of PARE – Perspectives for Aeronautical Research in Europe is to
trigger a strong collaboration between various European stakeholders to support the achievement
of the Flightpath 2050 goals, by providing and implementing a sound methodology to
regularly assess the progress, gaps and barriers and propose suitable measures to close the
remaining gap.
EU aerospace research towards Flightpath 2050 goals faces several challenges. It is clear from
available studies that these goals cannot all be achieved using evolutions of currently available
technologies. For example, noise and emissions reductions can be achieved only if sufficient efforts
are made for new technologies to mature; the transition from technology availability to technology
uptake in a product or system is influenced by many factors; besides technology maturation,
certification, sustainability and cost-effectiveness. There are also factors of a non-technological
nature such as market expectations, new products or improvements being developed. The
ambitious goals set for Flightpath 2050 can only be achieved through equally ambitious strategies
and actions. Basic research can play a key role here. The timeframe to 2050 leaves scope to mature
what is now low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) basic research to promising high TRL
demonstrations and feasible solutions to meet aviation targets. This requires the consideration of
new and breakthrough technologies often originating in universities, SMEs and small laboratories,
identifying the most promising among a multitude of new ideas, some of which may be ahead of
their time.
Based on the results of WP1 (of the PARE project), the first step is to define the benchmark of
progress from the state of the art towards the 23 Flightpath 2050 goals. For each goal, partners will
identify relevant projects to be assessed (Clean Sky, SESAR or other H2020 projects, once again
based on results of WP1). The projects will be selected considering their contribution to the
goals and will be assessed using the available sources of information, such as program of
work and reports, possibly supplemented by individual research, questionnaires, interviews
or dedicated workshops.
The present study on PARE project has an objective of investigating the existence of a correlation
between the implementation and use of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) and the betterment of
R&D management, ultimately resulting in competitive advantage to Air Transportation System
(ATS).
When program stakeholders give significant attention to new research, technologies, or technology
development programs or demonstrations, the targeted technology should be objectively evaluated
and assessed for maturity as soon as possible before committing any significant program
investment funding. Estimating a technology‘s maturity with high precision is not trivial. It takes
skilled personnel and thus implies high (opportunity) cost. At the same time the R&D departments
of technology driven organizations often develop diverse technologies and employ many
technology experts. Those in charge of allocating budget to technologies often lack in-depth-
9
knowledge of single technologies and depend on expert assessment []. An expert-independent, yet
precise approach to determine technology maturity and derive appropriate management advice
from it would be opportune.
Program stakeholders are expected to anticipate future technology needs and changes based on a
broad understanding of the systems context and environment, recommend long-term technology
strategies that achieve business/mission objectives, and exploit innovation. As part of acquisition
planning, the ability to successfully procure new technology and systems involves assessing current
technology to support the program requirements. There is often asked to independently assess a
particular technology for "readiness".
One of the biggest challenges in managing technology is to properly choose which technologies to
invest in and to know when technologies are ready or mature enough to be considered for a
particular system/product. The poor selection and management of technologies can cause serious
financial losses and, in the long term (if the poor management persists), can result in the
organization being unable to compete in markets where it used to thrive.
Technology maturity is the degree to which a certain technology is capable of producing the results
that are expected. For most of the researchers, the terms ‗technology maturity‘ and ‗technology
readiness‘ are synonyms and therefore are used interchangeably. There are not plenty of metrics
and tools developed to measure how ready a technology is. The most universally accepted
methodology for assessing the upward slope of this curve is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
scale (Mai, 2015). There are actually several versions of the original NASA-developed TRL scale
(around 40 years ago), depending on the application (software, manufacturing, etc.), but all rate a
technology based on the amount of development completed, prototyping, and testing within a
range of environments from lab (or "breadboard") to operationally relevant (Figure 1). The lowest
level, TRL 1, indicates that information already learned from basic scientific research is taking its first
step from an idea to a practical application of a lesson learned. For example, after learning that
hydrogen and oxygen can be combined to generate electricity, some would suggest an idea for
building a machine to do just that. A technology that has achieved TRL 9 is one that has been
incorporated fully into a larger system. It has been proven to work smoothly and is considered
operational. The distance between TRL 1 and TRL 9 often amounts to years of research studies,
prototype modelling, component building and testing, integration of tested components into other
systems, and more tests in the laboratory and the real world.
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is a systematic, metric-based assessment of how far

technology development has progressed. TRA is important procedure for organizations managing
resource allocation for technology development programs. A TRA can:
Identify the gaps in testing, demonstration and knowledge of a technology‘s current

readiness level and the information and steps needed to reach the readiness level required
for successful inclusion in the project;
Identify at-risk technologies that need increased management attention or additional

resources for technology development; and
10
Increase the transparency of management decisions by identifying key technologies that have been
demonstrated at certain levels of maturity or by highlighting immature or unproven technologies
that might result in increased project risk.
Figure 1: NASA TRL scale
The TRL scale ranges from 1 (basic principles observed) through 9 (total system used successfully in
project operations). Figure 2 provides a schematic of the meaning of the TRLs in the context of EM
projects and Operations Activities. This scale has been implemented and modified since the early
1990‗s in government programs. Ultimately, this work resulted in a calculator (Department of
Homeland Security, 2009), the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) TRL Calculator, that helps a user
assess the TRL, Programmatic Readiness Level (PRL), and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of a
given technology or system. This calculator is oriented in its terminology and structure to the
Department of Defense (DoD) research, development, and acquisition process (Department of
Homeland Security, 2009).
11
Figure 2: Schematic of DOE Technology Readiness Levels (TRA/TMP Guide, 2013)
A comprehensive approach and discussion about TRLs has been published by the European
Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) (EARTO, 2014). Extensive criticism of
the adoption of TRL scale by the European Union was published in The Innovation Journal, in that
"concreteness and sophistication of the TRL scale gradually diminished as its usage spread outside
its original context (space programs)" (Heder, 2017). The International Standard ISO standard 16290
was published in 2013 (ISO 16290, 2013) and as a result, TRL are now globally harmonized. The TRL
descriptions are provided in (ISO 16290, 2013): TRLs are used to quantify the technology maturity
status of an element intended to be used in a mission. Mature technology corresponds to the
highest TRL, namely TRL 9, or flight proven elements.
In any project where new technologies are intended to be used, or existing technologies are used in
new ways, it is important to understand the risks associated with technology maturity. TRL is one
factor for the evaluation of risks due to technologies. Amongst the other factors, complexity is also
an important one and
gives a qualitative evaluation of risks versus TRL and complexity. Technology readiness levels
provide a structure for the evaluation of such risks by setting out criteria to be met to reach each
level. It is important that TRAs become embedded as a standard project management practice. In
assessing the TRL of any given technology, a practitioner must ask questions related to the
demonstrated functionality, integration completeness, test environment and fidelity, with the
highest TRL representing a technology that has been "flight proven" through actual operation on a
real mission in the target environment.
Figure gives a generalized example of when formal TRAs are typically performed during institutional
projects (ECSS, 2017). Institutional projects generally develop critical functions (provided by
technologies) and models from lower TRL through to TRL 6 during the early phases of the project
(prior to Phase C). It is worth noting that in the technology plan the project defines a model
philosophy for the technology development (and TRL progression) followed over the project phases.
The model philosophy selected for the technology critical elements drives their TRL upgrades during
the early project phases. Once the project is within the detailed design phase (i.e. Phase C), the
evolution of the critical items related to technology maturity (now included in the CIL) follows the
project development process as specified in ECSS standards.
12
Figure 3: Risk versus TRL and complexity
Figure 4: Project phases and generalised institutional expectation of TRA outcome

Generalised institutional programme expectation of TRA outcome per phase
Activites
PHASE 0 PHASE A PHASE B PHASE C PHASE D PHASE E PHASE F
TRA for current project up to TRL6

MDR PRR
Mission / Function SRR PDR
Requirements
CDR
Definition QR AR
Verification
Production FRR CRR ELR
Utilization
LRR
Disposal MCR
TRA opportunity for TRL6 TRL7 TRL8 TRL9

following projects
The general EU‘s program for funding research, technological development and demonstration is
the multi-annual Framework Program (FP). Since its inception in the early 1980s the Framework
Programs have steadily increased in size and scope, and spending under FP7 (2007-2013) is now in
the order of €6-7 billion per year. The next Framework Program (FP8, also called ―Horizon 2020‖),
currently under fulfilment, falled under the EU financial perspectives and began in 2014.
See Figure 5 for an illustration of the three different research levels (Level 1, 2 & 3) covered under
the Framework Program and the corresponding Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). The objectives
set in the Strategic Research Agendas are pursued in projects which were set up as public private
partnerships. These were typically funded at a rate of 50% by the European Union.
13
The primary purpose of using technology readiness levels is to help management in making
decisions concerning the development and transitioning of technology. It should be viewed as one
of several tools that are needed to manage the progress of research and development activity
within an organization (Deutsch, Meneghini, Mermut, Lefort, 2011).
Figure 5: The EU Framework Program, with its three levels and the intended research objective.
A Technology Readiness Level Calculator was developed by the United States Air Force (Nolte, 2003).
This tool is a standard set of questions implemented in Microsoft Excel that produces a graphical
display of the TRLs achieved. This tool is intended to provide a snapshot of technology maturity at a
given point in time. These calculators were developed in the Microsoft Excel environment, that is
why they are widely distributed, since the number of installed copies of this software in the world is
very significant, and knowledge of MS Excel makes it easy to modify the calculator for use in a
specific technology area.
The above characteristics of the integrated assessment model of technological readiness of the
projects not only eliminate all the shortcomings inherent in the tools used to quantify the TRL, but
also create new opportunities for project evaluation, that is why the software implementation of the
model led to the creation of a software tool for integrated assessment of technological readiness
innovative scientific and technological projects. The methodology of a balanced approach to
assessing the readiness of projects as a whole - the Technology Project Readiness Level (TPRL)
methodology, is proposed in (Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016). As a starting point for the
development of such a methodology, a unified method for assessing the level of readiness of
technology TRL (Sadin, Povinelli, Rosen, 1989) and the StageGate® method (Hirshorn , Sharon,  2016)
were used.
14
Research in air transport takes time and this, in part, is determined by the stringent safety
requirements prevalent in this sector. The elements of the phased research programme comprise a
range of Technology Readiness Levels. The chart in Figure 6 below details the timescales that are
involved in typical research programmes within aviation. Typically, the ‗Research and Development‘
phase will establish technology from TRL level 1 to TRL level 3. The ‗Demonstration‘ will take this
input to develop technology to TRL level 6. Together these form the ‗Research and Technology
Acquisition‘ phase detailed in the chart (Figure 6) below which can take up to ten years to achieve.
Deployment of the technology in the market place as part of the ‗Product Development‘ phase can
take a further five years plus. It is also worth noting that aircraft typically remain in service for 30 to
40 years. This means that in aviation where products are highly developed and complex, the total
technology life cycle could be around 50 to 60 years.
Figure 6: Research and Technology Acquisition and Product Development Chart
Grounding on analysis made in Chapter 1 a number of recommendations were proposed for TRL
Calculator usage in PARE project for ACARE Challenge and Goal assessment taking in mind the
FlightPath 2050 strategic document. First of all TRL Questionnaire was used by WG2 PARE team to
analyze and assess the ACARE goals achievement at this 1 st stage of the researches grounding on
the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018). At the next steps the TRL Questionnaire
should be used by the PARE teams responsible for any ACARE Challenge analysis and assessment
due to distribution of these duties in PARE project. It was a complementary tool for the NYSERDA
(TRL/CRL) Calculator – it is was used at this stage of research on PARE project by WG2 team to
analyse and assess the goals of ACARE Challenge achievements at this 1st stage of the researches
grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018). Some complementary
literature, appeared just after PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018) was published, was used also, for
example such as (European Aviation in 2040, CG18, 2018), (Strategic Research and Innovation
Agenda, 2017) with the purpose to assess and analyse more accurately and in details the TRL. Action
15
areas, their key elements, category of the main activities for any of 5 ACARE Challenges, their Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) are shown in tables of Annex A to this report, as they were used in
preparation of the report (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017).
In Chapters 2-6 the results of analysis and assessment for all the 23 Goals for 5 Challenges of the
ACARE FlightPath 2050 are presented, they are absolutely initial and subject for further
improvement by PARE consortium. Most of expected solutions for reaching the goals are assessed
around the levels TRL3-TRL4 – technology development and validation stages.
If NYSERDA Calculator usage will be defined at further steps as efficient – a more sophisticated
spreadsheet (but NYSERDA Calculator will be used as a prototype) will be designed taking in mind
Technology Project Readiness Level (TPRL) methodology, which was proposed in
(Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016). The advantage of TPRL methodology is the fact that when
assessing the level of preparedness of projects, not only the criteria characterizing a certain level of
readiness (TRLX as is accepted by the TRL method) are used, but also the documents on the basis of
which these criteria are fulfilled – with calculation of the numerical parameters of the model, which
is based on the expert evaluation of the quality of the supporting information on the results of the
projects presented in the project documentation. Such model will allow to monitor the effectiveness
and progress of projects within the current level of technological readiness at small time intervals or
the rating of projects when making decisions to provide them with support.
16
1 Methodological definition the benchmark of progress from

the state of the art towards the 23 Flightpath 2050 goals
1.1 Technology maturity assessment
One of the biggest challenges in managing technology is to properly choose which technologies to
invest in and to know when technologies are ready or mature enough to be considered for a
particular system/product. The poor selection and management of technologies can cause serious
financial losses and, in the long term (if the poor management persists), can result in the
organization being unable to compete in markets where it used to thrive.
As opposed to the strategic management of any organization or program in general, there are not
many methods developed for assessing and evaluating technology maturity/readiness. The
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) were created by NASA (Banke, 2010)and later improved (TRA
Guidance, 2011), as a way to measure how ready a certain technology is in order to decide if that
technology should or should not be used in space missions and systems. Later on, other
government agencies such as DoD (Department of Defence) and DoE (Department of Energy)
started to use the method, and more recently some private companies are looking to adapt and
implement the method to their technology management processes. To put it in simple words, the
main reason why it is an issue to determine technology readiness is because if the ATS fails to do so,
it will certainly lose time and money. Choosing the wrong technologies to invest in and inserting
not-ready-enough technologies into new products or systems will definitely result in budget and
schedule overruns, plus additional work to be done and possibly a considerable amount of damage
to the organization`s image and reputation. According to (TRA Guide, 2011) quality issues and
failing to identify a technology`s readiness accurately are among the main reasons that cause cost
overruns. Moreover, according to (Gartner, 2015), a well-performed technology assessment is key to
avoid problems with cost, schedule and performance goals.
Whether assessing the usefulness of a particular technology or research program, or assessing the
ability to meet a set of new requirements with mature technology, it is best to first understand the
typical cycle that technology developments follow and the methodologies to consider for selecting
the appropriate path for your program.
Technology maturity. Technology maturity is the degree to which a certain technology is capable
of producing the results that are expected. For most of the researchers, the terms ‗technology
maturity‘ and ‗technology readiness‘ are synonyms and therefore are used interchangeably. A
generic depiction of technology maturity is shown by the s-curve in Figure 1.1. In general,
technology can be defined as follows, Figure 1.1.
New technology has not reached the first tipping point in the s-curve of technology maturity.
17
Improving, or emerging, technology is within the exponential development stage of the curve
after the first tipping point and before the second tipping point.
Mature technology follows the second tipping point before the curve starts down.
Aging technology is on the downward tail.
Figure 1.1: Technology Maturity
The strategic relevance of a technology depends on the exhaustion of its competitive potential in a
certain industry. This means that the strategic relevance of a technology for a certain industry is
loosely connected to its general maturity judged with the (Sommerlatte, Deschamps, 1986) model
independent of an industry branch. The S&D technology maturity model is one of many, Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2: Typical coincidence between maturity state and strategic relevance of a technology
((Sommerlatte, Deschamps, 1986), pp.52–53).
An operationalized technology maturity model consists of manifest variables which can be

measured, and latent variables which are hypothetical constructs and therefore cannot be measured
directly. They are represented by rectangles (manifest) and circles (latent) in exemplary Figure 1.3.
18
The single latent endogenous variable of this model is the construct ―technology maturity‖, which it
regards as central and intends to describe. The measuring model of this latent endogenous variable
is the technology maturity value, a manifest nominal variable which takes on the form of different
maturity states. Technology maturity is influenced by a set of factors which represent latent
exogenous variables. These factors can be approximated by certain indicators which collectively
represent the measuring model of latent exogenous variables. The creation of this measuring model
is the actual operationalization. All variables will be called the ―model parameters‖. Each manifest
variable also possesses a residual value. It represents influencing factors not captured in the model
which explain a deviation from the ideal value. Correlations between indicators or between factors
are not considered in this example model. In addition, it makes no claim to be complete in regard to
indicators and factors.
Figure 1.3: Elements of theoretical technology maturity models and their operationalization (Till, 2015).
With the concept in Figure 1.3 in mind it is possible to typify maturity models in respect to their
usability for machine-based approaches. The following typology is proposed (Till, 2015):
Theoretical maturity models do not specify indicators and just resort to latent exogenous
variables instead.
Semi-theoretical maturity models possess indicators only for some of the latent exogenous
variables to describe the context of technology maturity.
Semi-operationalized maturity models assign at least one indicator to each of the latent
exogenous variables but lack a precise algorithm to estimate the technology maturity from
indicator values.
19
Operationalized technology maturity models provide a full measuring model of latent

exogenous variables and are thus able to estimate a technology‘s maturity algorithmically. It
is the purpose of this book to present such a model.
The purpose of conducting technology maturity and technical risk assessments is to inform the
project and its stakeholders of potential areas of risk so that they can be managed and treated
appropriately, and to inform Government of the technical risks for each of the options in a project
when considering capability decisions. The Technical Risk Assessment addresses the following basic
questions:
Is the technology feasible?
Will the technology mature within the required time frame?
Are there any technical barriers to integrating the capability within the system?
Is the technology fit for the required purpose?
Every technology strategy is connected to a risk of failure, i.e. if the technology invested in turns out
to stay short of performance expectations, whether entirely or in part. According to (Sommerlatte,
Deschamps, 1986, p.73), the technological risk of a technology strategy in this sense depends on
two factors:
The uncertainty of success of technology strategies, that is, the probability that technological
goals can be met within planned investment and time limits, and
The extent to which the business depends on a certain technology, and hereby the stakes are
put at risk.
In combination, these factors determine the technology risk (see Figure 1.3).
The uncertainty of a technology strategy again depends on several aspects, summarized by

(Sommerlatte, Deschamps, 1986, p.73) to be the:
maturity state of a technology,
technological position of the system (organization),
reliability of technological assumptions,
type of chosen technology strategy and strategic relevance of technology in the industry,
dependence of technology on other technologies in that industry, and the
reliability of R&D department‘s plans henceforth.
Although this may be a comprehensive collection of the relevant dimensions, neither of them is
operationalized and no precise statement about the actual risk can be deduced from the framework
in Figure 1.4.
20
Figure 1.4: Technology risk matrix depending on the extent of dependent business and insecurity of
technology strategy (Sommerlatte, Deschamps, 1986).
1.2. Technology Readiness Level of the technology
There are not plenty of metrics and tools developed to measure how ready a technology is. The
most universally accepted methodology for assessing the upward slope of this curve is the
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale (Mai, 2015). There are actually several versions of the original
NASA-developed TRL scale (around 40 years ago), depending on the application (software,
manufacturing, etc.), but all rate a technology based on the amount of development completed,
prototyping, and testing within a range of environments from lab (or "breadboard") to operationally
relevant (Figure 1.5).
NASA introduced the scale and all the concepts around it were developed with the
aircraft/aerospace industry in mind. Each TRL represents the evolution of an idea from a thought,
perhaps written on a cocktail napkin or the back of an envelope, to the full deployment of a product
in the marketplace. The TRL is a scale from 1 to 9 that measures to what extent a technology is
ready to be applied. In its original form, the scale was created with the aerospace industry in mind,
but now there are other versions of the scale, tailored for a variety of different industries/sectors.
The scale has been gaining popularity and is being acknowledged as the main method to measure a
technology readiness, a standard way to inform organizations over their developing technologies
(Altunok, Cakmak, 2010), (Jimenez, Schutte, Mavris, 2011), (Jimenez, Mavris, 2014), (Mackey, 2011),
(Moorhouse, 2002), Corin-Stig, Högman, Bergsjö, 2011). Moreover, TRLs are proven to be beneficial
in managing a technology portfolio and choosing technologies to invest in (Gerdes, Schneider,
Cercy, 2009), (Kujawski, 2013), (Sarfaraz, Sauser, Bauer, 2012), (Tillack et al, 2009), (Tugurlan, Kirkham,
Chassin, 2011).
21
Figure 1.5: NASA TRL scale
The lowest level, TRL 1, indicates that information already learned from basic scientific research is
taking its first step from an idea to a practical application of a lesson learned. For example, after
learning that hydrogen and oxygen can be combined to generate electricity, some would suggest
an idea for building a machine to do just that. A technology that has achieved TRL 9 is one that has
been incorporated fully into a larger system. It has been proven to work smoothly and is considered
operational. The distance between TRL 1 and TRL 9 often amounts to years of research studies,
prototype modelling, component building and testing, integration of tested components into other
systems, and more tests in the laboratory and the real world.
There is no rule about the TRL at which NASA-led aeronautics technology should graduate from
fundamental research to systems research, but it generally happens at TRL 3 or TRL 4. At this range
on the scale, a technology has moved beyond studies on paper and its components are undergoing
active research and development. It is ready to be integrated into a larger system for further testing
22
in increasingly realistic environments. It is generally thought that NASA works on a new idea up
through TRL 6, then turns it over to industry because higher TRLs are associated with technology
commercialization and certification.
A jet engine noise reduction device called a chevron, now in use on commercial airliners, is a good
example of a developed technology that climbed the TRL scale to success. Chevrons are the saw-
tooth pattern that can be seen on the trailing edges of some jet engine nozzles. As hot air from the
engine core mixes with cooler air blowing through the engine fan, the jagged edges serve to
smooth the mixing, which reduces turbulence that creates noise, Figure 1.6. Noise reduction
demonstrated on Boeing 777 - 4 dB! The new Boeing 787 is among the most modern jets relying on
chevrons to reduce engine noise levels, sporting chevrons on the nacelles, or fan housings, Figure
1.7. The Boeing 747-8 has chevrons on both the nacelles and inner core engine nozzles.
Figure 1.6: Technology Highlights from EU funded external aircraft noise projects: Serrated Nozzle.
It is critical to get a common and detailed understanding of the TRL scale among program
stakeholders, particularly concerning terms like "simulated environment," "relevant environment,"
and "operational mission conditions," which must be interpreted in the context of the system or
capability under development. Close communication among the program office, operational users,
and the developer on these terms is needed to ensure a shared understanding. One factor the
current TRL scale does not address is how well the developed technology fits into the architecture
and system structure of the program absorbing it. This is an integral part of the systems engineering
job and critical to the success of the technology transition. TRLs should be tracked over time to
ensure that a technology is maturing as expected and, if it is not, to determine whether an
alternative technology should be pursued.
23
Figure 1.7: Not only in Europe: application on Boeing-747.
1.3. Technology Readiness Assessment
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is a systematic, metric-based assessment of how far

technology development has progressed. TRAs are important procedures for organizations
managing resource allocation for technology development programs. A TRA can:
Identify the gaps in testing, demonstration and knowledge of a technology‘s current

readiness level and the information and steps needed to reach the readiness level required
for successful inclusion in the project;
Identify at-risk technologies that need increased management attention or additional

resources for technology development; and
Increase the transparency of management decisions by identifying key technologies that

have been demonstrated at certain levels of maturity or by highlighting immature or
unproven technologies that might result in increased project risk.
A metric commonly employed in TRAs for approximating the degree of maturity of a technology is
the Technology Readiness Level scale first developed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Today it is a commonly accepted approach used in a number of industry and
government organizations to assess the maturity of a technology (e.g., device, material, component,
process etc.) on an entire scale – from its invention to commercialization and wide-scale application.
Different TRL rating actually determines how far a particular technology is from being deployed by
industry or public. That in turn determines the amount of resources - time, funds, intellectual
potential, facilities etc., – necessary to bring this technology to life. NASA originally developed TRLs
in the 1970s and 1980s (Banke, 2010). Other governmental agencies followed in the ensuing
24
decades, including the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) (TRA Guide, 2011) and Department of
Energy (DOE) (TRA Guidance, 2011), as well as European and international agencies. This systematic,
metrics-based process assesses the maturity of, and the risk associated with, critical technologies
under development. DoD's TRA guidance includes a skeletal template for TRAs, comprising a
program overview, identification of critical technologies, and an assessment of program technology
risks and readiness. It also provides TRL definitions, descriptions, and supporting information.
The TRL scale ranges from 1 (basic principles observed) through 9 (total system used successfully in
project operations). Figure 1.8 provides a schematic of the meaning of the TRLs in the context of EM
projects and Operations Activities.
Figure 1.8: Schematic of DOE Technology Readiness Levels (TRA/TMP Guide, 2013)
This scale has been implemented and modified since the early 1990‗s in government programs.
Ultimately, this work resulted in a calculator (Department of Homeland Security, 2009), the Air Force
Research Laboratory (AFRL) TRL Calculator, that helps a user assess the TRL, Programmatic Readiness
Level (PRL), and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of a given technology or system. This
calculator is oriented in its terminology and structure to the Department of Defense (DoD) research,
development, and acquisition process (Department of Homeland Security, 2009).
Technology Readiness Level scale was first employed by NASA in 1974 to evaluate the maturity of
technologies for spacecraft design as part of risk assessment. It was demonstrated that transition of
emerging technologies at lesser degrees of maturity results in high overall risk. The scale progressed
until 1995 with the definition of nine levels that became the Mankins 95 reference (M95r). From that
moment, the principle of a maturity scale was adopted by many companies and government
agencies around the world: U.S. by the Department of Defence (DOD, Table 1.1), Department of
Energy (DOE), Air Force, Oil and Gas Industry, The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA,
references technology readiness levels in some of their documents, and seems to rely on the NASA
definitions (Krois, Mogford, Rehmann, 2003) and also in Europe by the European Space Agency
(ESA), Table 1.2. However, although they were somewhat similar, different definitions or
interpretation of the M95r were used. ECSS decided, in 2008, to first make a harmonization at
European level and then to propose to ISO for Technology Readiness Levels assessment a global
harmonization in 2009.
25
THE MAIN LEVELS IN THE TRL METHOD FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Technology
Stage of Outcomes/Supporting
Readiness Description
Development Information
Level
No analysis/testing
TRL0 Unproven idea
performed
Basic technology
Basic Principles observed and
research Published research that
reported. Scientific research begins
TRL1 identified the principles that
to be translated into applied
underlie the concept.
research and development.
Concept formulated. Practical

application is invented based on Published research that
TRL 1. Potential of the applications outlines the application and
TRL2
is speculative and is inferred from initial analysis of underlying
general assumptions or some principles.
analytical data.
Research to Proof-of-concept. Analytical and

prove feasibility experimental studies are performed
Experimental data, measured
on a lab scale to validate analytical
parameters of interest in
TRL3 predictions. Work is done on
comparison with analytical
various components of the potential
predictions.
technology (which are not yet
integrated).
Lab-scale demonstration (“low

fidelity”). Basic technological
components are integrated to Results of laboratory testing.
TRL4 establish that they will work Comparison with system
together. This is relatively ―low performance goals.
fidelity‖ compared with the eventual
system.
Technology
demonstration Lab-scale demonstration (“high
Results of laboratory testing
fidelity”). The basic technological
in simulated environment.
components are integrated with
TRL5 Identified barriers for target
reasonably realistic supporting
performance goals and plans
elements so they can be tested in a
to overcome them.
simulated environment.
26
THE MAIN LEVELS IN THE TRL METHOD FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Technology
Stage of Outcomes/Supporting
Readiness Description
Development Information
Level
Prototype system designed. The

Results of the prototype
system is integrated with support
testing in simulated lab
TRL6 elements, and model design is
environment. Data are close
created to be tested in simulated or
to target expectations.
operational environment.
Prototype system tested in

System operational environment.
development Prototype near or at planned
operational system. Represents a Results of the prototype
major step up from TRL 6 by testing in operational
TRL7
requiring demonstration of an environment demonstrate
actual system prototype in an success.
operational environment (e.g., in the
field, on aircraft, in a vehicle, or in
space).
Results of testing in its final

Actual system completed. The
configuration. Assessment of
system is qualified through test and
it meeting its operational
TRL8 demonstration. Technology has
requirements. Plans, options,
been proven to work in its final form
or actions to tune and
System launch and under expected conditions.
finalize the design.
and operation
Actual system proved successful.

Actual application of the technology Reports on real application
TRL9
in its final form and under mission performance.
conditions or on market.
Table 1.1: The main levels in the TRL method for technology assessment (adapted from NASA and DOD
practice)
The TRL descriptions are provided in Clause 3 of the International Standard (ISO 16290, 2013): TRLs
are used to quantify the technology maturity status of an element intended to be used in a mission.
Mature technology corresponds to the highest TRL, namely TRL 9, or flight proven elements. The
TRL scale can be useful in many areas including, but not limited to the following examples:
For early monitoring of basic or specific technology developments serving a given future
mission or a family of future missions;
27
For providing a status on the technical readiness of a future project, as input to the project
implementation decision process;
In some cases, for monitoring the technology progress throughout development.
TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS IN THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
Technology Readiness
Description
Level
TRL 1. Basic principles observed and reported
TRL 2. Technology concept and/or application formulated
Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-

TRL 3.
of-concept
Component and/or breadboard functional verification in laboratory

TRL 4.
environment
Component and/or breadboard critical function verification in relevant

TRL 5.
environment
Model demonstrating the critical functions of the element in a relevant

TRL 6.
environment
Model demonstrating the element performance for the operational

TRL 7.
environment
TRL 8. Actual system completed and accepted for flight ("flight qualified")
TRL 9. Actual system "flight proven" through successful mission operations
Table 1.2: Technology Readiness Levels in the European Space Agency (ESA) (ESA, 2017)
Achievements that are requested for enabling the TRL assessment at each level are identified in the
summary table in Clause 4 of the Standard (ISO 16290, 2013). The detailed procedure for the TRL
assessment is to be defined by the relevant organization or institute in charge of the activity.
The Standard (ISO 16290, 2013) is applicable primarily to space system hardware, although the
definitions could be used in a wider domain in many cases. This International Standard was
produced by taking due consideration of previous available documents on the subject, in particular
including those from the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA), the US Department of
Defence (DoD) and European space institutions (DLR, CNES and ESA).
A comprehensive approach and discussion about TRLs has been published by the European
Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) (EARTO, 2014). Extensive criticism of
28
the adoption of TRL scale by the European Union was published in The Innovation Journal, in that
"concreteness and sophistication of the TRL scale gradually diminished as its usage spread outside
its original context (space programs)" (Heder, 2017). The ISO standard 16290 was published in 2013
(ISO 16290, 2013) and as a result, TRL are now globally harmonized. European Space Components
Coordination (ECSS) actively contributed to this ISO standard by providing members to the ISO WG.
The ISO standard concerns the definition and the criteria of assessment, however the procedure for
the TRL assessment or the way to use them within a project‘s framework was not the purpose of this
standard. The standard is applicable primarily to space system hardware, although the definitions
are used in a wider domain in many cases.
Instruments and spacecraft sub-systems technical maturity with respect to a specific space
application are classified according to a "Technology Readiness Level" (TRL) on a scale of 1 to 9. ESA
is utilising the ISO standard 16290 Space systems – Definition of the Technology Readiness Levels
(Table 1.2) and their criteria assessment. Instruments and spacecraft sub-systems technical maturity
with respect to a specific space application are classified according to a "Technology Readiness
Level" (TRL) on a scale of 1 to 9.
The European Space Agency adopted the TRL scale in the mid-2000s. Its handbook (Technology
Readiness Levels Handbook, 2008) closely follows the NASA definition of TRLs. The universal usage
of TRL in EU policy (Table 1.3) was proposed in the final report of the first High Level Expert Group
on Key Enabling Technologies (High-Level Expert Group Report Final, 2017), and it was indeed
implemented in the EU framework program H2020 running from 2013 to 2020 (Heder, 2017). This
means not only space, but everything from nanotechnology to informatics and communication
technology.
In the context of this course, it will be important to understand the technology readiness levels in
order to properly assess the timeline and cost of its development and implementation. When
applied to a particular technology, the above listed TRL ranks should be customized for better
relevance. Such customization would identify specific milestones as criteria to advance to the next
level. TRL approach proved to be useful as a tool for:
general understanding of technology status;
risk assessment and management;
decision making with respect to technology funding;
decision making with respect to technology transfer.
Assigning a TRL rank is not a quick task. These are some serious questions that need to be answered
and backed by technical data regarding the current status of technology:
Is technology widely commercialized?
Is technology demonstrated in the final form (in a target system)?
Is technology demonstration in the relevant environment (field conditions)?

29
What is the target performance / efficiency level (technically and economically)?
What is currently achieved performance / efficiency?
What are the materials involved and what is their availability?
Is infrastructure available for deployment for this technology?
What are the main barriers impeding the higher performance? … etc.
TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Technology
Description
Readiness Level
TRL 1. basic principles observed
TRL 2. technology concept formulated
TRL 3. experimental proof of concept
TRL 4. technology validated in lab
technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant

TRL 5.
environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant

TRL 6.
environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
TRL 7. system prototype demonstration in operational environment
TRL 8. system complete and qualified
actual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing

TRL 9.
in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)
Table 1.3: Technology Readiness Levels in the European Commission (EC) (Heder, 2017)
One can see that determining the status of technology development would often requires search
and knowledge of most recent advances, publications, and news releases on the technical
performance, demonstration, pilot systems, and prototypes. It also requires independent expertise
in subject matter along with understanding the economic criteria, which establish a threshold where
the technology becomes economically feasible and is able to compete with existing alternatives. The
data sources, which can be used for TRL analysis, are following:
Scientific publications in refereed journals (e.g., Web of Science);
Government agency reports;

30
Company news releases (may lack technical details);
Public news and internet (secondary sources which may refer you to original information),
etc.
The main objective of this study is to identify the benefits ATS perceives by using TRLs and the
potential relationship those benefits could have with R&D issues ATS face, as well as the way TRLs
could help tackle those issues. Respondents mentioned numerous and diverse benefits brought
about by the usage of TRLs, chief among which are: TRL is an accurate technology assessment
metric, enabling better decision-making; it is a simple framework and an effective management tool;
it enhances the ATS‘s communication abilities; it helps balance the technology/projects portfolio; it
reduces risk in technology development. As for the R&D issues, respondents identified lack of funds,
risk and uncertainty management and unsuccessful R&D projects as the most important ones,
followed by a variety of less important ones. TRLs simplify aerospace R&D by providing a common
language for understanding technology maturity and by providing a framework for assessing
technology risk.
Figure 1.9 shows a graphical representation of how TRL benefits are related and could tackle R&D
issues. The issues (represented by the orange boxes) are addressed by at least one benefit
(represented by the blue boxes) and TRL‘s simplicity and effectiveness is the central actor that
generates and unites all other benefits.
Figure 1.9: TRL benefits vs R&D issues network.

31
By analyzing both TRL benefits and R&D issues in the data, we were able to create connections
between those and propose hypotheses on how TRLs are/could be tackling the R&D issues.
Moreover, the most mentioned TRL benefit is that the tool is a very simple and effective
management tool (along with the ―accurate technology assessment metric‖), and we believe that
this simplicity and effectiveness is the central factor from which all other benefits are generated and
perceived.
It should be noted that the use of this TRL scale in various states or large companies is currently
regulated by various national or sector (corporate) standards (ISO 16290, 2013), for example in
Russian Federation these are the standards (GOST R 56861, 2016) and (GOST R 57194.1,2016).
1.4. Other Types of Technology Maturity Assessment
Technology hype cycle. One way to look at technology maturity is through a Gartner hype cycle
(Gartner, 2015): a graphic representation of the maturity, adoption, and business application of
specific technologies. Gartner uses hype cycles to characterize the over-enthusiasm, or "hype", and
subsequent disappointment that typically follow the introduction of new technologies. A generic
example of Gartner hype cycles is shown in Figure 1.10. A hype cycle in Gartner's interpretation has
five steps:
Technology Trigger: The first phase of a hype cycle is the "technology trigger" or breakthrough,
product launch, or other event that generates significant press and interest.
Peak of Inflated Expectations: In the next phase, a frenzy of publicity typically generates over-
enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations. Some technology applications may be successful, but
typically more are failures.
Trough of Disillusionment: Technologies enter the "trough of disillusionment" because they fail to
meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable. Consequently the press usually abandons the
topic and the technology.
Slope of Enlightenment: Although the press may have stopped covering the technology, some
businesses continue through the "slope of enlightenment" and experiment to understand the
benefits and practical application of the technology.
Plateau of Productivity: Mainstream adoption starts to take off. Criteria for assessing provider
viability are more clearly defined. The technology's broad market applicability and relevance are
clearly paying off.
Although Gartner references "the press", technology hype can and does occur throughout different
organizations. It can often result in significant program investment funding's being applied to
technologies that may not be suitable for the intended system or user but were deemed promising
by program stakeholders.
32
Figure 1.10: Hype Cycles
Selecting technology alternatives. For assessing which technology to employ to satisfy

requirements, various fitness criteria can be used to select which alternative will best realize the
sponsor's desired outcomes from the total spectrum of technologies available. Criteria that consider
both the technology and the sponsor's ability to assimilate it are more likely to succeed than those
that consider only the technology (as in the use of TRLs). Moore (Moore, 1998) identifies types of
sponsor as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. The curve in Figure
1.11 is referred to as the technology adoption life cycle, or Roger‘s Bell Curve (Rogers, 2015).
Figure 1.11: Roger's Bell Curve
As the names suggest, each sponsor type has its own tolerance for change and novelty. Technology
assessment considers the sponsor's tolerance for disruptive change as well as for new or old
technologies. For example, it would not be appropriate to recommend new technology to "late
majority" sponsors nor mature technology to "innovators." DoD acquisition programs are required
to assess all threshold capabilities in the Capabilities Description Document for maturity; those
deemed to be met with immature technology (a TRL of less than 6) will not be considered further as
"threshold" and may jeopardize the program milestone decision. Programs structured to inject
33
developing technologies could be more receptive to innovation and less mature technologies, but in
this case be sure to carefully evaluate the risks involved (see the Risk Management topic in this
section).
ABC alternatives. Another dimension of the selection criteria considers the capabilities of
technology providers. Former Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Lt. Gen. Charles
Croom, devised a new philosophy for acquisition called ABC (Gallagher, 2008). In the ABC concept,
"A" stands for adopt existing technology, "B" is buy it, and "C" is create it yourself. Adopt may seem
an obvious decision if the technology fits the purpose, but both the technology and the provider
should be evaluated for reliability and sustainability. With the buy alternative, vendor
responsiveness, capability, and viability are concerns. Create is the choice of last resort, but it may
be the best alternative in certain circumstances. When choosing Create, consider the entire systems
engineering life cycle, including operations and maintenance, as this will have an impact on life-
cycle cost.
TRAs and Risk Management. In any project where new technologies are intended to be used, or
existing technologies are used in new ways, it is important to understand the risks associated with
technology maturity. There is substantial literature available on risk management and related
decision support frameworks. Technology readiness levels provide a structure for the evaluation of
such risks by setting out criteria to be met to reach each level. It is important that TRAs become
embedded as a standard project management practice. In assessing the TRL of any given
technology, a practitioner must ask questions related to the demonstrated functionality, integration
completeness, test environment and fidelity, with the highest TRL representing a technology that
has been "flight proven" through actual operation on a real mission in the target environment.
The TRA should not be considered a formal risk assessment, but it should be viewed as a tool for
assessing project/program risks associated with implementation of a new technology and
specifically the adequacy of technology maturation planning by the project/program. In this way,
TRA outcomes are able to:
support go no-go decisions, during Phase 0, A and B, about the inclusion of new technologies
in a system;
mitigate risk to projects by identifying exactly what development was performed to date;
provide a consistent ranking system to reliably compare the maturity of different technologies.
The use of TRL and associated TRA, along with the technology readiness status list (TRSL), as defined
in ECSS-E-ST-10 Annex E (ECSS, 2017), can also provide organisational insight in to the technology-
related risk profile of projects and therefore contribute to the decision-making process at the key
projects go no-go decision points.
In the early project phases (0, A, B), the development of the technology plan and of the TRSL, is
essential to properly support the assessment of the mission achievable performance, the overall
project schedule and the related costs and risk. An outline of benefits of engaging the TRA at these
early stages in provided in Table. Passing through preliminary phases, the number of technology
34
options for a critical function of the project is decreasing until the end of phase B where generally
only one option is kept with a TRL at least 6.
PROJECT BENEFITS OF USE OF TRA

PHASE
Phase 0 Establish the TRSL – listing candidate technologies for the same critical
(MDR) functions
Re-orient the system concept for optimizing technology readiness and
technology selection decision schedule
TRSL also provides a connection from the project to the technology
developers (R&T&D programmes)
Phase A Contribution to the technology plan (TP)
(PRR) Consolidate TRSL within the TP
Refine list of candidate technologies for the same critical function
Phase B Consolidate TRSL within the TP.
(up to SRR) Preliminary identification of items for transfer to critical item list (CIL)
Phase B Inputs from TRSL to the CIL
(from SRR to TRSL provides risk data supporting the decision to move to detailed
PDR) design phase (C)
Final selection of (suppliers for) candidate technologies for the critical
functions
Table 1.4: Benefits of use of TRA
Critical technologies and other potential technology risk areas that may need the attention of the
FPD, or FPL for applicable Operations Activities, are highlighted by the TRA and captured in the
Technology Management Planning (TMP). Figure 1.12 illustrates the relationship of TRAs and TMPs
to risk management. Technology readiness risk is only one component of risk.
The TRA/TMP process is depicted in Figure 1.13. The TRA/TMP process is divided into three stages:
assessment planning, assessment execution, and TMP preparation. The TRA Planning Stage begins
when it is determined by the FPD/FPL, or EM program office that sponsors the project/program, or
EM CPOT that a TRA is required. Assessment planning involves selection of the TRA team,
development of a TRA Plan, and review of critical documents. The TRA Planning Stage ensures
pertinent information required to successfully perform the TRA is documented and readily available
to the TRA team. The TRA Execution Stage begins with the on-site assessment activities. Assessment
activities involve identification and evaluation of CTEs, determination of TRLs, TRA reporting, and a
close-out briefing. This stage ensures appropriate data are gathered, appropriate elements are
assessed, and assessment results are adequately documented.
The TMP Development/Finalization Stage (Section 4.0) may begin after the factual accuracy review is
conducted or after the TRA Report is approved. If an initial TMP was drafted by the project/program,
it may require revision and finalization based on the results and recommendations of the TRA.
35
Otherwise, the TRA will provide the basis for developing the TMP. The TMP ensures the actions
required to develop the technologies to the required levels are documented.
Figure 1.12: TRAs, TMPs, Technology, and Risk Management (DOE TRA/TMP , 2013)
Figure 1.13: TRA/TMP Process (DOE TRA/TMP , 2013)

36
TRL is one factor for the evaluation of risks due to technologies. Amongst the other factors,
complexity is also an important one and gives a qualitative evaluation of risks versus TRL and
complexity. Figure gives a generalized example of when formal TRAs are typically performed during
institutional projects (ECSS, 2017). Institutional projects generally develop critical functions
(provided by technologies) and models from lower TRL through to TRL 6 during the early phases of
the project (prior to Phase C). It is worth noting that in the technology plan the project defines a
model philosophy for the technology development (and TRL progression) followed over the project
phases. The model philosophy selected for the technology critical elements drives their TRL
upgrades during the early project phases. Once the project is within the detailed design phase (i.e.
Phase C), the evolution of the critical items related to technology maturity (now included in the CIL)
follows the project development process as specified in ECSS standards.
Figure 1.14: Risk versus TRL and complexity
Figure 1.15: Project phases and generalised institutional expectation of TRA outcome
Generalised institutional programme expectation of TRA outcome per phase
Activites
PHASE 0 PHASE A PHASE B PHASE C PHASE D PHASE E PHASE F
TRA for current project up to TRL6

MDR PRR
Mission / Function SRR PDR
Requirements
CDR
Definition QR AR
Verification
Production FRR CRR ELR
Utilization
LRR
Disposal MCR
TRA opportunity for TRL6 TRL7 TRL8 TRL9

following projects
37
Ошибка! Неверная ссылка закладки. illustrates the link between project phases and
expectation of TRA outcomes for commercial projects where the TRL of a technology is below TRL 7.
In this case the phases are shown, to illustrate that for commercial projects, TRL is more linked to
key project milestones. This is because the TRL of technologies selected for use on commercial
projects are targeted at high maturity (i.e. TRL 7, 8 or 9) whenever possible. Commercial projects
therefore tend not to include phases 0, A and B prior to project start. Hence commercial customers
expect all or most of the products used to be already TRL 7, 8 and 9 prior to their release of the
invitation to tender (ITT). This is not always possible. Commercial customers often expect more
functionality and capacity from one project to the next, whilst not directly funding any pre-
development activities. It is rare for a technology below TRL 5 to be allowed into a commercial
project, as the schedule for the overall mission is put at too much risk. Accordingly prime
contractors request TRL information from their suppliers in order to support their bid no bid
assessment. If the prime enters into final negotiation with the customer, a TRA is normally
performed prior to project start. This is to verify TRL claims made by selected suppliers are valid. It
also enables the credibility of development plans to be examined in the case where it is essential to
develop technology during the project from TRL 5 or 6 to 7 prior to spacecraft flight. Commercial
primes typically conduct EQSRs (equipment qualification status reviews) or equivalent shortly after
contract signature. Normally the project performs a system QR (S-QR) after the system CDR. The
outcome of which is to ensure all technologies employed are at TRL 7 or higher.
Figure 1.16: Project phases and generalised commercial expectation of TRA outcome.
Project Phases and generalised commercial prime programme expectation of TRA outcome
Activites
PHASES 0, A & B PHASE C PHASE D PHASE E PHASE F
TRA for current project TRL5/6/7

up to TRL7
ITT BNB PROJECT
Proposal Preparation & RELEASED REVIEW KO
Negotiation
PDR
Definition and Procurement
CDR S-QR
Verification
S-AR/FRR
Production
LRR CRR
Utilization
Disposal
TRA opportunity for TRL 5/6/7 TRL6/7 TRL7 TRL8 TRL9

following projects
1.5. Key Enabling Technologies in EC: general approach
Whilst European R&D is generally strong in new Key Enabling Technologies (KETs), the High-Level
Expert Group (HLG) has observed that the transition from ideas arrising from basinc research to
competitive KETs production is the weakest link in European KET enabled value chains. This is
demonstrable evidence of the impact to-date of the absence of a major focus on enabling
38
innovation in the EU and an over-emphasis on basic research both within EU research programmes
and in some Member States.
This situation, namely the gap between basic knowledge generation and the subsequent
commercialisation of this knowledge in marketable products, has been commonly identified across
the KETs and is known in broad terms as the "valley of death" issue. Its effects can include not only
relocation of manufacturing and R&D, but also the disruption of entire value chains with their
ultimate consequences on the sustainability of various strategic sectors in Europe. The "valley of
death" is due to many factors including the absence of smart regulation, the unavailability of pre-
commercial R&D support, insufficient access to large scale finance, and lack of political support and
pro-active KET policies.
There is a common understanding among the HLG and EU stakeholders that KETs are of crucial
importance to the European economy, its future competitiveness and its capability to face grand
societal challenges. As demonstrated by the HLG, they underpin European value chains in strategic
areas and accelerate innovation in our industrial base. The HLG KET sectorial analysis highlighted
three specificities of KETs within an European context:
Firstly, KETs, in general, are only differentiated by their degree of maturity.
Secondly, KETs are ubiquitous in both new and traditional products.
Thirdly, there is a significant interdependency of KETs in the development of advanced

products. All these facts underline the need for the European Commission to stimulate and
develop an integrated KET approach covering the spectrum of all six KETs.
The HLG analysis also clearly showed that it is the same key stages that determine the development
of all KETs. An integrated approach to KETs is therefore perfectly possible and enables common
solutions and actions, each of which can then achieve a more significant critical mass, effectiveness,
visibility and impact. The HLG thus decided to focus on an integrated industrial and political
approach to the development and deployment of KETs in Europe. This strategy is described in the
current section.
1.5.1. European ―three-pillar bridge‖ to pass across the "valley of death"
Crossing the ―valley of death‖ in the key enabling technologies in Europe requires the delivery of
solutions to the three successive stages implicit in this crossing (Figure 1.17) (High-Level Expert
Group Report Final, 2017).
The first stage, called ―Technological research‖ consists of taking best advantage of European
scientific excellence in transforming the ideas arising from fundamental research into technologies
competitive at world level. These should be both shown through proofs of concept and be
proprietary, that is protected by patents. It is these patents that will guarantee both the future
freedom to exploit these technologies by European industry and their capacity to resist counterfeits
and copying. From a more general perspective, an IPR strategy for global markets along with a
single and efficient European system for IP protection and enforcement are urgently needed.
39
The second stage, called ―Product demonstration‖ allows the use and exploitation of these KETs to
make innovative and performing European process and product prototypes competitive at world
level. This requires firstly putting in place pilot lines having both the KETs technology prototyping
facilities to enable the fabrication of a significant quantity of innovative product prototypes arising
from these KETs. Secondly, establishing the prototype product validation in terms of its user
performance requires both demonstration and deployment operations at appropriate scale on
European sites, protecting the technological advance achieved. In both cases, the objective is to
make a demonstration at real scale of the relevance in terms of user value and the competitiveness
of new product prototypes containing one or several KETs.
Figure 1.17: A European integrated initiative to pass the KETs "Valley of Death" (High-Level Expert Group
Report Final, 2017)
The third stage, called ―Competitive manufacturing‖ should allow, starting from product prototypes
duly validated during the demonstration phase to create and maintain in Europe attractive
economic environments in EU regions based on strong eco-systems and globally competitive
industries. In particular, production facilities competitive with their US and Asian equivalents in
terms of production volumes and therefore price of products. This will allow further strengthening
of the capabilities of EU industry to more successfully deploy KETs-based products, face
international competition and master solutions to tackle grand societal challenges. In fact, in KETs
where economies of scale are of importance, only advanced manufacturing based on the latest
technologies and at a significant level will allow (High-Level Expert Group Report Final, 2017):
- The acceleration of the learning curve on new manufacturing technologies, processes and
products in order to arrive amongst the first on non-mature markets with a high probability of
penetration.
40
- To absorb the enormous fixed costs of quality production on a volume sufficiently important to
attain production costs in line with those of international competitors, notably Asian.
- To retain the production know-how at the top level, this is the only guarantee of a complete
mastery of all these crucial KETs steps on European soil.
- To develop an industry for advanced manufacturing generating a source of export revenues,

and support the downstream producers of machinery capable to produce the most advanced
manufacturing technologies in Europe (machinery, software, services, etc.), as well as the
development and improvement of manufacturing systems (technology and processes) in order to
build efficient, modern and high technology manufacturing facilities in Europe.
- To master the whole product life cycle, from resource efficient and energy saving production to
recycling processes.
1.5.2. An integrated KETs policy at EU-level
For Europe to succeed in the deployment of KETs in EU industries, to maintain its global
technological leadership in the coming years, a single integrated KETs policy has to be
implemented, that supports the development and explotation of KETs accross the value chain from
science to market deployment and which recognises the importance of facilitating the integration of
KETs, which in essential to create technology-based products and services.
For such a policy to succeed, it is vital to position KETs as a technological priority for Europe and to
align the EU's main political and financial instruments in the next financial perspective consistently
with the goals of EU 2020 to achieve this goal. In particular this must be reflected in the upcoming
Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation Financing, Horizon 2020 (CSF), the
instruments related to the EU's Regional Policy and the policies of the European Investment Bank
group.
The members High Level Group (HLG) of the HLG have been chosen primarily from among those
nominated by industry and research associations in close cooperation with other Commission
services. In doing so the European Commission sought to achieve a balanced overall composition
based on broad representation, knowledge and the experience of the candidates while keeping the
size of the HLG to a manageable level. The HLG has identified three priority recommendations to
address the implementation of the three pillar bridge strategy (High-Level Expert Group Report
Final, 2017):
- A full and simultaneous implementation along the innovation chain applying the TRL chart: the
HLG recommends the EU to align its RDI activities on the TRL scale in line with the OECD
definition. The Commission should also systematically apply this definition in order to include
41
technological research, product development and demonstration activities within its RDI
portfolio;
- Adaptation and clarification of the R&D definition to take into account the explicit inclusion and
systematic application of Pillar 1 and 2 R&D activities: the EU should apply R&D definitions in its
programmes which support the full and simultaneous implementation of the three pillar bridge
model along the innovation chain, from basic research, through technological research, product
development and prototyping up to globally competitive manufacturing.;
- Rebalancing of EU RDI funding programmes towards Innovation activities, in particular in the

CSF programme (Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation Financing - CSF):
the HLG recommends that the EU and Member States firmly rebalance their RDI funding in KETs-
related programmes towards technological research, product development (including pilot lines,
prototypes, first-in-kind equipment and facilities and demonstrator activities). In particular in the
future CSF, the EU should set indicative targets for the percentage of funding dedicated to basic
research, technological research and development activities.
- A strategic approach to KETs programmes: The HLG recommends that the European
Commission defines and implements a strategic, industry driven and coordinated approach to
KETs programmes and related policies across EC RDI funding programmes and instruments (CSF,
ERDF).
The internationally recognised and industrially applied concept of "Technology Readiness Levels"
outlines in detail the different research and deployment steps, which support the innovation and
industrialisation process of technologies to transform ideas to the market. The High Level Group has
noted through its work an ongoing and urgent need for stakeholders to have relevant information
on KETs to inform strategy and decision making. More hard data is needed on KETs to provide EU,
national and regional policy makers with information to better develop and implement policy
frameworks regarding the deployment of KETs. The elaboration of relevant information will be
required to assess and evaluate the situation and in particular to monitor KETs value chains in
Europe and other key regions in the world.
Figure 1.18: Technology Readiness Levels Scale (High-Level Expert Group Report Final, 2017)
42
1.6. TRL Scale in Horizon 2020
The general EU‘s program for funding research, technological development and demonstration is
the multiannual Framework Program (FP). Since its inception in the early 1980s the Framework
Programs have steadily increased in size and scope, and spending under FP7 (2007-2013) is now in
the order of €6-7 billion per year. The next Framework Program (FP8, also called ―Horizon 2020‖) ,
currently under fulfillment, falled under the EU financial perspectives and began in 2014.
See Figure 1.19 for an illustration of the three different research levels (Level 1, 2 & 3) covered under
the Framework Program and the corresponding Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). The objectives
set in the Strategic Research Agendas are pursued in projects which were set up as public private
partnerships. These were typically funded at a rate of 50% by the European Union.
The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale was introduced into the EU funded projects arena in
2014 as part of the Horizon 2020 framework program. If you are planning to submit a Horizon 2020
project proposal, even more so if your project is technology oriented – this article is for you. It is
important to understand the exact implications of this scale on your project and the ways it is used
to present, evaluate and measure the progress of a Horizon 2020 or ERC project. In this article, we
will discuss exactly that. Let‘s start by understanding the fundamentals of the TRL scale and how it
works.
Figure 1.19: The EU Framework Program, with its three levels and the intended research objective
43
To mention are programs run and controlled by the Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) as Joint
Undertakings (JU) like CleanSky or SESAR, which are a new project scale to meet the large specific
multi-stakeholder challenges in aviation. Currently the administrative work for follow up programs
for CleanSky and SESAR II is under way and the request for proposal procedure is being installed.
Horizon 2020 has selected the TRL scale as an indicator to better position the requested projects in
the program (as expressed in the Horizon 2020 annual work programs). The TRL, as a unified scale,
enables applicants and reviewers to align with the expectations of the EC in this context. For
example: a higher TRL in the call text clearly means that the EC is looking for a more applicative
solution in the scope of the project. Alternatively, a lower TRL in the call text indicates an
expectation for a more basic research project, and so on.
Another use of the TRL is an indication of the ‗entry point‘. This refers to the maturity level of the
given technology/product/process at the beginning of the project. In this case, a given TRL serves as
a ‗lower boundary‘. Similar to the above, it helps in meeting the expectations of the EC in a specific
call. For example: in the SME Instrument and in the Fast Track to Innovation (FTI), the entry point
must be TRL 6 (System/ subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment).
Simply put – this means the funding scheme is not appropriate for R&D-intensive projects, typical of
products positioned in lower TRL levels. Rather, it is more appropriate for mature projects with
higher probability of getting to the market. In contrast, many other funding schemes rather support
R&D-intensive projects, whether they specifically state a TRL level in the call for proposals or not.
At the time of proposal writing, one should try to evaluate the TRL of the technology/service/
solution to be developed in the project. If the call for proposals specifically states an entry point or a
goal for the end of the project – this is crucial. However, even when it is not specifically stated, this is
a tool you can use to your advantage. Use it when describing your project, planning good
milestones, and setting specific evaluation measures for progress. Keep in mind that the reviewers
are asked to assess these issues. It is in your interest to ease the evaluation process and give the
reviewers good answers to these questions.
Since the TRL scale is self-declared, it is important to remember that definitions of the various
stages are quite general. Transitions between them can be a bit elusive. Indeed, this makes the
process of assigning TRL to a given product not easy. Furthermore, comparing TRL across disciplines
may prove almost impossible. Nevertheless, this needs to be done by applicants and reviewers
alike. If issues arise in this context, it can prove helpful to seek assistance to solidify your proposal.
The TRL assessment process begins with a meticulous check of the various TRL levels and
definitions. The TRL scale for Horizon 2020 is defined in Annex G of the Grant Agreement.
As mentioned above, TRL serves as a reference to the development level of a specific technology.
This starts from the basic principle research, continues to stages of development, and ends up with
market outreach. It typically takes around 20 years from the basic principles of a new technology
until achieving operational maturity (Figure 20). Technology development in aeronautics is normally
planned and carried out in a way correlating with the introduction of a specific new aircraft model.
However, the introduction of new aircraft programs is often shifted due to reasons not necessarily
44
linked to new technologies, which leads to decoupling the forecasted technology availability from
the introduction of new aircraft programs.
The present approach establishes an approximate relation between the given qualitative TRL and
the years it will take to introduce the technology into service (the ―Years to Maturity‖ for a current
TRL) as depicted in Figure 20. So far this estimate is solely based on historical data and does not
account for the influences of e.g. financial incentives, administrative restrictions or supports,
availability of resources and so forth.
The patent submission for a turbofan engine by Hans von Ohain (von Ohain, 1939) was chosen as
the starting point for TRL 1. The patent was filed on 12th September 1939. Then it took until 1954
that a civil aircraft, the Avro 706 Ashton, was equipped with a turbofan engine. In this case the Rolls
Royce Conway, had its maiden flight and the technology had its introduction into a commercial test
bed, at this point the TRL 7 level was reached. It took the turbofan technology 15 years to overcome
those seven technology levels. Another four years were needed to bring the technology to TRL 9
and introduce it into commercial aircraft service on the Boeing 707 with the Pratt & Whitney
turbofan JT3. In the field of airframe technologies the rather important step from TRL 7 to TRL 9 with
its 10 years to maturity in between can be explained using for example the A380 introduction into
service (EIS). After the maiden flight was executed in 2005 the EIS of the A380 already happened
only two years later in 2007. But from today‘s point of view one has to state that the first delivered
aircraft were more likely in the condition of TRL 8 than TRL 9, as only the location of minor fatigue
cracks in the wing w ill entail maintenance work and production process adaptation which will result
in an A380 delivered without any rework needed most likely in the years 2013-15 (Hepher, 2012).
Figure 1.20: Maturation Timeline for Technology Readiness Level (IATA, 2013)
45
1.7. Technology Readiness Level Calculator
The primary purpose of using technology readiness levels is to help management in making
decisions concerning the development and transitioning of technology. It should be viewed as one
of several tools that are needed to manage the progress of research and development activity
within an organization (Deutsch, Meneghini, Mermut, Lefort, 2011).
Among the advantages of TRLs (Dawson, 2007):
Provides a common understanding of technology status
Risk management
Used to make decisions concerning technology funding
Used to make decisions concerning transition of technology
Some of the characteristics of TRLs that limit their utility (Dawson, 2007):
Readiness does not necessarily fit with appropriateness or technology maturity
A mature product may possess a greater or lesser degree of readiness for use in a particular
system context than one of lower maturity
Numerous factors must be considered, including the relevance of the products' operational
environment to the system at hand, as well as the product-system architectural mismatch
Current TRL models tend to disregard negative and obsolescence factors. There have been
suggestions made for incorporating such factors into assessments (Valerdi, Kohl, 2004).
A Technology Readiness Level Calculator was developed by the United States Air Force (Nolte,2003).
This tool is a standard set of questions implemented in Microsoft Excel that produces a graphical
display of the TRLs achieved. This tool is intended to provide a snapshot of technology maturity at a
given point in time.
As it is easy to see, the TRL scale itself does not contain any quantitative values, except for the TRL
level number. The problem of quantitative estimation of TRL levels was solved by the creation of a
whole class of tools (calculators) (Nolte,2003), (NASA ESTO, 2017), (TRL/CRL Calculator, 2018),
which based on user responses to a number of "Yes / No" questions received quantitative estimates
of the TRL level.
The questions in them were related not only to the TRL readiness scale, but also related to readiness
levels such as MRL (Manufacturing Readiness Levels) and PRL (Programmatics Readiness Levels),
and in some cases questionnaires could also enter numeric values that, in their opinion, better
characterize the percentage of completeness of work relating to a specific issue.
These calculators were developed in the Microsoft Excel environment, that is why they are widely
distributed, since the number of installed copies of this software in the world is very significant, and
knowledge of MS Excel makes it easy to modify the calculator for use in a specific technology area.
The original algorithm for quantifying the level of TRL (graphical form), developed by William Nolte
46
(Nolte,2003), used in these tools is shown in Figure 1.21. The graphic representation of the
algorithm uses green, yellow, red and blue colors, their designations are given in Table 1.5. The
algorithm shown in Figure 1.21 describes the cyclical procedure of answering questions of the
questionnaires relating to different levels of TRL from the 1st to the 9th TRL.
Figure 1.21: Algorithm for estimating the level TRL
Colour Description
Blue Data for this level (and also for the level above) is not entered
Red Some data for this level (and also for the level above) have been introduced, but they
are not enough to conclude that this level is achievable
Yellow There are still questions that have not been answered for this level (and also for the
level below), but their importance does not influence the conclusion about the
attainability of this level
Green Level reached
Table 1.5: Colors used in the calculator TRL
The algorithm for TRL calculator from (Nolte,2003) is:
Display green if everything below this level is green, and there are enough questions at this
level checked to justify green.
Display yellow if the previous level is yellow and you have answered enough questions at
this level to justify a green or yellow rating. Display yellow if the previous level is green and
this level has enough questions answered to justify yellow, but short of the number needed
for green.
Display red if there is at least one question answered at this level or higher, but it doesn‘t
meet the green or yellow criteria.
If no question has been checked at or above this level, leave the space blank (Blue).
47
The Technology Program Management Model (TPMM) was developed by the United States Army
(Craver, 2006), (TPMM, 2012). The TPMM is a TRL-gated high-fidelity activity model that provides a
flexible management tool to assist Technology Managers in planning, managing, and assessing their
technologies for successful technology transition. The model provides a core set of activities
including systems engineering and program management tasks that are tailored to the technology
development and management goals. This approach is comprehensive, yet it consolidates the
complex activities that are relevant to the development and transition of a specific technology
program into one integrated model.
According to a US GAO review of 54 MDAPs, 85% of programs began system development with
immature technologies, leading to an average cost growth of 41% and schedule delay of 13 months.
GAO recommends the S&T organization, rather than the program development manager, be
responsible for maturing technologies. TPMM is a solution for implementing that recommendation.
PMM divides the development lifecycle into TRL-delimited phases consisting of a high-fidelity list of
tailorable programmatic, technical, transition management, and verification activities. The results of
every activity are documented. Completion of phase activities results in a 2-stage gate review which
assesses the technical accomplishments and then the programmatic readiness of the program to
continue.
TPMM (TPMM, 2012) is a TRL-based stage-gate process model that contains engineered criteria,
tailorable to any given technology development program. It is a management model that focuses
on the full activity set (e.g. programmatics, systems engineering, transition management,
verification) that can be used by a technology program manager to manage their technical
development program to transition to an Acquisition Customer. Every activity contributes to the
technology product. The results of each activity are documented by one or more deliverables in any
given phase - no superfluous activities.
A Stage-Gate process (Hirshorn , Sharon,  2016) is one in which the work is done in distinct phases.
Each phase is a "Stage". During a Stage, money is allocated for that phase and work is performed.
Each Stage has specific characteristics against which it is measured to determine if that phase has
been completed. These characteristics include Deliverables, Funding Allocation, Metrics, and Goals
(Exit Criteria). Once a phase is completed (Deliverables delivered, Funding spent, Goals met, Metrics
satisfied), then a decision must be made whether to move forward with the program. This is the
"Gate". Each Gate is a decision point for the program to move to the next stage and is typified by a
program review. The TPMM gate is the Technology Program Review (TPR), which is comprised of
two individual assessments. The first is a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) which determines
whether the program has achieved a specific Readiness Level. The second is a Technology
Advancement Assessment (TAA), which validates the planning function for the next phase. The
outcome of the TAA is a decision to either: a) Go to the next stage; b) Kill the program; c) Hold the
program; or d) Recycle the program back into the current stage to satisfy some unsatisfied criteria.
Once a decision to go forward to the next Stage has been made, funding must be allocated,
deliverables defined, and Goals and Metrics specified for that Stage. Then the work for that Stage
commences. The TPMM uses the TRL gates as the basis for each Stage of its Stage-Gate Process.
48
Analyzing such calculators, one can see their main shortcomings, limiting their application in
modern practice of complex scientific and technological evaluation of innovation projects:
– they are intended only for evaluating one technology and do not allow assessing the
technological readiness of an integrated project;
– they are individual tools and do not have the capacity for collective (distributed) work;
– they are not intended for peer review of the achieved results in terms of assessing the
quality of the results and the information supporting them;
– they are intended for solving narrowly branch problems, that is, they are not universal;
– despite the fact that the user can enter the numerical value of the completion percentage for
some works when calculating, the results of calculating not only the level of readiness of TRL,
but also the level of manufacturing readiness (MRL) and programs (PRL) do not depend
directly of the percentage of work performed.
1.8. Technology Project Readiness Level Methodology
A model of integrated assessment of technological readiness (Komarov,  Petrov, Sartory,  2018) was the
reason to develop this methodology with the following features:
the model uses the adapted 9-level TRL assessment scale;
the model has a universal structure, which means that depending on the content, the
software can be adjusted to evaluate projects in various technical disciplines and areas of
science;
the model fully and accurately takes into account modern technologies, development
standards and the life cycle of the innovation project;
the model has a built-in system for confirming the level of technological readiness, built on
the basis of the so-called markers;
the model contains tools for self-assessment by the developers (further self-assessment) and
peer review carried out by an independent third party, and these tools use a single
information base and mechanisms for working with it;
the model includes criteria and indicators for assessing the level of technological readiness,
the content of which is formalized maximally, which makes it possible to avoid ambiguous
understanding of the characteristics of different levels of technological readiness;
the model conducts a comprehensive assessment of the level of technological readiness,

taking into account the characteristics of the various levels of readiness included in TPRL
(Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016);
49
calculation of the numerical parameters of the model is based on the expert evaluation of
the quality of the supporting information on the results of the projects presented in the
project documentation;
the model allows to monitor the effectiveness and progress of projects within the current
level of technological readiness of the project at small time intervals or the rating of projects
when making decisions to provide them with support.
The above characteristics of the integrated assessment model of technological readiness of the
projects not only eliminate all the shortcomings inherent in the tools used to quantify the TRL, but
also create new opportunities for project evaluation, that is why the software implementation of the
model led to the creation of a software tool for integrated assessment of technological readiness
innovative scientific and technological projects.
Analyzing the data in Tables 1.1 – 1.3 it is not difficult to see that the TRL scale does not cover a lot
of aspects, which should be taken into account when evaluating the project (in which innovative
technology is developed) as a whole, so in practice, in assessing such project, approaches based on
the TRL scale are proposed and used, but also they describe other levels of readiness, such as
system availability (SRL), integration readiness (IRL), and a number of others, applied simultaneously
with TRL (GAO TRA Guide, 2016). For current scale such project values are as following:
Technological readiness (TRL) – usual scale;
Productivity or (manufacturing) readiness (MRL);
Engineering readiness (ERL);
Organizational readiness (ORL);
Advantages or benefits and risks (BRL);
Market and Commercialization Readiness (CRL).
The methodology of a balanced approach to assessing the readiness of projects as a whole - the
Technology Project Readiness Level (TPRL) methodology, is proposed in (Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov,
2016). As a starting point for the development of such a methodology, a unified method for
assessing the level of readiness of technology TRL (Sadin, Povinelli, Rosen, 1989) and the
StageGate® method (Hirshorn , Sharon,  2016) were used.
The TPRL methodology, combining the TRL and StageGate® methods, uses a system approach,
which allows us to describe the levels of project readiness for a wide range of disciplines in single
and the same terms. The TPRL methodology suggests a variant of a set of parameters that
characterizes the balanced development of projects as a whole. The TPRL methodology allows the
following project characteristics to be determined numerically:
technology availability level corresponding to the classical TRL method (same as TPRL level)
from 1 to 9, for example, 5;
50
the parameter readiness index for each of the six key parameters from 0 to 9, for example, 5.25;
an integral level of the project readiness for commercialization (TPRL index) from 0 to 9, for
example, 2.63;
the dynamics of work on the project in the range from 0 to 9, for example, challenge from 2.37
to 4.53,
the assessment of the balance of the project readiness considering the indices of readiness for
6 parameters in the digital and graphical representation.
In assessing the level of project readiness, the TPRL methodology is based on the availability of
documents that fixed the receipt of certain work results. Based on the formal accounting of
documents, TPRL provides a simple and effective method for measuring the status of projects and,
as a consequence, of project portfolio as a whole.
The advantage of this methodology is the fact that when assessing the level of preparedness of
projects, not only the criteria characterizing a certain level of readiness (as is accepted by the TRL
method) are used, but also the documents on the basis of which these criteria are fulfilled, and this
assessment is made by independent experts. Another feature of the TPRL methodology is that it is
practically not applicable at the stage of selection of projects for support, including financial, as the
requirements for describing projects are not harmonized with the content of the criteria and
indicators of the TPRL methodology, and even the availability of formalized documents does not
imply an assessment of their quality, as done, for example, in (Komarov, Tihomirov, Zhebel‘,  2017).
The TPRL index of the project is calculated on the basis of the values of the indices of six basic
parameters with weight coefficients. The form of dependence of the coefficients from the value of
the parameter indices can be determined by experts for solving the specific problems (so they
should be different for different problems and tasks). For the purposes of this report, it was assumed
that the probability of successfully reaching the next level of TPRL grows exponentially with
progression through the sublevels, reaching a value of 1 when all conditions that determine the
TPRL level are met. The detailed justification for this assumption is beyond the scope of this report.
However, this fact does not affect the interpretation of the substance of the TPRL methodology
(Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016).
Evaluation of the project balance and early diagnosis of problem areas are made on the basis of
indices of all six parameters. The result of such an assessment can be presented quantitatively in the
form of a table or visual flap chart (Figure 1.22).
Balanced development in the TPRL methodology corresponds to a symmetrical hexagon (if we use 6
key parameters). In this example, performers should first of all pay attention to problem areas:
production (MRL) and market (CRL) readiness. Engineering readiness, risks and benefits also lag
behind the technological readiness. Evaluation of the development dynamics of the project is made
conditionally according to the area of the radar chart. This characteristic is often significant for a
potential investor, assessing the effectiveness of the team and deciding on the choice of the project
for financing.
51
Instead of the classical stepped algorithm of the TRL (explained in before text of the Chapter 1 and
elsewhere in literature – look in References to this Report), we may apply now a continuous
calculation algorithm within one level for each of the parameters. For example, the current
availability index in Figure 1.22 is equal to 2.3, it means that most elaborations are grouped between
2nd and 3rd TRL. The project evaluation metric has a matrix structure (Figure 1.23). The key
parameters are located in 6 columns. The key parameter here is one of 6 key parameters of the
project development, for example, engineering readiness (ERL).
Figure 1.22 - An example of the presentation of the result of the balance assessment and dynamics of the
project development according with 6 key parameters on the radar chart (Komarov,  Petrov, Sartory,  2018)
Figure 1.23: The matrix structure of the integrated TPRL assessment of the state of scientific and technical
projects (* Sublevels and tasks for each of the parameters are determined separately)
(Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016)
52
The rows have a 3-level structure (Figure 1.23): each level for each key parameter consists of
successively reached sublevels, the content of which is expressed through tasks. Due to this detailed
specification, the TPRL method provides the ability to determine the fractional value of the TPRL
index, which in turn makes it possible to monitor the development dynamics of projects at small
time intervals. Accordingly, the raw has the following structure.
i) Parameter readiness level – defines discrete levels of readiness for each key parameter from 1 to 9,
for example, the level of ERL3 – the compatibility test is performed by the system.
ii) Sublevel – defines the successive stages of the critical path of the project development within the
same level of readiness of the parameter, for example, the willingness of the model and the test
bench. Typically, the level includes from 4 to 6 sublevels, depending on the specific level and
parameter.
Within the framework of the article (Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016), 6 parameters for assessing the
degree of readiness of projects were proposed, which are the minimum necessary set for an
integrated assessment of the main directions of project development and the readiness of the
project as a whole. Together, these parameters can be used to judge not only the development of
technology and production, but also other aspects important for the successful commercialization
of projects. The parameters are partially dependent. So the market readiness and the size of the
market share depend, for example, on the readiness of industrial production, which significantly
affects the cost of the product, from the service system (operational readiness), from the key
advantages (benefits and risks). For this reason, the proposed parameters are not unique and rigidly
fixed. If anybody needs to apply additional parameters for assessing project readiness, the TPLR
methodology allows you to extend the set of parameters.
The TPRL methodology is proposed (Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016) for assessment of the level of
readiness of scientific and technical innovation projects, it allows to determine the dynamics and
balance of their development, using unified approaches for comparing technologies and projects
from different subject areas. TPRL methodology allows to reduce resources and time during the
expert evaluation of projects and portfolio management.
The verification of the methodology has shown its efficiency in various project assessments,
including its balanced nature of the assessment, sufficient sensitivity for operational monitoring and
universality in relation to various disciplines. The TPRL methodology can be used by project
executors, industry partners, investors and innovative industrial companies to monitor projects and
improve performance.
An article (Jebel‘, Komarov, Komarov, Shurtakov, 2018) describes a software tool for the integrated

assessment of technological readiness of innovative scientific and technological projects used for
expert evaluation of the projects of the Federal (of the Russian Federation) Target Program
«Research and Development in Priority Areas of Russia‘s Scientific and Technological Development
for 2014–2020». The software is developed on the basis of client-server technologies and
implemented as a Web-system in the Internet. The functionality of the software implements a model
of integrated assessment of technological readiness of innovative scientific and technological
53
projects. The scheme of the business process of using the software as by the executors of projects
for an independent assessment of the level of technological readiness of the project, and for its
expert evaluation is presented. The software can be used also to create an information system or
can be integrated into existing distributed access tool systems in which quantitative assessments of
the technological readiness of projects are carried out.
The main functionality of the software is determined by the capabilities of the integrated
assessment model of the technological level of projects for conducting self-assessment and expert
evaluation of the technological level of the project, the generalized business process model of which
is shown in Figure 1.24 (Jebel‘, Komarov, Komarov, Shurtakov, 2018). The use of this software during
the preparation of the project for competitive procedures and in the course of the project
implementation will allow making reasonable estimates of the level of technological readiness of
projects implemented in various support programs implemented by various support institutions for
making sound management decisions.
The decisions made in the development of the software allow you to create a full-fledged
information system on its basis and integrate it into existing information systems designed to
process information on scientific and technological projects. RF TRL calculator
(Jebel‘, Komarov, Komarov, Shurtakov, 2018) is quite similar with NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator
(TRL/CRL Calculator, 2018), developed for the same purposes in US. The following are examples of
the main characteristics of the parameters used in the TPRL and NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator
methodology.
Figure 1.24: Model of business processes implemented in self-assessment and expert evaluation of the
technological level of projects (Jebel‘, Komarov, Komarov, Shurtakov, 2018)
54
Parameter "Technological readiness" (classic TRL in TPRL):
• Defines the sublevels of manufacturing and testing of the object under development, from the
idea to the serial model, manufactured consistently in accordance with laboratory, experimental,
industrial full-scale technologies.
• Reflects the status of object tests in sequence from checking single critical functions to full
performance testing with full-scale integration into an external system, both under conditions that
maximize the environment in the laboratory, so as in the real operating conditions of the system.
• It is confirmed by the readiness of the laboratory stand, which can represent individual devices at
level 3-4, a combination of improvised tools and several specialized components that need to be
serviced in a manual mode, calibrated and adjusted for teamwork. At subsequent levels 5-6, the
stand represents the maximum possible in the laboratory conditions of the system and the
environment model. At levels 7-9, the experimental sample is tested as part of the system.
Classic TRL in NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator:
The parameter "Engineering readiness" (TPRL):
• It is characterized by an accessible set of scientific and engineering competencies required for the
development of technology, the presence/absence of competitive solutions. Includes analysis of the
impact of technology on the final architecture and characteristics of the system, reflects the
adoption of a technology development strategy.
• Reflects the coordination of common engineering development tools (CAD/CAE/CAM/PLM).
• Fixes the result of comparing individual functions/modules of the product with the functional
organization and the final infrastructure of the final system.
• Reflects the assessment of the impact of technology on the manufacturing process of the partners
and their suppliers.
• Includes a risk reduction plan for possible applicable certification, internal verification of
technology by engineers of the partners.
• Demonstrates the technological process of manufacturing a model / layout / sample from

separate operations to an industrial technological line, harmonization with existing technologies and
processes.
55
Parameter "Productivity" (TPRL):
• Determines the readiness to create a product from the layout level to the industrial design.
• Reflects the degree of integration of the production process into existing production chains
(processes, materials, equipment, infrastructure); demonstration of the readiness of the basic means
of production partners.
• It is determined by a detailed economic evaluation of the cost of restructuring of the production,

upgrading the skills of workers, restructuring the supply chain, comparing it with internal costs,
deciding whether to produce or order?
• Demonstrates the creation of effective production (experimental, pilot, serial), including a quality
control system and supplies of materials and components.
Product Development in NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator:
The parameter "Organizational readiness":
• Includes all major organizational support measures for development and production.
• Reflects the status of formulating, discussing and agreeing on the concept of applying the
technology with all involved persons, executive departments, external organizations: suppliers,
subcontractors, customers.
• Defines the progress of multi-level approvals of the object's technical characteristics by potential
customers; Demonstrate the critical advantages of the layout / model / sample to customers.
• Reflects the completion of the stages of changes and adjustments made to the facility based on
test results and negotiations with customers; signing of documents on soft obligations on the
composition and volume of purchases with customers (representatives responsible for the
application, authorized management).
• Confirms the adoption of basic decisions, development of operational plans, demonstration of the
system of rendering service support of the facility.
• Fixes the willingness of the plan for the participation of the developer in TPRL7-9, conducted
mainly by resources and on the premises of the customer.
• Shows the result of partner staff training for technology transfer to the customer.
56
• Demonstrates intellectual property solutions (IPR): a business protection strategy: what to protect,
how to protect, the terms of protection.
• Confirms the choice of IP commercialization model, the filing of relevant patent applications.
Team Characteristics in NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator:
The parameter "Risks and benefits":
• Summarizes the study of the patent landscape and the dynamics of patenting, the definition of the
technology's promise, the availability of competitive patents and basic (umbrella) patents, the need
and assessment of the licensing of patents of third parties.
• Fixes the results of the analysis of applicable standards and technical policies.
• Reflects at each sublevel the key benefits and environmental risks from the model / layout /
sample testing, taking into account the possible error in the test and real measurements; risks on
the main production sites and markets.
• Defines the critical success factors, the obvious competitive / critical advantages of the object
under development; the fact of the readiness of proposals for a step-by-step correction of the
technical assignment taking into account the analysis of risks and formulating the advantages.
Competitive landscape in NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator:
Parameter "Market Readiness and Commercialization ":
• Market readiness and commercialization are beginning to be developed from the level of TPRL2.
57
• Determines the market availability of technology; sums up the result of the market's estimation
taking into account the price and consumer qualities of competitors being developed on the market
and developed products.
• Reflects the development stage of the business model of commercialization.
• Confirms the availability and development of the necessary competencies in the project team to
perform subsequent consecutive levels prior to TPRL9.
• Fixes the organization of the bilateral exchange of information with potential clients in order to
obtain feedback on the interest and specification of the characteristics of the object under
development.
• Fixes the successive approximations of the pricing model and the corresponding adjustments to
the production technologies, taking into account the price limitation of the products.
“Go-to-market” option in NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator:
1.9. Recomendations for Usage of Technology Readiness Level Methodology

and Calculator in ACARE Goals Assessment
Research in air transport takes time and this, in part, is determined by the stringent safety
requirements prevalent in this sector. The elements of the phased research programme comprise a
range of Technology Readiness Levels. The chart below details the timescales that are involved in
typical research programmes within aviation.
Typically, the ‗Research and Development‘ phase will establish technology from TRL level 1 to TRL
level 3. The ‗Demonstration‘ will take this input to develop technology to TRL level 6. Together these
form the ‗Research and Technology Acquisition‘ phase detailed in the chart (Figure 1.25) below
which can take up to ten years to achieve. Deployment of the technology in the market place as part
of the ‗Product Development‘ phase can take a further five years plus. It is also worth noting that
aircraft typically remain in service for 30 to 40 years. This means that in aviation where products are
highly developed and complex, the total technology life cycle could be around 50 to 60 years.
58
Grounding on analysis made in Chapter 2 a number of recommendations may be proposed for TRL
Calculator usage in PARE project for ACARE Challenge and Goal assessment taking in mind the
FlightPath 2050 strategic document.
Figure 1.25: Research and Technology Acquisition and Product Development Chart
Recommendation 1: for ACARE Challenge and Goal assessment a Technology Readiness Level
Questionnaire should be used to define the level reached currently for any of them. Example of
Questionnaire is shown in following Table 1.6:
TRL Question Answer
1 Do rough calculations support the concept?

1 Do basic principles (physical, chemical, mathematical) support the concept?
1 Do paper studies confirm basic scientific principles of new technology?
1 Has a scientific methodology or approach been developed?

TRL 1
Achieved Basic principles observed and reported.
2
Has potential system or component applications been identified?
2
Have paper studies confirmed system or component application feasibility?
2 Has an apparent design solution been identified?
2
Have the basic components of the technology been identified?
59
2
Have technology or system components been at least partially characterized?
2
Yes
Have performance predictions been documented for each component?
2
Has a functional requirements generation process been initiated?
2 Does preliminary analysis confirm basic scientific principles?
Are basic scientific principles confirmed with calculation based analytical
2
studies?
TRL 2
Achieved Technology concept and/or application formulated.
Have calculated predictions of components of technology capability been
3
validated?
3 Can all science applicable to the technology be modeled or simulated?
Do experiments or modeling and simulation (M&S) validate performance

3
predictions of technology capability?
3 Do experiments verify feasibility of application of technology?
Do paper studies indicate that technology or system components can be

3
integrated?
3 Are the technology or system performance metrics established?
3 Has scientific feasibility of proposed technology been fully demonstrated?
Does analysis of present technologies show that proposed technology or

3
system fills a capability gap?
TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-
Achieved of-concept.
4 Has acceptance testing of individual components been performed?
Has performance of components and interfaces between components been

4
demonstrated?
4 Does draft system architecture plan exist?
4 Have end user technology/system requirements been documented?
4 Has component compatibility been demonstrated?
4 Does technology demonstrate basic functionality in simplified environment?
Have performance characteristics been demonstrated in a laboratory

4
environment?
Have low-fidelity assessments of system integration and engineering been
4
completed?
60
TRL 4
Achieved
Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment.
5 Have internal system interface requirements been documented?
5 Has analysis of internal interface requirements been completed?
Can all system specifications be simulated and validated within a laboratory

5
environment?
5 Is the laboratory environment high-fidelity?
5 Have individual component functions been verified through testing?
5 Have objective and threshold operational requirements been developed?
5 Has a Product Breakdown Structure been developed?
TRL 5 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a laboratory

Achieved environment.
6 Have system integration issues been addressed?
6 Is the operational environment fully known?
Have performance characteristics been verified in a simulated operational

6
environment?
6 Has prototype been tested in a simulated operational environment?
6 Has system been tested in realistic environment outside the laboratory?
6 Has engineering feasibility been fully demonstrated?
TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant

Achieved environment.
Have all interfaces been tested individually under stressed and anomalous
7
conditions?
7 Has technology or system been tested in a relevant environment?
7 Are available components representative of production components?
Has operational testing of technology/system in relevant environment been

7
completed?
Has fully integrated prototype been demonstrated in actual or simulated
7
operational environment?
TRL 7
Achieved
System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
8 Are all technology/system components form, fit, and function compatible?

61
Is technology/system form, fit, and function compatible with operational

8
environment?
Has technology/system form, fit, and function been demonstrated in
8
Is technical Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) successfully
8
completed?
TRL 8
Achieved
Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration.
Does technology/system function as defined in Operational Concept

9
document?
Has technology/system has been deployed in intended operational
9
environment?
9 Has technology/system been fully demonstrated?
9 Has Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) been successfully completed?
TRL 9
Achieved
Actual system proven through successful mission operations.
Table1.6: Technology Readiness Level Questionnaire
Recommendation 2: TRL Questionnaire (Table 1.6) should be used by WG2 PARE team to analyse
and assess the ACARE goals achievement at this 1st stage of the researches grounding on the results
of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018). At the next steps the TRL Questionnaire should be
used by the PARE teams responsible for any ACARE Challenge analysis and assessment due to
distribution of these duties in PARE project.
Recommendation 3: NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator should be used by WG2 PARE team to analyse
and assess the goals of ACARE Challenge achievements at this 1st stage of the researches grounding
on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018). Complementary materials, appeared
currently, just after PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018) was published, may be used also, for example
such as (European Aviation in 2040, CG18, 2018), (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017)
with the purpose to assess and analyse more accurately and in details the TRL. Action areas, their
key elements, category of the main activities for any of 5 ACARE Challenges, their Key Performance
Indicators (KPI) are shown in tables of Annex A, as they were used in preparation of the report
(Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017). At the next steps the NYSERDA (TRL/CRL)
Calculator should be used by the PARE teams responsible for any ACARE Challenge analysis and
assessment due to distribution of these duties in PARE project.
Recommendation 4: If NYSERDA Calculator usage will be assessed as efficient a more sophisticated

spreadsheet (but NYSERDA Calculator will be used as a prototype) will be designed taking in mind
Technology Project Readiness Level (TPRL) methodology, which is proposed in
(Petrov, Sartory, Filimonov, 2016). The advantage of TPRL methodology is the fact that when
assessing the level of preparedness of projects, not only the criteria characterizing a certain level of
readiness (TRLX as is accepted by the TRL method) are used, but also the documents on the basis of
62
which these criteria are fulfilled – with calculation of the numerical parameters of the model, which
is based on the expert evaluation of the quality of the supporting information on the results of the
projects presented in the project documentation. Such model will allow to monitor the effectiveness
and progress of projects within the current level of technological readiness at small time intervals or
the rating of projects when making decisions to provide them with support.
63
2 Meeting societal and market needs
The growth of air traffic in Europe over the past 20 years has been spectacular, and will continue in
the future, particularly in the growing markets of the Far East. Air transport must continue to
support economic growth and add value at European, regional and local levels by providing the
service and connectivity required by businesses and individuals. This must be facilitated by the
design and implementation of a resilient, sustainable and customer-centric inter-modal transport
system that meets European mobility goals. Sustainable mobility is essential for Europe‘s social well-
being and economic development. The synergies between good connectivity, wealth and prosperity,
cohesion, international relations and stability are long-established and well-known. Meeting these
societal and market needs is about true journey-wide customer-centric mobility for both passengers
and freight.
Flightpath 2050 goals for Challenge 1: air traffic capacity (1.1), ground infrastructure (1.2), mobility
(1.3), speed (1.4) and ATM weather (1.5):
1.1. An air traffic management system is in place that provides a range of services to handle at
least 25 million flights a year of all types of vehicle including unmanned and autonomous
systems that are integrated into and interoperable with the overall air transport system with 24-hour
efficient operation of airports. European air space is used flexibly to facilitate reduced environmental
impact from aircraft operations.
1.2. A coherent ground infrastructure is developed including: airports, vertiports and heliports
with the relevant servicing and connecting facilities, also to other modes.
1.3. European citizens are able to make informed mobility choices and have affordable access to
one another, taking into account: economy, speed, and level of service (which can be tailored to the
individual customer). Continuous, secure and robust high-bandwidth communications are provided
for added-value customer applications.
1.4. 90% of travellers within Europe are able to complete their journey, door-to- door within 4
hours. Passengers and freight are able to transfer seamlessly between transport modes to reach the
final destination smoothly, predictably and on-time.
1.5. Flights arrive within 1 minute of the planned arrival time regardless of weather
conditions. The transport system is resilient against disruptive events and is capable of
automatically and dynamically reconfiguring the journey within the network to meet the needs of
the traveller if disruption occurs. Special mission flights can be completed in the majority of weather,
atmospheric conditions and operational environments.
Air transport must continue to support economic growth and add value at European, regional and
local levels by providing the service and connectivity required by businesses and individuals. This
64
must be facilitated by the design and implementation of a resilient, sustainable and customer-
centric intermodal transport system that meets European mobility goals. The three key areas of
Challenge 1 are the following: design of a customer-centric inter-modal transport system; travel
process management; and integrated air transport. These lead to the action areas for Challenge 1 of
the ACARE perspectives, Table 2.1:
No Action area 2050 target state Expected impact

1.1 Understand Understanding customer, market and societal These actions will result in
customer, market expectations and opportunities has led the more focused research and
and societal development of a customer-centric transport development, better chances
expectations and system. New processes, technologies and of successful deployment,
opportunities services are built on these expectations and more effective use of
opportunities with agreed rules for data resources, shorter innovation
sharing, increased automation etc. cycles and greater invention.
Most importantly, they will
place the customer at the
centre of the transport system.
1.2 Design and The transport system is customer-centric, An adopted architecture
implement an integrated, energy-efficient, diffused, resilient providing an operational and
integrated, inter- and intermodal. It provides a variety of services technical framework, together
modal transport and options for customers to choose from with basic regulatory support
system based on individual preferences. It takes are key requirements for the
travellers, their baggage and freight from door implementation of a customer-
to door, safely, affordably, quickly, smoothly, centric door-to-door-transport
seamlessly, predictably and without system.
interruption.
1.3 Develop Mobility performance is highly predictable and The evaluation capability is
capabilities to transparent for customers. On a network level, vital to support the
evaluate mobility mobility performance is monitored and development of a future multi-
concepts, assessed on a constant basis with agreed modal door-to-door transport
infrastructure and metrics. The effect of new mobility systems, system that answers the needs
performance infrastructure scenarios or mobility patterns is of the customer. It will enable
analysed and predicted based on agreed key decisions at each stage of
criteria resulting in timely provision of required the process from research
transport infrastructure. planning to policy and
infrastructure choices.
1.4 Provide travel Customers are served by a fully integrated Providing the customer with a
management tools travel management solution, enabling them to transparent view of travel
for informed establish a single-point transport contract for options, costs, and the
mobility choices door-to-door services with a single ticket for responsibilities of service
the entire journey. providers across modes will
provide a powerful force for
improved customer experience
and ensure quality of service
over the entire door-to-door
journey.
65
1.5 Deliver mobility Real-time data drawn from many sensors Providing the customer with
intelligence: supports the successful completion of the high-quality mobility
journey customer journey. High speed data information and intelligence
information, data connections enable continuous access to data will not only improve the travel
and and applications for work or leisure through experience but will also
communication the entire journey. Customers receive dynamic provide a powerful force for
information at all stages of the journey. better quality of service over
the entire door-to-door
journey.
1.6 Provide tools for When disruption occurs, journey management Disruptions and crisis
system and systems provide passengers with real-time situations happen. Tools that
journey resilience, information and journey reconfiguration, allow their intelligent
for disruption including change of mode. Resilience is management and improve
avoidance and improved by predictive tools to ensure service journey resilience are a key
management continuity, as well as collaborative mechanisms requirement for meeting
to enforce mobility plans under disruptive customer expectations and
events. achieving the goal of four
hours door-to-door travel.
1.7 Evolve airports Airside and landside processes at airports are The aviation network is
into integrated, optimised for customer comfort, predictability, critically dependent on highly
efficient and performance and better integration of efficient and integrated
sustainable air transport modes. Revolutionary air vehicles ground interfaces.
transport interface and aviation technologies are integrated into Improvements in this area are
nodes existing infrastructure. New air transport therefore foundational,
interface nodes have been designed where impacting the entire system.
existing capabilities were inadequate. Airport
access has been improved through an innova-
tive approach towards safe, efficient, frequent,
comfortable transport systems and services.
1.8 Design and A new integrated information, communication, An integrated communication,
implement an navigation and surveillance platform has been navigation and surveillance
integrated implemented. This includes innovative platform will be a foundational
information, infrastructure concepts to address element of the air transport
communication, intermodality and performance, satisfying the system of the future.
navigation and needs of all air vehicle types and missions.
surveillance
platform
1.9 Develop future air New operational concepts and new aviation Performance-based, future-
traffic services are in place accommodating all air proof, robust and safe air
management vehicle missions and aerial applications in a traffic management and its
concepts and high performance, agile system. They adapt to supporting technical services
services for optimise air vehicle operation, fleet operation are key enablers for the air
airspace users and flows in accordance with performance- transport system of the future.
driven requirements. New business models and
regulatory measures facilitate innovative and
performance-driven services to airspace users.
66
1.10 Address cross- Concepts, procedures, systems and System intelligence,

cutting issues: technologies are available to address cross- automation and autonomy,
system cutting issues like system intelligence correctly exploited, can
intelligence, applications, human-centred automation, provide breakthrough gains in
human factors and autonomous/ automated operation concepts, performance and safety across
automation systems and interfaces including certification the air transport sector.
support, and responsibility issues and ATM resilience. Developing a proper
autonomy and foundation for their design,
resilience development and
implementation will maximise
benefit and minimise risk.
Table 2.1: The action areas for Challenge 1 of the ACARE perspectives, transformed from (Strategic
Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017)
The timeline for Challenge 1 is shown in Figure 2.1 (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda,
2017). Passenger numbers are expected to double in the next 20 years. Current aviation ground
infrastructure will not be able to accommodate the coming traffic volumes. The demand for service
to regional and urban areas has increased with the liberalisation of the European marketplace.
Figure 2.1 - Timeline for Challenge 1: Meeting societal and market needs (Strategic Research and Innovation
Agenda, 2017)
67
Five years ago, flights had just seen a double-dip decline and were still 5% below the 2008 peak. So
there seemed a need to reassure readers of the Challenges of Growth 2013 summary report (CG13,
2013, p8) that, when economic growth returned, so would growth in air traffic (Figure 2.2). Strong
and broad-based traffic growth in 2017 across all market segments finally took European flight
totals over the 2008 peak, to 10.6 million. Indeed, even 4% growth in flights in 2017 looks modest
compared to almost twice that reported for passengers or passenger-km. Current growth is certainly
supported by strong demand. This growth has brought traffic back to the most-likely scenario from
the 2013 forecast (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: In 2017, strong growth saw traffic back on the most-likely scenario from the 2013 forecast
68
The forecast uses four scenarios (Figure 2.3) to explore the future of the aviation and the risks that
lie ahead (CG13, 2013):
scenario A: Global Growth. Strong global growth with technology used to mitigate
effects of sustainability challenges;
scenario B: Regulated Growth (Most-Likely). Moderate growth regulated to reconcile

demand with sustainability issues;
scenario C: Happy Localism. Like B, but with a fragile Europe increasingly, and contentedly,
looking inwards;
scenario D: Fragmenting World. A World of increasing tensions and reduced globalisation.
An important change in the CG18 data (European Aviation in 2040, 2018), compared to CG13, is that
the expansion is more concentrated in major airports (Figure 2.4), despite this being where it can be
most difficult to make additional capacity, because many of the 'easier' initiatives have already been
taken. Even if it is possible to deliver all of the plans reported (and experience suggests that this will
not be the case) the 16% planned increase in airport capacity is not sufficient to meet demand. In
Regulation and Growth, the capacity gap is some 1.5M flights, which is 8% of underlying demand, or
160 million passengers unable to fly. In the high-growth, Global Growth scenario, that climbs to
3.7M flights unaccommodated, or 16% of demand, 360 million passengers. The results from all four
scenarios are shown in Figure 2.5 (European Aviation in 2040, 2018).
Figure 2.3: The four scenarios capture adaptability and inward- versus outward-looking perspective (CG13,
2013)
69
Figure 2.4: In CG18, the additional capacity planned is more concentrated at the busiest airports (European
Aviation in 2040, 2018)
Figure 2.5: Demand exceeds capacity by 1.5M fl ights in 2040, climbing to 3.7M in Global Growth (European
Aviation in 2040, 2018)
2.1 Air Traffic Capacity
*Flightpath 2050 Goal 1: “An air traffic management system in place that provides a range of
services to handle at least 25 million flights a year of all types of air vehicles, including
unmanned and autonomous systems integrated into and interoperable with the overall air
transport system with 24 hour operation of airports. European airspace is used flexibly to
facilitate reduced environmental impact from aircraft operation”
Over the 20 years before the economic crisis, the number of flights in Europe doubled from 5 million
IFR movements in 1988 to 10 million in 2008. Overall, the future deceleration in growth is explained
by slower rates of economic growth, increasing fuel prices and increasing congestion at airports
(European Aviation in 2040, 2018).
70
Airport capacity plans are more focused on where the capacity is needed, ie at the busiest airports,
but they are still not enough to meet forecast demand. In the most-likely scenario Regulation and
Growth, the gap of 1.5M flights is roughly 8 runways, but impossibly shared across 17 different
States. With that scale of gap, new airport capacity has to be part of the solution. We do not need to
look far for evidence of how difficult it can be to deliver it, so the challenge is to plan and deliver
enough future capacity. The number of flights delayed by 1-2 hours will go up by a factor of 7. It
will be a challenge to provide an acceptable quality of service to passengers and shippers with this
level of delays at airports, and that is without including the en route challenge of adding high
volumes of flights to what are today already the most complex and congested parts of the airspace
(European Aviation in 2040, 2018).
Even with 1.5M flights unaccommodated and therefore lost, the network remains highly congested.
The number 'Heathrow-like' airports operating near capacity for much of the day climbs from 6 in
Summer 2016 to 16 in 2040, or even 28 in Global Growth. We have modelled delays from all causes,
and find that in the Summer, these would jump from 12 minutes to 20 minutes per flight in 2040
(European Aviation in 2040, 2018),Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6: In Regulation and Growth, Summer delay jumps from 12 to 20 minutes per flight, driven by flow
management regulations
Congestion is also a challenge for the airspace. By 2040 in Regulation and Growth, a majority of
enroute airspace will face an increase in demand of between 50% and 80%, so some airspaces will
see growth well ahead of the 53% average growth. The European core area will not be exempt,
having an average demand growth between 40% and 55%. But here, in what is already today the
most complex and busy airspace in Europe, even a small percentage change is an operationally-
significant increase in traffic.
Closing the capacity gap is a task for airports, providing more infrastructure, but also for airlines,
regulators and others. Taking a cue from how industry has responded in the past, we modelled six
different mitigations, apart from new runways. Of these mitigations, the most promising are the
developments under SESAR Wave 1, which target busy airports at peak hours. These developments
could reduce the most-likely capacity gap by 28% in 2040, if they can be successfully deployed.
71
2.1.1 Runway Capacity and Dynamic Separation
Most often the main limit on airport capacity is the availability of runways. The simultaneous
operation of runways is permitted if they are parallel (no crossing flights) and spaced more than 400
meters (the vortex wakes of aircraft operating from one runway do not affect operations from other
runways). A standard separation of 90 seconds between flights would allow 40 movements (take-off
or landings) per hour from a single runway. Careful planning can increase this figure up to 60
movements per hour per runway, depending on the safe separation between aircraft, which is the
critical safety factor.
From the technological and operational perspectives of the runway operation, the challenge to
achieve a maximum throughput is to optimize final approach spacing in line with wake vortex,
prevailing atmospheric conditions and radar separation requirements so that the spacing is close to
minimum runway occupancy time. The maximization of runway capacity would be achieved by
―dynamic separation‖ and state of the art in wake vortex, radar separation and runway occupancy
time technology and procedures.
Technological and operational dimension:
Trajectory management, reducing the constraints of airspace organization to a minimum;
New aircraft separation modes, allowing increased safety, capacity and efficiency;
System-wide information management, securely connecting all the ATM stakeholders which
will share the same data;
Social/human dimension:
Humans as the central decision-makers: controllers and pilots will be assisted by new
automated functions to ease their workload and handle complex decision-making processes.
Network operation dimension:
The network operation plan, a dynamic rolling plan for continuous operations that ensures a
common view of the network situation;
Full integration of airport operations as part of ATM and the planning process;
Figure 2.7 illustrates the benchmarks discussed and assessed for reaching the ACARE goal 1 (PARE
D1.1 2018). During the past years, it has been identified a growing gap between capacity and
demand at a number of busy EU hubs. Congestion at these airports will remain a concern. Traffic will
continue to grow in the future, as it has done over the past 50 years despite periods of economic
downturn and other disruptions. Although air traffic in Europe will grow more slowly than in
emerging economies, it will nevertheless nearly double by 2030 and more than double in 2050.
72
Figure 2.7: Technological, operational and societal/human dimension of goal 1 Benchmarks (PARE D1.1 2018)
However, Europe will not be in a position to meet a large part of this demand due to a shortage of
airport capacity. A percentage of this demand will not be accommodated because of capacity
shortfalls. In concrete terms, by 2030 no fewer than 19 European airports will be operating at full
capacity eight hours a day, every day of the year. This will have a major impact on the entire aviation
network since by 2030 congestion at these airports will mean 50% of all flights affected by delays
upon departure or arrival, or both (PARE D1.1 2018).
In the following sections, there are proposed projects and measures that could improve air traffic
capacity:
1. Eurocontrol measures to mitigate the capacity challenges;
2. The SESAR project PJ02 (EARTH): Increased Runway and Airport Throughput;
3. The Airport CDM concept.
Although this goal focuses on increasing air traffic capacity, it is much related to the second goal:
ground infrastructure and multimodal transport. Therefore, some of the measures that will be
mentioned in this goal could be also applied for the second goal.
The Eurocontrol SESAR programme to increase system capacity by developing and implementing new
technologies, approaches, and procedures is perceived as the strongest enabler for sustaining future
long-term demand (PARE D1.1 2018). SESAR plus investments to bring airports to the performance
level of the best-in-class has the potential to increase airport capacity by a significant margin,
reducing unaccommodated demand by 40%. This approach involves moving unaccommodated
73
flights to times of the day when more airport capacity is available. However, Schedule smoothing is
not considered as an answer to the airport capacity challenge, mainly because there is often little
scope for moving flights to a nearby period and because it might not be the first choice of the
passenger. As a result, this measure would reduce unaccommodated demand only by around 5%.
The SESAR project PJ02 (EARTH, for increased runway and airport throughput) contemplates several
measures which can be applied to increase runway capacity:
Reducing runway occupancy time;
Time-based separation;
Re-categorization of wake turbulence categories.
The PJ02 project is found in the first levels of development, since it is a new project that started in
2016. It is expected that this project finishes in 2019. However this estimation is too positive because
the project is in the concept phase (TRL3), so it is possible that it will be fully implemented by 2025.
A-CDM would help each stakeholder to reach, as often as possible, the maximum capacity under
given conditions (PARE D1.1 2018). The process of collaboration, communication, and coordination,
along with common data and a robust shared decision-making process, would help to maximise
capacity, identify weaknesses, focus on operationally essential matters, and to allocate resources
appropriately while minimising negative impact on each partner. Sharing information allows all
stakeholders to appropriately plan and to minimise the disruptive effects of irregular operations or
unusual situations, not only on their organisations, but also on all airport partners by agreeing a
joint solution and defining an agreed recovery process that helps bring stability to the operation.
Therefore, the A-CDM concept have been already developed, that is to say, the Technology
Readiness Level correspond to number 9. The next step is to evaluate the expansion level of the A-
CDM concept to all European airports (Figure 2.8):
Figure 2.8: Increased adoption of a A-COM at European Airports (PARE D1.1 2018)
Taking in mind these findings of the report (PARE D1.1 2018) the Technology Readiness Level
Questionnaire for Flightpath 2050 Goal 1 is the following:
74
TRL Question Answer
Do rough calculations support the

1 Yes, provided by Eurocontrol annularly
concept?
Do basic principles (physical, chemical, Yes, availability of runways and flight route
1
mathematical) support the concept? control
Yes, standard separation of 90 seconds between
Do project studies confirm basic scientific
1 flights would allow 40 movements (take-off or
principles of new technology?
landings) per hour from a single runway.
Yes, careful planning can increase this figure up
Has a scientific methodology or approach to 60 movements per hour per runway,
1
been developed? depending on the safe separation between
aircraft, which is the critical safety factor
Yes, the current airline traffic of 10 million flights
per year is expected to rise to 14 million in 2025,
TRL 1
Basic principles observed and reported. and the goal of 25 million by 2050 is consistent
Achieved
with a growth rate of air transport of 2.8 % per
year in Europe.
The main issue of air transport capacity concerns
Has potential system or component
2 runway system capacity, Terminal Area (TMA)
applications been identified?
capacity and En route Capacity.
4 scenarios to explore European air traffic in
Have project studies confirmed system or
2 2050: A – Global Growth; C – Regulated Growth;
component application feasibility?
C‘: Happy Localism; and D – Fragmenting World.
Runway throughput and the number of runways
Has an apparent design solution been
2 becomes the principal limitation of capacity at
identified?
an airport
1) Eurocontrol measures to mitigate the capacity
Have the basic components of the challenges
2 2) The SESAR Wave 1 project PJ02 (EARTH)
technology been identified?
3) Increased Runway and Airport Throughput
The Airport CDM concept
1) The measure is efficient in that it would
reduce unaccommodated demand by around
30%, provided passengers and carriers are
willing to relocate to such airports, which in turn
is linked to the quality of the ground
transportation links. This mitigation measure is
Have technology or system components also much related with the goal 2, since it will be
2
been at least partially characterized? necessary an efficient mobility between airports.
2) SESAR plus investments to bring airports to
the performance level of the best-in-class has
the potential to increase airport capacity by a
significant margin, reducing unaccommodated
demand by 40%.
3) Schedule smoothing would reduce
75
unaccommodated demand only by around 5%.

4) Shifting short-haul flights to high speed train
(HST) is of limited benefit since there are only a
small number of routes where the HST could
theoretically replace air services. As a result, this
measure would reduce unaccommodated
demand only by around 5%.
5) Shifting to larger aircraft can be a real option
to accommodate more demand in the presence
of a limitation on the allowable daily frequency
between congested airports. In case of a
frequency limitation of 15 daily flights in
congested airports, the method has the
potential to reduce the impact of the cap by
more than a third.
Have performance predictions been
2 Yes
documented for each component?
Has a functional requirements generation
2 Yes
process been initiated?
Does preliminary analysis confirm basic
2 Yes
scientific principles?
Are basic scientific principles confirmed
2 Yes
with calculation based analytical studies?
TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application
Achieved formulated.
Have calculated predictions of SESAR project PJ02 (EARTH): increased runway
3 components of technology capability and airport throughput. Enhanced arrivals and
been validated? departures
project contemplates several measures which
can be applied to increase runway capacity:
Can all science applicable to the Reducing runway occupancy time;
3
technology be modeled or simulated? Time-based separation;
Re-categorization of wake turbulence
categories
The SESAR project will investigate the use of
satellite navigation and augmentation
capabilities, such as GBAS and satellite-based
augmentation systems (SBAS), to enhance
landing performance and to facilitate advanced
Do experiments or modeling and arrival procedures;
3 simulation (M&S) validate performance Time-based separation aims at reducing the gap
predictions of technology capability? in landing rates in light and strong headwind
conditions. It will help maintain airport capacity
at the same level in all wind conditions.
Re-categorization of wake turbulence categories
will benefit for runway throughput on 5% or
more during peak periods depending on
76
individual airport traffic mix
Do experiments verify feasibility of

3 Yes
application of technology?
Do project studies indicate that
3 technology or system components can be Yes
integrated?
Are the technology or system
3 Yes
performance metrics established?
Has scientific feasibility of proposed
3 ~Yes
technology been fully demonstrated?
Does analysis of present technologies
3 show that proposed technology or system Yes
fills a capability gap?
The SESAR project is found in the first levels of
development, since it is a new project that
Analytical and experimental critical started in 2016. It is expected that this project
TRL 3
function and/or characteristic proof-of- finishes in 2019. However this estimation is too
Achieved
concept. positive because the project is in the concept
phase (TRL3), so it is possible that it will be fully
implemented by 2025.
Has acceptance testing of individual
4 No
components been performed?
Has performance of components and
4 interfaces between components been No
demonstrated?
4 Does draft system architecture plan exist? Yes
Have end user technology/system

4 Yes
requirements been documented?
Has component compatibility been
4 No
demonstrated?
Does technology demonstrate basic
4 No
functionality in simplified environment?
Have performance characteristics been
4 demonstrated in a laboratory Yes
environment?
Have low-fidelity assessments of system
4 integration and engineering been No
completed?
TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard
No
Achieved validation in laboratory environment.
Have internal system interface
5
requirements been documented?
Has analysis of internal interface
5
requirements been completed?
77
Can all system specifications be simulated

5 and validated within a laboratory
environment?
Is the laboratory environment high-
5
fidelity?
Have individual component functions
5
been verified through testing?
Have objective and threshold operational
5
requirements been developed?
Has a Product Breakdown Structure been
5
developed?
System/subsystem model or prototype
TRL 5
demonstration in a laboratory No
Achieved
environment.
Have system integration issues been
6
addressed?
Is the operational environment fully
6
known?
Have performance characteristics been
6 verified in a simulated operational
environment?
Has prototype been tested in a simulated
6
Has system been tested in realistic
6
environment outside the laboratory?
Has engineering feasibility been fully
6
demonstrated?
System/subsystem model or prototype
TRL 6
demonstration in a relevant
Achieved
environment.
Have all interfaces been tested individually
7 under stressed and anomalous
conditions?
Has technology or system been tested in a
7
relevant environment?
Are available components representative
7
of production components?
Has operational testing of
7 technology/system in relevant
environment been completed?
Has fully integrated prototype been
7 demonstrated in actual or simulated
TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in an
Achieved operational environment.
Are all technology/system components
8
form, fit, and function compatible?
78
Is technology/system form, fit, and

8 function compatible with operational
environment?
Has technology/system form, fit, and
8 function been demonstrated in
Is technical Developmental Test and
8
Evaluation (DT&E) successfully completed?
TRL 8 Actual system completed and qualified
Achieved through test and demonstration.
Does technology/system function as
9 defined in Operational Concept
document?
Has technology/system has been
9 deployed in intended operational
environment?
Has technology/system been fully
9
demonstrated?
Has Operational Test and Evaluation
9
(OT&E) been successfully completed?
TRL 9 Actual system proven through
Achieved successful mission operations.
Table 2.2: Technology Readiness Level Questionnaire results for ACARE Challenge 1 Goal 1
NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator results for analysis and assessment of ACARE Challenge 1 Goal 1 ―Air
Traffic Capacity‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project are shown in Figure 2.9
grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018).
Figure 2.9: NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator results for analysis and assessment of ACARE Challenge 1 Goal 1
―Air Traffic Capacity‖
79
For other FlightPath 2050 goals and challenges the results will be shown below in little bit stripped-
down form, not so equal to the form used in appropriate software, in order to reduce the volume of
the report.
2.2 Ground infrastructure and multimodal transport
*Flightpath 2050 goal 2 “A coherent ground infrastructure is developed including: airports,

vertiports, heliports with the relevant servicing and connecting facilities, also to other modes”.
The EU Single European Sky is an ambitious initiative launched by the European Commission in 2004
to reform the architecture of European air traffic management. It proposes a legislative approach to
meet future capacity and safety needs at a European rather than a local level. As part of the Single
European Sky initiative, SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) represents its technological
dimension. It will help create a ―paradigm shift‖, supported by state-of-the-art and innovative
technology (PARE D1.1 2018).
Airports are constrained in different ways by different types of capacity. Airport capacity is the
number of passengers and amount of cargo which an airport can accommodate in a given period of
time; it is a combination of runway capacity and terminal capacity. Capacity definitions can be
categorized by considering the constraining element (Figure 2.10), and then divide definitions into
technical capacity, acceptable capacity and allowed capacity.
The issues of improving airport capacity and efficiency were taken up in the SESAR programme.
Currently, they are continued under the SESAR 2020 programme within the key feature ‗High
Performing Airport Operations‘. The most important projects implemented in this area are (PARE
D1.1 2018):
- PJ01 - Enhanced arrivals and departures. As a part of the project, concepts, tools and
procedures will be developed to increase the capacity of Terminal Manoeuvring Areas (TMAs) in
a safe, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable manner. This will be achieved by taking
80
advantage of the latest technological developments from both an airborne and a ground-system
perspective and through the secure sharing of data. The needs of all Airspace Users will be
addressed including General Aviation and Rotorcraft (WWW. SESAR JU).
- PJ02 - Increased Runway and Airport Throughput. As a part of the project, the concepts
supporting increased runway and airport throughput were broken down into the following sub-
elements: optimal Wake Turbulence Separation, enhanced arrival procedures, minimum Pair
Separations based on Required Surveillance Performance (RSP), independent Rotorcraft
operations at the airport, improved access into small/medium airports in Low Visibility
Conditions (LVC), traffic optimisation on single and multiple runway airports and enhanced
Terminal Area for efficient curved operations (WWW Eurocontrol).
- PJ04 - Total airport management. The project is aimed to Integration of airports into the ATM
network through sharing information in a timely manner between the network operations plan
and the individual AOPs (Airport Operations Plan) using SWIM (System Wide Information
Management) technology.
Figure 2.10: Airport Capacity Constraints
Other projects implemented under the SESAR 2020 program also have an effect on improving
safety, efficiency, capacity and reducing the environmental impact of airports.
Taking in mind the findings of the report (PARE D1.1 2018) the Technology Readiness Level
Questionnaire for Flightpath 2050 Challenge 1 Goal 2 is very similar with shown in Table 2.2, main
achievements in direction to this goal are limited by TRL3.
2.3 Choice of most efficient mobility solutions
* Flightpath 2050 goal 3 “European citizens are able to make informed mobility choices and
have affordable access to one another, taking into account: economy, speed and level of
service (that can be tailored to the individual customer). Continuous, secure and high-
bandwidth communications are provided for added value applications”.
81
The progress in mobile communications and availability of information may ensure that the
passenger can make informed choices among several available travel options. The issues of
interference with and security of communications at passenger information level are comparable to
other societal services. A more serious constraint may come from physical limits of transportation
infrastructure and the underlying issue of land planning: (i) in the expansion of existing airports or
addition of more runways; (ii) in the construction of new airports, vertiports and heliports; (iii) in the
road/rail infrastructure that provides fast access; (iv) in the efficient organization of ground
movements within the confines of the airport.
Total Airport Management Suite (TAMS, Scientific coordination by DLR, a joint 32M€ project with
five partner) optimises airport operational decision making. he goal of the project was to integrate
various airport operations related planning and optimisation subsystems into an AirPort Operations
Center (APOC) on the basis of a holistic operational concept to make airports more competitive and
attractive without the need for cost-intensive infrastructure enhancements (ACARE Success Stories,
2015).
Instead of islands of potentially conflicting decision-making, the APOC provides a coordinated

capability, supported by technology and processes, which balances the business priorities and
strategies of all airport stakeholders. APOC keeps the airport flowing by matching resources and
facilities to changes in demand or schedule.
TAMS goes beyond Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) in three respects: first, it takes a
balanced approach to both landside and airside processes; second, it is more pro-active than
reactive and extends the time horizon of A-CDM planning to a pre-tactical range of several hours;
and thirdly it has also introduced new concept elements such as an Airport Operations Plan (AOP)
and an Airport Operations Center.
TAMS uses a range of visualisation technologies to display the information required by airport
operators, local air traffic managers, airline operators, ground handling companies and security
companies, generates forecasts, provides optimisation suggestions and supports the various airport
process owners. Employees can use smart phones, desktop computers and large video walls to
obtain up-to-date information on operations, general conditions, such as the closure of terminal
areas, expected weather conditions or predictions regarding future operations.
NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator results for analysis and assessment of ACARE Challenge 1 Goal 3
―Choice of most efficient mobility solutions‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
Project are shown in Figure 2.11 grounding on the results of the 1 st year PARE report (PARE D1.1,
2018).
82
―Choice of most efficient mobility solutions‖
2.4 Overall ground plus air travel time
*Flightpath 2050 goal 4: 90% of passengers within Europe are able to complete their journey,
door to door within 4 hours. Passenger and freight are able to transfer seamlessly between
transport modes to reach the final destination smoothly, predictably and on time”.
The goal 4 (section 2.4) is a combination of all other goals 1,2,3,5 (sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5) in
the same set. Air travel times can vary significantly in Europe, from 1 hour in central Europe (Paris-
Frankfurt) to 4 hours between extremities of the continent (Lisbon-Bucharest). Assuming that most
flights do not exceed 2 hours, leaves within the four hour total time frame, 1 hour to travel to and
from the airport and go through airport services. This objective is achievable if all elements of the
chain perform nominally: (i) no take-off queue, no holding pattern at landing, no major weather or
ATM disruptions; (ii) efficient check-in, passport and security checks; (iii) fast luggage handling; (iv)
efficient airport ground movements and operations; (v) uncongested local transport to and from
home or work.
It is the same case as Goal 1, referring to that delays in projects‘ implementation means more
spending and inconvenient and it could affect other upcoming projects if they directly depend on
the previous one. The fact that future projects will be focused on seeing the airport as a whole, in
such a way that most of services (regarding aircraft, passengers and baggage) will be integrated into
the same network, could take more time than expected as they have to work as a mechanism with
multiple pieces, each one necessary for the rest (PARE D1.1 2018).
83
Aim of the Project ―Aeronautic Study on SEamless Transport‖ (ASSET, led by DLR involved 12
participants with a total budget of 3.6M€) was to develop and assess solutions for airport process
improvements in terms of time efficiency regarding both, passenger transfer and aircraft turnaround
in an integrated approach (ACARE Success Stories, 2015). Therefore, representatives of nearly all
directly or indirectly involved stakeholders (airports, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, technological
suppliers, security service providers etc.) gathered to work conjoined on this project. Elaboration of
potential solutions comprised compilation of currently discussed solution approaches (e.g.
Collaborative Decision Making, Total Airport Management etc.) as well as development of new
opportunities focussing on three main process chains: Passenger processes; Baggage processes;
Aircraft turnaround processes.
―Choice of most efficient mobility solutions‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
Project are shown in Figure 2.12 grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1,
2018) and on (ACARE Success Stories, 2015).
―Overall ground plus air travel time‖
2.5 Air Traffic Management (ATM) and weather
*Flightpath 2050 goal 5: “Flights arrive within 1 minute of the planned arrival time regardless
of weather conditions. The transport system is resilient against disruptive events and is
capable of automatically and dynamically re-configuring the journey within the network to
meet the needs of the traveller if disruption occurs. Special mission flights can be completed in
the majority of weather, atmospheric conditions and operational environments”.
84
The basic issue is overall ATM capacity, not only at airports and in terminal areas (goal 1 and section
2.1 in PARE D1.1, 2018) but also en route, with spare capacity to cope with special missions,
disruptions and weather hazards. The air traffic capacity must be consistent with a very high level of
safety, such as the ICAO target level of safety (TLS) of probability of collision less 5E-9 per hour. The
critical parameter is separation between aircraft, in altitude, longitudinally or transversely in all flight
conditions including air corridors, crossing, climbing and descending flights and turn manoeuvres.
The safe separation limits the capacity available in a given airspace; increases in capacity can be
obtained if the same or higher level of safety can be achieved with smaller separation; this requires
greater accuracy in navigation and faster detection of position errors either random or due to use of
inaccurate data.
The project ‗Airborne integrated systems for safety improvement, flight hazard protection and all
weather operations‘ (FLYSAFE, ACARE Success Stories, 2015) focused particularly on the areas
identified as the main types of accidents around the world: loss of control, controlled flight into
terrain, and approach and landing accidents. It has addressed three types of threats including
adverse weather conditions, (Figure 2.13) traffic hazards and terrain hazards. For each of them it has
developed new systems and functions, notably: improved situation awareness, advance warning,
alert prioritisation, and enhanced human-machine interface.
Figure 2.13: Weather Information Management Systems (ACARE Success Stories, 2015)
85
FLYSAFE has also developed solutions to enable aircraft to retrieve timely, dedicated, improved
weather information, by means of a set of ‗Weather information management systems‘ (WIMS).
These WIMS are able to gather, format and send to the aircraft all essential atmospheric data, as
relevant for the safety and efficiency of their flight. This uplinked data has been presented in an
innovative and consistent way to the crew. Innovative prediction capabilities have been deployed,
both on board of the aircraft and on the ground, to provide warnings which are optimised with
respect to the simultaneous constraints of safety and airspace capacity.
―ATM and weather‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project are shown in Figure
2.14 grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018).
―ATM and weather‖
86
3 Maintaining and extending industrial leadership
Technological leadership is the major competitive differentiator and is significantly driven by

optimisation of energy and environmental performance, efficiency and quality of service as well as
reliability. Although it enjoys competitive advantage today, the European aviation sector must
continuously innovate to remain a global leader.
Aviation is recognised as one of the top five advanced technology sectors and makes a major
contribution to European competitiveness (ACARE Success Stories, 2012), Table 3.1:
Industry name Total R&D intensity
High technology
Pharmaceuticals 10.46
Aircraft & spacecraft 10.29
Medical, precision & optical instruments 9.69
Radio, television & communication equipment 7.48
Office, accounting & computing machinery 7.21
Medium-high technology
Electrical machinery & apparatus 3.60
Motor vehicles, trailers & semi-trailers 3.51
Railroad & transport equipment 3.11
Chemical & chemical products 2.85
Machinery & equipment 2.20
Table 3.1: R&D intensity of aviation amongst the main industrial domains
Aviation is recognised as one of the top five advanced technology sectors and makes a major
contribution to European competitiveness. Home to some 450 airlines and 700 airports, it provides
close to 9 million skilled jobs directly and indirectly. The sector contributes around 600 billion Euros
to European GDP. Today, the aeronautics R&D spending in Europe is close to 12 per cent of
turnover (ASD). This ranges from 8 per cent up to 20 per cent depending on the aviation domain
considered (ACARE Success Stories, 2012). European Aeronautics and Air Transport have reached
their current position through decades of innovative solutions and strong Research and Technology.
To continually reduce the duration of the innovation cycle aviation requires significant effort in R&D
as well as management of system complexity executed in programmes that span over multiple
years.
Air Transport has important ―multiplier‖ effects meaning that its overall contribution to employment
and GDP is much larger than its direct impact alone. Indirect benefits of Air Transport include
employment and activities of suppliers e.g. fuel suppliers, infrastructure construction companies,
suppliers of sub-components as well as a wide variety of business service activities such as IT. There
87
were close to 9 million direct and indirect skilled jobs from Air Transport in Europe and the sector
contributed around 600 billion Euro to European GDP in 2010 (ACARE Success Stories, 2015).
Figure 3.1: Aviation innovation combines both product complexity and long lead-time to-market, typically 10
to 20 years (ACARE Success Stories, 2012)
The goals of Flightpath 2050 in the field:
1. The whole European aviation industry is strongly competitive, delivers the best products
and services worldwide and has a share of more than 40% of its global market.
2. Europe will retain leading edge design, manufacturing and system integration
capabilities and jobs supported by high profile, strategic, flagship projects and programmes which
cover the whole innovation process from basic research to full-scale demonstrators.
3. Streamlined systems engineering, design, manufacturing, certification and upgrade

processes have addressed complexity and significantly decreased development costs (including
a 50% reduction in the cost of certification). A leading new generation of standards is created.
Aviation and aerospace is a leading sector for high technology and innovation identified by the
OECD. To achieve the energy and environmental targets of Flightpath 2050 it is necessary to
accelerate innovation, research and technology development with clear, effective and efficient
supporting policies (Table 3.2). These should embrace emerging cross-sectorial enablers such as
digitalisation, big data and Industry 4.0. The level of support and investment must match the
aspirations of the aviation sector as global leader, and ensure that it continues to generate a vast
positive contribution to Europe. Furthermore, new business models are changing the ways in which
innovation, research and technology are being funded by third parties. Additional game-changers
include reduced costs for entry to the sector, and greater use of digital and data-based business
models for value creation. This provides opportunities for the European aviation sector to exploit its
capabilities globally via strong industry alliances and emerging new entrants. To maximise these
opportunities European aviation must position itself as the preferred partner for global innovation,
research and technology. It must encourage start-ups, supporting the existing ecosystem and
enabling more data-driven and digital environments.
88

2.1 Increase Industrialisation Innovative choices in industrialisation concepts
competitiveness in encompasses access to a full and management will provide the European
product set of production data and aviation value chain a competitive advantage
industrialisation capabilities of different and global leadership. Future aviation
production sites in order to products may be realised in a shorter time
simulate the best industrial with quantitative information on risks and
choice proactively, starting at benefits. A minimal environmental footprint
the early design and and optimal use of resources can be assured
conception phases. well in advance during critical industrial
decision processes.
2.2 Develop high-value High-value manufacturing The development of high-value manufacturing
manufacturing technologies represent an technology will secure the European supply
technologies embedded digital thread chain through demonstrated global leadership
within the integrated supply in high-efficiency manufacturing capability.
chain, facilitating a data- Future product aspirations will be realised
driven material conversion through demonstrated capability to supply
and manufacturing process. complex and multifunctional architectures,
The technology is developed, using intelligent automation within a digitally-
validated and certified in a enabled environment. A minimal
virtual workspace, enabling environmental footprint, combined with high
real-time changes in the energy efficiency will ensure that industry
physical manufacturing increases economic contribution to the
process. European Union, surpassing the 20% GDP
industrial policy vision.
2.3 Embed design-for- The platform product Sustained evolution of design for excellence
excellence in development cycle, will ultimately lead to a revolution in the
the product lifecycle certification, and product development cycle and through-life
industrialisation operates on maintenance. The entire European supply
a single virtual development chain needs to ensure its place at the leading
platform that reacts to, and edge of the development, and to maintain and
embodies new architecture, grow its capability. Future high-value
systems and technology manufacturing aspirations will only be realised
innovation in a fully throughan ability to first capture the principles
autonomous environment. of high-value design.
2.4 Secure continued Further innovative research, Through continuous multi-annual, large
and focused supported by continuous research and innovation programmes, the
investment investment, is enabling European aviation industry and its supply
aviation to meet the EU chain will extend its industrial leadership while
challenges of decarboni- meeting the essential societal challenges of
sation and digitalisation in an climate change and security. Further, high-
ever-changing, competitive skilled jobs will be created within a digitally-
and circular economy. enabled environment.
2.5 Exploit the potential There is complete availability The impact of new products and services to
of operations of data in worldwide over- support airlines with digitalisation and high-
and maintenance, haul networks. Supported by technology MRO techniques will be enormous.
89
repair augmented and virtual reality Currently most innovation is directed at new
and overhaul (MRO) techniques not only data, but aircraft to be produced in the coming years.
whole competencies are However there is an opportunity to influence
available throughout the ACARE goals in the short term by targeting
network. current operational fleets.
This enlarges the
competitiveness of European The competitiveness of European airlines will
aviation with greater strongly depend on their ability to integrate
flexibility and the ability to future technologies in their daily business, and
cope with unscheduled this will be done by way of innovative support
disturbances in flight services from MRO providers.
operations and fleet
management.
2.6 Develop innovative The full force of virtualisation A smarter, more efficient mix of sub-scale test,
and optimised technologies and cyber- ground test, virtual simulation and flight test
testing physical systems is deployed will bring shorter innovation cycles within
to enable simulations that reach. The benefits of new approaches to flight
are as reliable as physical test will be broad; enhancing the
tests for most practical competitiveness of European industry and
applications. meeting societal expectation for better, faster
product innovation.
2.7 Establish new Physical, cyber and virtual New business models will enable the aviation
business/enterprise business models are fully industry to keep pace with ever-faster
models and integrated to support the innovation cycles at all levels, deliver environ-
initiatives production of new concept mentally-sustainable solutions for global
aircraft to fulfil the Flightpath needs and contribute to a better-connected
2050 targets. world. The industry will take advantage of
interdependencies between technologies and
operations, and enable coordination with
neighbouring fields of research.
2.8 Lead the New configurations and new In order to maintain the leadership and
development of operations are based on competitiveness of the European aeronautical
standards dedicated new standards sector it is essential to take a pro-active
developed well in advance. approach to standards and their evolution.
2.9 Streamline A fully-integrated multi- The use of advanced methodologies to
certification physics and multi-scale demonstrate compliance with safety and
model of the complete security requirements at component, product,
airframe is coupled with system, and system-of-systems level, covering
aerodynamic and thermal human, social and technical aspects, will
models eliminating ground contribute to higher efficiency, shorter time to
test rigs completely. A market and lower costs for new products,
streamlined set of validation services and operations.
methods is supported by a
regulatory framework for
certification by simulation.
90
The timeline for Challenge 2 is shown in Figure 3.2 (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda,
2017). Europe must preserve its pre-eminent position to ensure the continued success and
economic contribution of its aviation industry by investing continuously and heavily in key enabling
innovation, research and technology supported by adequate policies and frameworks. Financial and
human resources are abundantly available in the emerging competing regions, and Europe must
increase and focus its resources to maximise its potential within the timeframe of Flightpath 2050.
Figure 3.2: Timeline for Challenge 2: Maintaining and extending industrial leadership (Strategic Research and
Innovation Agenda, 2017)
91
3.1 Retaining and strengthening market share
Flightpath 2050 goal 6: “The whole European aviation industry is strongly competitive,
delivers the best products and services worldwide and has a share of more than 40% of
the world market”.
The European aeronautical industry has achieved and sustained a near peer position with its
worldwide competitors in the most important sectors:
The Airbus-Boeing ‗duopoly‘ dominates the market for jet airliners of more than 120 seats, with
a full range of narrow and wide body aircraft;
ATR is a leading supplier in the regional aircraft market;
Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter) and Agusta-Westland are market leaders in helicopters;
Safran and Rolls-Royce rival Pratt & Whitney and General Electric in aero-engines:
In the equipment sector Liebherr, Safran, GKN and others are major suppliers of European and
non-European aircraft.
The competition between Airbus and Boeing has been characterised as a duopoly in the large jet
airliner market since the 1990s. This resulted from a series of mergers within the global aerospace
industry, with Airbus beginning as a European consortium while the American Boeing absorbed its
former arch-rival, McDonnell Douglas, in a 1997 merger. Other manufacturers, such as Lockheed
Martin, Convair and Fairchild. Aircraft in the United States, and British
Aerospace and Fokker in Europe, were no longer in a position to compete effectively and withdrew
from this market.
In the 10 years from 2007 to 2016, Airbus has received 9,985 orders while delivering 5,644, and
Boeing has received 8,978 orders while delivering 5,718. In the midst of their intense competition,
each company regularly accuses the other of receiving unfair state aid from their respective
governments (Competition between Airbus and Boeing, 2018).
Airbus and Boeing have wide product ranges including single-aisle (Figure 3.3) and wide-body
(Figure 3.4) aircraft covering a variety of combinations of capacity and range. Flight Global fleet
forecasts 26,860 single aisle deliveries for a $1,360 Bn value at a compound annual growth rate of
5% for the 2016-2035 period, with a 45% market share for Airbus (12090), 43% for Boeing (11550),
5% for Bombardier Aerospace (1340), 4% for COMAC (1070) and 3% for Irkut Corporation (810) ;
Airbus predicts 23,531 and Boeing 28,140. Single aisles generates a vast majority of profits for both,
followed by legacy twin aisles like the A330 and B777: Kevin Michaels of AeroDynamic Advisory
estimates the 737 have a 30% profit margin and the 777 classic 20%.
Flight Global fleet forecasts 7,960 twin aisle deliveries for a $1,284 Bn value for the 2016-2035
period. They predict the B787 taking 31% of the market share, followed by the A350 with 27% and
the 777 with 21%, then the A330 and A380 each taking 7%. In June 2017, The orderbook was for
1038 Airbus (41%) and 1,514 Boeings (59%) Competition between Airbus and Boeing, 2018).
92
Figure 3.3 Narrowbodies passenger capacity and range comparison (Competition between Airbus and Boeing,
2018)
In terms of sales, while the Boeing 737 Next Generation outsold the Airbus A320 family since its
introduction in 1988, it is still lagging overall with 7,033 orders against 7,940 in January 2016. Airbus
received 4,471 orders since the A320neo family launch in December 2010, while the 737 MAX got
3,072 from August 2011 till January 2016 (Figure 3.5). In the same timeframe, the neo had 3,355
orders. Through August, Airbus have a 59.4% market share of the re-engined single aisle market,
while Boeing had 40.6%; Boeing has doubts on over-ordered A320-neos by new operators and
expects to narrow the gap with replacements not already ordered. In July 2017, Airbus still had sold
1,350 more A320neos than Boeing had sold 737 MAXs.
Figure 3.4: Widebodies passenger capacity and range comparison (Competition between Airbus and Boeing,
2018)
In terms of deliveries, Boeing has shipped 9,522 aircraft of the 737 family since late 1967, with 8,016
of those deliveries since March 1, 1988, and has a further 4,430 on firm order as of May 2017. In
93
comparison, Airbus has delivered 7,610 A320 series aircraft since their certification/first delivery in
early 1988, with another 5,501 on firm order (as of May 2017).
Figure 3.5 Airbus A320 via Boeing 737deliveries (Competition between Airbus and Boeing, 2018)
II Airbus A320 family deliveries; Boeing 737 series deliveries
The A320 has been selected by 222 operators (Dec. 2008), among these several low-cost operators,
gaining ground against the previously well established 737 in this sector; it has also been selected as
a replacement for 727s and aging 737s by many full-service airlines such as Star
Alliance members United Airlines, Air Canada and Lufthansa. After dominating the very large aircraft
market for four decades, the Boeing 747 now faces a challenge from the A380. In response, Boeing
now offer the stretched and updated 747-8, with greater capacity, fuel efficiency, and longer range.
Frequent delays to the Airbus A380 program caused several customers to consider cancelling their
orders in favour of the refreshed 747-8. However, all orders for the A380F freight variant have been
cancelled. To date, Boeing has secured orders for 78 747-8F and 51 747-8I aircraft with first
deliveries originally scheduled for 2011 and 2012 as the 747-8I is only in service with Lufthansa,
while Airbus has orders for 318 A380s, the first of which entered service in 2007 and has delivered a
total of 152 to customers (as of December 31, 2014) (Competition between Airbus and Boeing,
2018).
―Maintaining and extending industrial leadership‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on
PARE Project are shown in Figure 3.6 grounding on the results of the 1 st year PARE report (PARE
D1.1, 2018).
―Maintaining and extending industrial leadership‖
94
3.2 Cutting-edge at the full range of technologies
* Flightpath 2050 goal 7: “Europe will retain leading edge design, manufacturing and system
integration capabilities and jobs supported by high profile, strategic, flagship projects and
programmes which cover the whole innovation process from basic research to flight
demonstrators”.
The design of a successful aircraft does not tolerate any less than first-rate solutions in an extensive
range of 10 technologies. Only a few examples of each are given:
Flight physics: This covers the most efficient aircraft designs, either refinements of the
conventional tube-and-wing configuration whose development potential is not yet
exhausted or more radical designs (flying wings, joined wings, flush or buried engines, hybrid
and distributed propulsion) that hold greater promises and challenges.
Aerodynamics: Advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), wind tunnels and flight
testing, concerning optimization of overall aircraft configurations and critical aspects like
wing design, laminar flow, turbulent transition, shock waves, vortex wakes and their
interactions;
Propulsion systems including prop-fans and open rotors, high by-pass ratio turbofans,
turboprops and turboshafts, hybrid and distributed propulsion over a wide range of thrust
and power usable in various flight regimes;
Lightweight structures able to withstand flight and landing loads, resist flutter and
incorporate load alleviation features, with acceptable production and maintenance costs;
95
Selective use of the most appropriate metals, alloys, composites, ceramics and other
materials for airframes, engines and highly stressed or intensely heated components;
Efficient production methods allowing fabrication and joining of sub-assemblies with tight
tolerances and high-quality finish;
Avionic systems including sensors, emitters, receivers, power supplies, signal conditioning
and other features relevant to optimal navigation, weather and hazard detection and the
accomplishment of a variety of missions;
Integrated control for flight stability of high gain responsive systems, digital engine control,
structural load alleviation, automatic navigation, safety protection and other features;
Distributed, centralized or embedded computation and data processing capabilities in open
architectures amenable to the incorporation of new components to enhance performance
without degrading safety and reliability;
Telecommunication systems for navigation and seamless integration into ATM, data
exchange with the ground and other platforms, with resistance to jamming, electromagnetic
interference and cyber-attacks.
With Airbus now an established competitor to Boeing, both companies use advanced technology to
seek performance advantages in their products. Many of these improvements are about weight
reduction and fuel efficiency. For example, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is the first large airliner to use
50% composites for its construction. The Airbus A350 XWB features 53% composites.
Dual use and specific technologies ensure an equally strong position in the world market for military
aircraft, missiles, space launchers and satellites. Development of an aviation product involves many
complex, interacting and critical activities and decisions. These must transform design concepts and
analyses into an industrial product that is affordable, safe and sustainable in a competitive market.
European aviation needs to build its competiveness across all horizontal industrialisation aspects:
standardisation, specialisation, collaboration, automation and agility. These will benefit the aviation-
specific pillars of product complexity, pressure on development targets and collaboration in the
supply chain.
Research for aviation industrialisation in a 2025 timeframe must focus on high-value technologies
that enable the right choices to be made for productivity improvements. Innovation is needed for
rate flexibility and decision support to cover the full life-cycle across the whole supply chain.
Disruptive industrialisation processes with full simulation of supply chain input and the impact of
choices may be envisaged by 2035. This should be facilitated using building blocks from the digital
economy. By 2050, industrialisation should benefit from access to a full set of production data and
capabilities across different sites in order to simulate the best industrial choices from early design
and conception phases.
―Cutting-edge at the full range of technologies‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
96
―Cutting-edge at the full range of technologies‖
3.3 Efficient development and life-cycle management
Flightpath 2050 goal 8 “Streamlined systems engineering, design, manufacturing,

certification and upgrade processes have addressed complexity and significantly decreased
development costs (including a 50% reduction in the cost of certification). A leading new
generation of standards is created”.
97
It is not sufficient to master the cutting-edge of all 10 relevant aeronautical technologies (goal 7 and
section 3.2) it is also necessary to integrate them into a product with timely arrival in the market and
competiveness over the whole life-cycle:
- The mature and cost-effective technologies in all 10 relevant areas must be selected and
incorporated in a new high-performance design that significantly improves over all existing
products without an excessive development risk;
- The development program must focus on validation and verification of all new features that may
involve a higher risk, while making sure that lessons learned are used to improve all other items;
- The production process must be as reliable and fast as possible, allowing for unexpected
modifications with minimal upset and providing a margin for product evolution;
- The certification process must be considered from the beginning of design through development
and production, to minimize the risk of redesigns and costly delays, that may have a domino effect
on market availability and share;
- The supply chain and final assembly capabilities need to be able to keep up with high market
demand, and survive market lows without cost penalties, while ensuring prompt service support in
all situations;
- If the aircraft is not the first to the market it should try to claw back leadership by embodying
performance enhancing features that cannot be incorporated in the existing competitors;
- If the aircraft the is first to the market, it should anticipate the possible responses by competitors,
leaving no room for alternatives that could render it outdated or uncompetitive;
- The competiveness should be maintained by upgrades to keep the product ahead of other
alternatives in performance, cost, availability and service support;
- In parallel with gradual improvement of the existing aircraft, a whole series of clean sheet designs
covering a wide range of options should be pursued, to be ready to introduce the follow-on product
at the right time to keep or increase market share.
―Efficient development and life-cycle management‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on
D1.1, 2018).
98
―Efficient development and life-cycle management‖
99
4 Protecting the environment and the energy supply
Environmental protection is and will continue to be a key driver for the aviation industry as a whole.
The challenge with respect to the environment is to reduce continuously the environmental impact
in the face of continuing expansion in demand for aviation. This expansion will also put pressure on
existing energy supplies. Towards 2050, the forecast growth in the aviation industry will drive the
need to deliver revolutionary technology solutions at an increasing rate and secure the path to
sustainable energy supplies that can displace today‘s fossil fuels to mitigate fully the potential
impact on the atmosphere.
Challenges of Growth 2008 identified the impacts of climate change as a potential operational
and financial risk to European aviation. Challenges of Growth 2013 (CG13) consulted industry
stakeholders to determine to what extent they consider adaptation actions are necessary to
address those risks, and what actions are being implemented or planned.
1. In 2050 technologies and procedures available allow a 75% reduction in CO2 emissions per
passenger kilometre and a 90% reduction in NOx emissions. The perceived noise emission of
flying aircraft is reduced by 65%. These are relative to the capabilities of typical new aircraft in
2000.
2. Aircraft movements are emission-free when taxiing.
3. Air vehicles are designed and manufactured to be recyclable.
4. Europe is established as a centre of excellence on sustainable alternative fuels,

including those for aviation, based on a strong European energy policy.
5. Europe is at the forefront of atmospheric research and takes the lead in the formulation of
a prioritised environmental action plan and establishment of global environmental standards.
This set of 5 goals consists of reductions of noise and emissions (section 4.1), emissions free taxying
(section 4.2), recycling enabled by design (section 4.3), alternative fuels (section 4.4) and
atmospheric research (section 4.5)
The degree of change makes the future more uncertain but it also makes the technology
programme and timing described in this section absolutely key if results are to be achieved by 2050.
It is also essential that this technology roadmap and its implementation continue to receive support
through government policy and that it remains a priority for European society (Table 4.1).
100
No Action area 2050 target state Impact

3.1 Develop air These actions result in evolutionary Research and innovation for evolutionary
vehicles of the aircraft developments that have aircraft development described in this
future: driven progress in environmental action area will drive progress in
evolutionary steps performance towards FP2050 goals. environmental performance to be on track
Changes are introduced both into towards the FP2050 goals. Changes will be
new aircraft and by retrofit across introduced in new aircraft or by retrofit into
the civil aerospace fleet. the growing civil aerospace fleet.
3.2 Develop air New technologies have been New technologies will significantly surpass
vehicles of the developed and implemented that the capabilities of today‘s aircraft whilst
future: significantly surpass the capabilities maintaining or improving on the high levels
revolutionary of earlier-generation aircraft whilst of reliability, safety and usability that
steps improving on the high levels of customers demand.
reliability, safety and usability that
customers demand.
3.3 Increase resource Resources, materials and new The proposed actions will ensure the
use efficiency and processes are better focused on development of sustainable aeronautical
recycling providing an aviation sector that is products through increased recyclability
sustainable. End-of-service is and reuse at the end of service life to
characterised by high recyclability ensure better use of resources, materials
and reuse. and processes
3.4 Improve the New operational practices are The operational gains resulting from these
environmental implemented resulting in optimised research activities will induce a reduction of
performance of trajectories and reduced fuel-burn between 250kg and 500kg of fuel (800kg to
air operations and per flight in accordance with 1600kg of CO2) per flight - 5-10% of the
traffic FP2050 goals. The FP2050 goal of total - as a major contribution towards the
management emission- Flightpath 2050 goal of a 75% reduction.
free taxiing is well on the way to This includes a 30% reduction in taxiing
being realised. fuel-burn per flight due to advanced taxiing
operations in pursuit of the goal of
emission-free taxiing.
3.5 Improve the Air quality is improved and noise Specific research for the airport
airport annoyance is reduced to acceptable environment will permit significant
environment levels. Airports are fully integrated improvement in air quality and reduction of
and accepted by local communities. noise annoyance at European airports, with
Intermodal transport connections the most appropriate solutions for these
are efficient and environmentally key environmental concerns.
friendly.
3.6 Provide the Sustainable alternative fuels are Research and technology results on
necessary widely used contributing to a alternative aviation fuels, in cooperation
quantity of substantial reduction in aviation‘s with the renewable sector and backed by a
affordable impact on climate change. favourable policy framework, will enable
alternative energy Disruptive alternatives for energy the large-scale deployment of sustainable
storage and supply are increasingly alternative fuels, which will contribute to a
viable. substantial reduction of aviation‘s climate
impact.
101
3.7 Understand There is a detailed, scientific Improvements in scientific understanding

aviation‘s climate understanding of the impact of of aviation climate impact will enable the
impact aviation on the climate. This has introduction of scientifically-founded and
enabled the introduction of sound, globally-harmonized policy and regulations
globally harmonized policies and to support climate-friendly flight
regulations to support climate- operations, and will highlight the mitigation
friendly flight operations. priorities for manufacturers.
3.8 Adapt to climate Impacts of climate change on The understanding of climate change risks
change aviation are well understood and to aviation, and implementation of
steps have been taken to protect measures to tackle them, are essential to
the efficient operations of air facilitate safe and efficient operation of air
transport and the integrity of its transport and to protect its infrastructure in
infrastructures. the face of increasing impacts.
3.9 Develop There exists a comprehensive The implementation of new technologies to
incentives and framework of policy, regulation and reduce the environmental impact of
regulations incentive to ensure the aviation, including a transition to more
implementation of new renewable energies, will only work if
technologies and operations embedded in a holistic transport and
destined to reduce the impact of energy policy framework. Research in this
aviation on climate change. field will deliver these incentives and
regulations to support the FP2050 goals.
In recent years the aviation sector has initiated a comprehensive range of measures to
mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change could pose significant financial and
operational risk for the aviation industry, although there remain uncertainties as to the
extent, severity and timing of impacts. The timeline for Challenge 3 is shown in Figure 4.1 (Strategic
Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017).
To achieve the 2050 goals, step changes in aircraft configuration and operation (including
alternative energy sources) will be required - currently envisaged evolutions will not be sufficient
(Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017). Such disruptive change will have consequences
for all stakeholders: manufacturers, airlines, airports, ANSPs and energy suppliers. ACARE runs three
research projects to achieve these goals: X-Noise EV, which relates to aviation noise research, Forum
AE, which relates to emissions research, and Core-JetFuel, which relates to alternative aviation fuels.
The report (PARE D1.1, 2018) concludes that noise research is on track to meet its target, that
significant work is required to meet the emissions targets, specifically technology maturation, and
that a quantitative target is required at European level for alternative fuels.
102
Figure 4.1: Timeline for Challenge 3: Protecting the environment and the energy supply (Strategic Research
and Innovation Agenda, 2017)
103
4.1 Reduction of Noise and Emissions
* Flightpath 2050 goal 9: “In 2050 technologies and procedures available allow a 75%
reduction in CO2 emissions per passenger km and a 90% reduction in NOx emissions. The
perceived noise of flying aircraft is reduced by 65%. These are relative to the capabilities of
typical new aircraft in 2000”.
This goal covers noise and emissions. The distinction is made between engine (4.1.1) and
aerodynamic (4.1.2) noise and local (4.1.3) and global (4.1.4) emissions.
An approach by consensus based on expert‘s judgement, assessment of the TRL situation and
results from the technology evaluation exercises has then been used to perform the 2015 progress
assessment, coming up with updated progress achievement figures and formulating associated
recommendations for future research. Recommended Phased Approach to meet ACARE Noise Goal
#1 includes analysis of expected advances on noise reduction with Noise Reduction Technology 1
(NRT1) and NRT2, as well as the Noise Abatement Procedure, (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2: Expected advances on noise reduction with NRT1 and NRT2, as well as the Noise Abatement
Procedure
―Reduction of Noise and Emissions‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project are
shown in Figure 4.3 grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018).
104
―Reduction of Noise and Emissions‖
4.2 Emissions Free Taxying at Airports
*Flightpath 2050 goal 10: “Aircraft movements are emissions free when taxing”.
The taxying of aircraft on engine power and the use of auxiliary power units (APU) on the ground
can be significant contributors to emissions at airports and also generate noise. The most obvious
way to achieve goal 10 is to use electric towing vehicles. There are technical aspects like ensuring
105
compatibility of towing brackets and sufficient traction power. Also infrastructure aspects with
recharging facilities for a fleet of electric towing vehicles. At last, but not least, the coverage of the
initial investment and operating cost. These must be seen in the context of lower environmental
impact.
―Emissions Free Taxying at Airports‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project are
shown in Figure 4.4 grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018).
―Emissions Free Taxying at Airports‖
106
4.3 Design and manufacture bearing in mind recycling
*Flightpath 2050 goal 11: “Air vehicles are designed and manufactured to be recyclable
There are many challenges as well as opportunities facing the aircraft recycling industry. The
opportunities include notably the increasing number of EOL aircraft (creating economies of scale),
improving dismantling technologies and techniques, greater environmental awareness and stricter
legislation encouraging recycling practices.
Recycling of aircraft parts depends mostly on the materials used and also on the fabrication process.
The choice of materials for an aircraft is subject to a considerable set of constraints related to
performance, weight, availability, cost, ease of manufacture and maintenance, durability and
resistance to hostile environments. Adding the recycling ability is an additional constraint which can
bring benefits in several of other areas; it may require consideration of materials not previously used
in the aerospace industry and take advantage in the major progress made synthetizing new
substances with tailor-made properties (graphene).
There is a need for effective materials extraction and separation technologies, worthwhile end-use
applications for the recovered materials as well as an attractive business model for aircraft recyclers.
Only when all of these conditions are united can the aircraft recycling industry truly take off in
Europe.
―Design and manufacture bearing in mind recycling‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on
D1.1, 2018).
―Design and manufacture bearing in mind recycling‖
107
4.4 Sustainable Alternative Fuel Sources
*Flightpath 2050 goal 12: “Europe is established as a centre of excellence for sustainable
alternative fuels, including those for aviation, based on a strong European energy policy.
The supply of fuel alternative to querosene is subject to major efforts by large consumers like the
U.S. Air Force. The consumer base is more diversified in the airline industry but it is no less
important due to the large number of flight hours. Although airlines have been willing to test new
fuels a coordinated effort must be done far upstream to: (i) consider a variety of sources of fuel, that
do not interfere with food production and whose environmental impact is neutral or positive (waste
disposal); (ii) establish the technical feasibility to meet all applicable quality and safety standards and
certification requirements; (iii) assess the economic and environmental feasibility of large-scale
sustained production, distribution and use.
The supply of fuel alternative to kerosene is subject to major efforts by large consumers like the U.S.
Air Force. The consumer base is more diversified in the airline industry but it is no less important
due to the large number of flight hours. Although airlines have been willing to test new fuels a
coordinated effort must be done far upstream to: (i) consider a variety of sources of fuel, that do not
interfere with food production and whose environmental impact is neutral or positive (waste
disposal); (ii) establish the technical feasibility to meet all applicable quality and safety standards and
certification requirements; (iii) assess the economic and environmental feasibility of large-scale
sustained production, distribution and use.
108
The use of the biofuel has been tested in two series of flights. The first series of 18 long haul flights
from Amsterdam to Aruba, on an Airbus A330-200 (carrying around 4,500 passengers informed
about the project) was performed using biojet fuel blend in one engine to compare the
performance of the two engines. No significant performance differences were noted, but that the
water accumulated in the tanks during flights can be lowered using the synthetic fuel, reducing the
maintenance frequency and costs. The second series of 80 short haul flights, from Oslo to
Amsterdam, on an Embraer E190, carrying about 8,000 passengers, using the camelina biojet blend
in both engines, confirmed the no detrimental effects on operation with similar or slightly better fuel
consumption and, no variation in fuel gauging systems. The flight series were complemented with a
series of lab based emission measurements using a testbed Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). APU
emissions tests were completed for the two ITAKA fuel batches and baselined against a standard
fossil Jet fuel: performance parameters were as expected quite similar, fuel consumption decrease
up to 1% (saving fuel and CO2 emissions), and the emitted particulate matter (PM) was decreased up
to a 50% for a 50:50 fuel blend. PM emissions are a major air quality concern that are linked with a
significant number of premature deaths across Europe. High paraffinic fuels such as HEFA biojet
could significantly help to reduce the impact of this pollutant in the vicinity of airports. The
information obtained has been supplied to the International Civil Aviation Organization for the
development of future standards for aircraft engines.
―Sustainable Alternative Fuel Sources‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project
are shown in Figure 4.6 grounding on the results of the 1 st year PARE report (PARE D1.1, 2018).
―Sustainable Alternative Fuel Sources‖
109
4.5 Atmospheric Research, Weather and the Environment
* Flightpath 2050 goal 13: “Europe is at the forefront of atmospheric research and takes the
lead in the formulation of a prioritized environmental protection plan and the establishment
of global environmental standards”.
Atmospheric hazards have been a safety concern throughout the history of aviation and are
addressed in the goal 15 (section 4.2). A better modelling and understanding of atmospheric
phenomena can reduce disturbances of air traffic management (goal 5 and section 2.5) and allow an
increase of runway capacity at airports (goal 1 and section 2.1). As major users of the airspace
aviation can contribute to the monitoring of the atmosphere and to the establishment and
implementation of global environmental standards. The monitoring of the atmosphere is performed
by a vast array of earth andsatellite sensors, plus specialized weather aircraft like those used by
NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in the US) to fly through tropical
storms and collect in-situ atmospheric data. The data transmission capabilities of airliners in modern
ATM systems could be used not only for traffic proposes but also to collect atmospheric data in
support of environmental standards and policies. It is in interest of airlines to preserve their flight
environment and if appropriate some of the millions of flight around the world could be a source of
in-situ measurement and monitoring.
In quantitative terms, the objective to be achieved could be that the 100% of the data that the
aircraft can obtain and process from the atmosphere could be shared between other aircraft and
ground infrastructure that would allow to obtain a real-time atmospheric model capable of
110
predicting weather hazards as well as to evaluate the possible geographic location of these threats.
The Figure 4.7 illustrates the benchmarks discussed for goal 13.
Previously known as the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme,
Copernicus is a European Union programme aimed at developing European information services
based on satellite Earth Observation and in situ (non-space) data. The provision of Copernicus
services is based on the processing of environmental data collected from Earth observation satellites
and in situ sensors. The Copernicus programme is supported by a dedicated constellation of
satellites, known as ―Sentinels‖, which are specifically designed to meet the needs of the Copernicus
services and their users. The first of these sentinels was launched in 2014 and it is expected to
launch more satellites in the next years. Copernicus also draws on a large number of in situ
(meaning on-site or local) measurement systems put at the disposal of the programme by the EU
Member States. These include sensors placed on the banks of rivers, carried through the air by
weather balloons, pulled through the sea by ships, or floating in the ocean. In situ data are used to
calibrate, verify and supplement the information provided by satellites, which is essential in order to
deliver reliable and consistent data over time.
Figure 4.7: Benchmarks for goal 13
Copernicus improves the capabilities to monitor, forecast and make projections about the changing
climate, by increasing the number and sources of raw data at disposal, producing services based on
integration, modelling and analysis of these data, and by coordinating the production of certified
climate information from multiple sources. With the new satellites that are expected to be launched
in the next years, these measurements, predictions and projections of the climate will be more
accurate and reliable. The sentinels programme launch is presented below in the Figure 4.8 and
maturity oftheir products in Figure 4.9:
111
Figure 4.8: The Sentinel families of European environmental satellites
Figure 4.9: Maturity Plan for the Sentinel family.
Today 2025
Sentinel 1 maturity level 9 Sentinel 1 maturity level 9
The EUMETSAT Polar System Second Generation (EPS-SG) is the second pillar (Figure 4.10) of
EUMETSAT's future, expected to continue the global observations of EPS in the 2020-2040
timeframe.
Figure 4.10: Meteosat Third Generation Satellite Maturity Plan
Today 2025 2050

MTG I 1 maturity level 2 MTG I 1 maturity level 9 MTG I 1 maturity level 9
MTG S 1 maturity level 1 MTG S 1 maturity level 8 MTG S 1 maturity level 9
MTG S 2 maturity level 1 MTG S 2 maturity level 1 MTG S 2 maturity level 9

112
Figure 4.11: Polar System Second Generation (EPS-SG) Projection
Today 2025 2050

Metop-SG 1A maturity Metop-SG 1A maturity Metop-SG 1A maturity
level 2 level 9 level 9
Metop-SG 1B maturity Metop-SG 1B maturity Metop-SG 1B maturity





―Atmospheric Research, Weather and the Environment‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches
on PARE Project are shown in Figure 4.12 grounding on the results of the 1st year PARE report (PARE
D1.1, 2018).
Figure 4.12: NYSERDA (TRL/CRL) Calculator results for analysis and assessment of ACARE Challenge 3 Goal
13 ―Atmospheric Research, Weather and the Environment‖
113
5 Ensuring safety and security
The progress of aviation safety since the 60s is impressive. Lessons have been learnt from the
accidents of the past and effective mitigations have been implemented to reduce the probability of
similar events today and in the future. This naturally results in the emergence of new causes that
were previously masked. The safety goals for 2050 are very ambitious when compared to the current
commercial operations.
In Europe‘s vision for aviation in 2050, the safety goal is to reduce the accident rate to less than one
accident per ten million commercial aircraft flights. It is envisioned that the occurrence and impact
of human error will be significantly reduced through new designs, training processes, and advanced
decision support systems. Worldwide, considerable research and development is being undertaken
towards improving aviation safety, including the SESAR and NextGen programs.
1. Overall, the European air transport system has less than one accident per ten million
commercial aircraft flights.
2. Weather and other hazards from the environment are precisely evaluated and risks are
properly mitigated.
3. The European air transport system operates seamlessly through interoperable and
networked systems allowing manned and unmanned air vehicles to safely operate in the same
airspace.
4. Efficient boarding and security measures allow seamless security for global travel, with
minimum passenger and cargo impact. Passengers and cargo pass through security controls
without intrusion.
5. Air vehicles are resilient by design to current and predicted on-board and on-the-ground
security threat evolution, internally and externally to the aircraft.
6. The air transport system has a fully secured global high bandwidth data network,
hardened and resilient by design to cyber-attacks.
Although aviation is considered the safest mode of transport today, there are existing hazards such
as severe weather and new security threats which need to be better understood and mitigated. The
future will see an industry that is ever more flexible and interconnected, with higher levels of
automation, including autonomous and personal vehicles, as well as new, more ecological materials,
cleaner propulsion fuels, and increasingly open and shared information sources. Such hange can be
good, but it can also lead to safety and security vulnerabilities unless actively managed.
114
Dealing effectively with existing and future safety hazards, and growing security fears and threats,
requires a fundamental shift in thinking about safety and security. The five common action lines, and
desired outcomes, are as follows:
Governance: strong safety and security management in organisations, and collaboration across the
entire industry. his must be under-pinned via a pan-European regulatory system that supports
stakeholders to actively engage in ensuring safety and security while staying in business.
Human-system optimisation: safe and secure performance and culture via all personnel at all
levels, and in the case of security, dealing more closely with societal trends.
Intelligence: better sensors, and sharing and analysis of data. This will enable us to ‗see around the
corner‘ for safety, and provide a way to scan the security horizon.
Safe and secure operations: dealing with today‘s and tomorrow‘s threats and hazards via safety
radar and continuous system behaviour and health monitoring. This includes adaptive security
controls and inter-connected security operations centres.
Resilient design, manufacturing and certification: intrinsically safe and secure systems and
products, with enhanced survivability, resilient to cyber and other attacks.
The following Table 5.1 describe how, and by when, these action areas will be realised for safety and
security, ensuring that businesses and services can grow while improving safety and security beyond
today‘s levels. The timeline for Challenge 1 is shown in Figure 5.1 (Strategic Research and Innovation
Agenda, 2017).

4.1 Collaborate for Europe operates an air transport Europe will operate an air transport
safety system in which safety governance and system in which safety governance
practice is effective and able to stay and practice is effective, able to keep
ahead of the game in a rapidly up with and stay ahead of a rapidly
changing environment. changing environment.
4.2 Optimise human and The system is designed to fully benefit The developments described here
organisational from the human‘s ability to solve will ensure that the future system
factors for safety complex and unforeseen problems, continues to benefit from the
thus ensuring the highest possible human‘s ability and ambition to
degree of safety. solve complex and unforeseen
problems, thus ensuring the highest
degree of safety.
4.3 Build and exploit Vast amounts of data are available in Vast amounts of data are already
safety intelligence the system. These are gathered, available in the system. Gathering,
processed and exploited to provide processing and exploiting them will
vital information that makes the air provide vital information that will
transport system safer. make the air transport system safer.
4.4 Ensure operational Very high levels of operational safety Ensuring high levels of operational
safety are assured as a result of the measures safety is the culmination of all safety
described: strong collaboration, efforts. It is therefore indispensable
115
optimised human and organisational for an aviation system that is globally

factors, effective use of data and a safe.
system designed for safety.
4.5 Design, manufacture The system operates inherently safely These actions will result in a system
and due to the built-in resilience by design, that is inherently safe, due to
certify for safety manufacturing and certification. New resilient design, manufacturing and
systems do not hide any unsafe certification processes. This means
‗surprises‘. that new systems will not deliver any
unsafe and unmanageable
‗surprises‘.
4.6 Collaborate for A framework is in place for system- The actions described here are
security wide security governance addressing essential to mitigate security risks to
policy, regulation and oversight. This the aviation system. They provide the
addresses common risk management, framework to achieve appropriate
minimum level of security and system-wide governance to address
harmonised incident management. policy, regulation and oversight, and
Security operations centres are in place the development and
across the aviation system. implementation of appropriate
management systems. Together,
these will address the means to
achieve common (or compatible) risk
management methods, a common
minimum level of security, and a
harmonised approach to security
incident management with security
operations centres across the
aviation system.
4.7 Engage aviation Aviation personnel and society as a The outcome of these developments
personnel whole are fully engaged in security will be enhanced awareness of
and society for measures. Threats are identified and security for aviation personnel and
security mitigated early and the public has society, taking account of cultural
enhanced confidence in air travel. differences. Threats will be identified
and mitigated early, leading to a
high level of security that provides
the public with enhanced confidence
in air travel.
4.8 Build and exploit Data are effectively exploited for These developments will provide the
security prediction of and preparation for capability to predict and prepare for
intelligence emerging threats and vulnerabilities. emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
Early warning facilitates prevention and Early warning and alerts will facilitate
response system-wide, thereby incident prevention and response
maintaining security across the entire system-wide, thereby maintaining
aviation spectrum. security across the entire aviation
spectrum.
4.9 Ensure operational There is a sophisticated real-time These measures will deliver a
security security capability, supported by a sophisticated real-time security
116
global network of security centres. This capability, supported by a global

builds public confidence and ensures network of security centres, assuring
overall system resilience and public confidence and ensuring
business continuity. overall system resilience and
business continuity
4.10 Design, manufacture Provisions for security are incorporated Inclusion of security provisions in
and certify for into design, manufacture, deployment design, manufacture, deployment
security and operations. The system is resilient and operations is essential to ensure
to security threats with no inherent no inherent weaknesses in the
weaknesses. system, and a system that is resilient
to security threats.
Figure 5.1 - Timeline for Challenge 4: Ensuring safety and security (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda,
2017)
117
Aviation safety has steadily improved (section 5.1) including in the mitigation of weather hazards
(section 5.2). Aviation has been one of the preferred targets of malicious actions, stressing the
importance of physical security (section 5.4) and resilience to internal and external attacks (section
5.5). Progress also brings new challenges, such as the integration of ‗drones‘ (section 5.3) that
contributes to the need for vast safe exchanges of data (section 5.6).
5.1 Ultra-low accident rate in commercial flight
* Flight 2050 goal 14: “European air transport system has less than one accident per million
commercial aircraft flights”
Aviation is the safest mode of transport. In addition aviation safety has steadily improved to the
point where no hull loss was recorded in one year. It can be expected that more years will come
without a single major aviation accident. The safety target in the goal 14 can be achieved by
strengthening the cradle-to-grave safety chain of aviation: (i) aircraft design based on the most
reliable scientific methods, validated and tested in the more stringent conditions; (ii) meeting
comprehensive certification standards in all aspects related to operations and safety; (iii) control of
the supply of raw materials, documentation of fabrication processes and production quality checks;
(iv) qualification of all human actors, including pilots, maintainers and air traffic controllers; (v)
118
provision and maintenance of all support systems and equipment at the required standards; (vi)
strict implementation of safety rules and procedures; (viii) reporting of incidents, without
identification or blame, before they become accidents; (viii) swift implementation of protective
measures once a potential hazard has been identified; (ix) continuous search for best practices and
their timely implementation; (x) use of existing and development of new monitoring, fault tolerant
and adaptive systems and emergency intervention strategies.
The safety target in the goal 14 can be achieved by strengthening the cradle-to-grave safety chain
of aviation: (i) aircraft design based on the most reliable scientific methods, validated and tested in
the more stringent conditions; (ii) meeting comprehensive certification standards in all aspects
related to operations and safety; (iii) control of the supply of raw materials, documentation of
fabrication processes and production quality checks; (iv) qualification of all human actors, including
pilots, maintainers and air traffic controllers; (v) provision and maintenance of all support systems
and equipment at the required standards; (vi) strict implementation of safety rules and procedures;
(viii) reporting of incidents, without identification or blame, before they become accidents; (viii) swift
implementation of protective measures once a potential hazard has been identified; (ix) continuous
search for best practices and their timely implementation; (x) use of existing and development of
new monitoring, fault tolerant and adaptive systems and emergency intervention strategies.
―Ultra-low accident rate in commercial flight‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
―Ultra-low accident rate in commercial flight‖
119
5.2 Weather hazards and risk mitigation
* Flightpath 2050 goal 15: “Weather and other hazards from environment are precisely
evaluated and risks properly mitigated”
Atmospheric conditions continue to be a major factor in aircraft operations, although much

progress has been made in flying safety through what were in the past hostile scenarios. As safety
progresses former hazards are overcome and new ones are discovered, that were previously hidden
behind other events. For example windshears or microbursts must have been the cause of accidents
in the past of aircraft flying through storms, but were identified clearly only 3 decades ago, as other
safety hazards were overcome. General weather predictions and on-board sensors like weather
radar are basic indicators of potential hazards; laser Doppler radar is a good complement not
generally fitted to airliners. The information from flights of preceding aircraft on similar routes can
also be a useful warning.
An example is a windshear associated with a microburst: (i) a toroidal vortex lies above the ground;
(ii) it creates a down flow through its core; (iii) the following horizontal flow changes from head wing
to tail wind as an aircraft flies under the core; (iv) the combination of down flow and tailwind can
lead to stall and/or crash. The wind shear is most readily detected by LIDAR that measures wind
speed; it can be detected by the weather radar if the microburst is associated with rain. The
indications of an aircraft that has recently flown a similar path are a warning for the safest option of
wind shear avoidance.
120
―Weather hazards and risk mitigation‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project
―Weather hazards and risk mitigation‖
121
5.3 Integrating drones in manned airspace
* Flightpath 2050 goal 16: “The European air transport system operates seamlessly through
interoperable and networked systems allowing manned and unmanned air vehicles to safely
operate in the same airspace”
The term ―drones‖, although possibly inaccurate or inappropriate, is used for brevity as in colloquial
language, to designate UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles), RPVs (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), Remotely
Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), AAVs (Autonomous Air Vehicles). The number of drones within the
EU has multiplied over the last 2 years. EASA has already introduced a technical opinion to initiate
the definition of the regulatory framework required at EU level. Most of the occurrences in this RPAS
analysis were related to either airspace infringements which occasionally lead to a near collision with
an aircraft. Analysis of RPAS occurrences in the European Central Repository identified 584
occurrences of all severity levels, of which 37 accidents had been classed as accidents (2011-2015),
none of the accidents involved fatalities and there were only four minor injuries reported in the
period since 2010
The regulatory framework for the safe operations of drones in Europe currently being developed by
EASA already addresses the issue of collision between drones and aeroplanes. A combination of
measures are envisaged such as: operate in visual line of sight, fly under 150 m height above
ground, be equipped with identification and geo-limitation functions and be registered. Any
operation of drones close to aerodromes would require a specific authorization from the national
aviation authority based on a risk assessment.
―Integrating drones in manned airspace‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
―Integrating drones in manned airspace‖
122
5.4 Comprehensive and unobtrusive security measures
* Flight 2015 goal 17: “Efficient boarding and safety measures allow seamless security for
global travel with minimum passenger and cargo impact. Passengers and cargo pass through
security controls without introduction”
Aviation safety has seen a steady and spectacular progress into the safest mode of transport. The
recent societal threat going back to barbarism, seeks to maximize loss of life through terrorist acts
aimed at most transports.
The ingenuity that has achieved the safety of air transport must also be applied to ensure its security
at all stages of travel: (i) at the departure airport, through check-in, passport and luggage
inspection; (ii) in the transit to the aircraft; (iii) in flight; (iv) at the arrival airport. Terrorists who fail
their murderous attempts may still see some success in the disruption caused by the safety
measures needed to foil their evil intents. While the patience and understanding of passengers is
essential there should be the minimum of delay, intrusion and disruption in the implementation of
safety measures, through the use of the most appropriate equipment and airport architectures. The
standards of European airports may not be taken for granted at some remote or holiday
destinations, possibly requiring further security initiatives.
The main components for defining the Global Aviation Security Plan (GASeP), as illustrated in the
Figure 5.6, should be built around six key themes, under which specific goals and targets (Table 5.2)
could be pursued. It also includes four broad areas of ―enablers‖, which contribute towards
achieving goals related not only to one key theme but across all themes. While further details of the
123
GASeP would need to be elaborated and refined, the six key themes of the GASeP, could be used to
help frame the deliberations.
Figure 5.6 - Key themes, under which GASeP specific goals and targets could be pursued
Goals Targets
1. By 20xx, States have utilized effective threat and risk
assessment methodologies;
1: Improved capacity to address 2. By 20xx, States have made significant efforts to promote
all threats to aviation security risk-based measures and approaches;
3. By 20xx, States have implemented mechanisms to ensure
greater threat information sharing;
4. By 20xx, compliance by States and Regions to
substantially improve levels of aviation security;
2: Achieve higher levels of
5. By 20xx, mobilize additional financial resources for
effective implementation of ICAO
effective implementation of aviation security;
Annex 17
6. By 20xx, substantial reduction of States with significant
security concerns (SSeCs);
7. By 20xx, substantial steps taken by States to promote
3: Promote development of
security culture across all organizations;
human resources in aviation
8. By 20xx, significant efforts by States to promote greater
security
capacities of security professionals;
9. By 20xx, States have strengthened technological capacity
4: Effective and efficient security
to address the threat posed by LAGs;
measures through process and
10. By 20xx, substantial efforts made by States to enhance
technology innovation
research and to foster innovation;
124
11. By 20xx, all States have utilized ICAO platforms for

sharing screening best practices;
12. By 20xx, greater efforts by States to recognize other
States‘ systems where determined equivalent;
13. By 20xx, enhance regional partnerships for
5: Enhance implementation
implementing effective and targeted capacity-building
through capacity building
activities to support regional initiatives and plans;
6: Integrated approach to aviation
14. By 20xx, more efforts by all States to ensure a cross-
safety, security and other
functional approach to aviation security.
disciplines
Table 5.2: Indicative list of GASeP goals and targets
The foundational element of the framework should be based on the notion of progressive aviation
security enhancement as the core objective, consistent with ICAO‘s Strategic Objective. For practical
purposes, aviation security enhancement is defined as the improvement in the effectiveness and
efficiency of aviation security to mitigate the risk of acts and attempted acts of unlawful
interference, and to mitigate its consequences; it is the achieving and acquiring of qualitative
improvement while managing security costs.
―Comprehensive and unobtrusive security measures‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on
D1.1, 2018).
―Comprehensive and unobtrusive security measures‖
125
5.5 Resilience to external and internal threats
* Flightpath 2050 goal 18: “Air vehicles are resilient by design to current on-board and on the
ground security threat evolution, internally and externally to the aircraft”
The safety door limiting access to the cockpit is an example that safety measures can in some cases
function in intended and unintended ways: (i) in most cases it may have prevented hijackings; (ii) in
the isolated case of the mentally disturbed German Wings co-pilot it prevented the captain from
entering the cabin and preventing an intentional crash. The security measures also depend on the
perceived level of threat and accepted level of risk: (i) El Al aircraft are equipped with DIRCM
(Directed Infra-Red Counter Measures) to counter shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, whereas most
other airliners do not have such systems, originally developed for military aircraft; (ii) Israeli and at
same time U.S. commercial aircraft have armed Sky Marshalls, although the use of firearms in a
pressurized aircraft has risks.
Security issues can lead to difficult dilemmas: if an liner is hijacked, and refuses to follow the flight
and landing instructions from an armed interceptor aircraft, and heads to a major inhabited area like
9/11, should weapons be used? An alternative would be to take over control of the aircraft remotely
by building in this capability at the design stage. Doing so assumes that: (i) it is possible to decide
remotely if the aircraft has been hijacked, the crew has suicidal intents or is unconscious due to
hypoxia or other problems: (ii) the communications and controls allow safe flight to the closest
suitable airport; (iii) the systems is immune to spoofing, cyber-attack or other malicious use.
Ultimately people on board, if not controlled, have several means to cause a crash, reinforcing the
need for airport security and preventive measures.
126
Currently, aviation security is primarily based on the preventive phase and is inflexible to new
threats. This is also mirrored in the research landscape for aviation security: Most projects
concentrate on preventive measures such as the detection of CBRNE-substances. EU Project COPRA
Aviation Security Research Roadmap (PARE D1.1, 2018) recommends that the future aviation
security system (and research) should be based on all elements of the resilience cycle in a well-
balanced composition. It should embrace processes and technologies to support each phase of the
resilience cycle (Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.8: Resilience cycle depicting possible actions associated with the different phases
Security concepts should aim at involving different measures at different stages of the passengers‘
travel. The COPRA Aviation Security Research Roadmap (PARE D1.1, 2018) has been developed in
the final Work Package of the COPRA project. The goal of the roadmap is: ’To provide the European
Commission and the Member states with clear guidelines for future R&D activities responding to
operational and economic market needs while being attentive of the acceptance by citizens’. A visual
representation of the roadmap with all roadmap items plotted in a chart was designed and shown
on the Figure 5.9:
Figure 5.9: Recommendations and goals for future aviation security concepts
127
―Resilience to external and internal threats‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
18 ―Resilience to external and internal threats‖
128
5.6 High-bandwidth data resilient to cyberattacks
* Flightpath 2050 goal 19: “The air transport system has fully secured global high bandwidth
data network, hardened and resilient by design to cyber-attacks”
So far there have been no major reports of jamming of civil aircraft communications or cyberattacks
on air traffic infrastructure. Some isolated incidents from the past indicate that it can happen: (i) a
Tornado aircraft flying over Radio Free Europe in southern Germany may have suffered loss of
control due to high power radio transmissions interfering with on board systems; (ii) the Iranian
television showed an American UAV intact (except for undercarriage) that did an emergency landing
(US version) or was remotely diverted (Iranian version). It is not without reason that all airliner flights
request switching off of electronic devices or changing to flight mode. It is known that the standard
GPS navigation signals can be easily jammed, leading at least in the U.S., to the development of
―jam-resistant‖ GPS versions and entirely separate alternative navigation systems. The operation of
air traffic will require increasing amounts of data exchanging, needing larger bandwidth; this will
give more opportunities for jamming and more entry points for cyberattack. There are
countermeasures and protection methods, some developed by the military that should be sufficient
to stop a not too sophisticated attacker.
The vulnerabilities that need to be taken into account are: (i) in a large, complex interconnected
system there are many entry points for cyber intrusion and many links to spread the cyber-attack; (ii)
the weakest node may be the preferred entry point, for example small suppliers of equipment or
codes well protected by large industries or government bodies. Cyber protection involves hardware
and software and their human users in very diverse scenarios; the civilian and military cyber training
events are a way to gain and update skills, and tend to have a regular and expanding participation.
In some cases the hosts are the victims of cyber-attacks that have experienced their consequences
and want to avoid similar situations in the future.
ICAO Assembly calls upon States and industry stakeholders to identify the threats and risks from
possible cyber incidents on civil aviation operations and critical systems, and the serious
consequences that can arise from such incidents. Based on a common understanding of cyber
threats and risks, adopt a flexible, risk-based approach to protecting critical aviation systems
through the implementation of cybersecurity management systems (PARE D1.1, 2018).
―High-bandwidth data resilient to cyberattacks‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
129
19 ―High-bandwidth data resilient to cyberattacks‖
130
6 Prioritising research, testing capabilities and education
Aviation is a high-technology sector which combines extraordinary demands on research and

innovation with long lead times. Decisions on research and technology development may have
consequences on the future of the sector, decades after they have been made. To maintain its
world-leading position and competitiveness in the dynamic global market, Europe‘s aviation must
be underpinned by world class capabilities and facilities in research, development, test and
validation, and should provide to the current and future employees of the sector a top-level
education that is adapted to its needs (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017).
To maintain its world-leading position and competitiveness in the dynamic world market, Europe‘s
aviation industry must be underpinned by world class capabilities and facilities in research, test and
validation and education.
The majority of the actions described in this challenge are foundational for European aviation (Table
6.1), (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017). This means that work needs to start
immediately, defining schemes to make sure we do the right research, developing a coherent set of
test capabilities and, maybe above all, providing world class education. The timeline for Challenge 5
is shown in Figure 6.1 (Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, 2017).

5.1 Maintain awareness A strong technology watchtower is Aviation is traditionally seen as a leader
with an effective in place ensuring that the European in technology development, providing
technology aviation industry is globally positive spin-off to other sectors. This
watchtower competitive. In particular it will leadership will continue as long as fast-
support OEMs with key knowledge moving developments from other
and visibility of emerging sectors are effectively embraced and
technologies. exploited. A strong technology
watchtower will ensure that the
European aviation industry remains
globally competitive. In particular it will
be a support to SMEs with key
knowledge and visibility of emerging
technologies.
5.2 Develop an inclusive A coherent, integrated strategy A coherent, integrated strategy will
research strategy ensures that promising research ensure that promising research can
covering the entire progresses easily up through the easily progress up through the TRLs to
innovation chain TRLs to implementation and implementation and operation.
operation. The strategy Developing the right skills alongside the
incorporates skills development technology will ensure more robust
that matches the technological product development. Systematic
demands. feedback from exploitation and
operations into early research will
ensure more effective technology
development and reduce waste.
131
5.3 Make the right Agreed metrics support a robust The systematic use of agreed metrics as
investment choices selection process with clear proposed here will provide a robust way
with robust selection prioritisation of research and of prioritising investment in research
processes technical development in support and technical development in support
of ACARE goals. of ACARE goals.
5.4 Develop and European investment in Coordinated European investment in
maintain state-of the infrastructure is fully coordinated to infrastructure will support efficient, cost-
art test infrastructure support efficient, cost-effective effective testing. Keeping facilities state-
testing. Facilities are state-of-the- of-the-art will ensure high utilization
art with substantial use of virtual and provide significant benefits to the
test capabilities, ensuring high aviation sector. Engaging all
utilisation and providing significant stakeholders in a common approach will
benefits to the aviation sector. ensure that future trends are properly
All stakeholders are engaged in a accommodated.
common approach and emerging
trends are properly accommodated.
5.5 Establish a There exists a dynamic and A dynamic network of operators of
sustainable network cooperative network of operators strategic European test infrastructure
of operators for test of strategic European test will ensure up-to date, relevant
infrastructure infrastructure, ensuring that up-to- equipment, efficiently operated and
date equipment is efficiently maintained for the benefit of the
operated and maintained for the aviation sector. Utilisation will increase
benefit of the aviation sector. and redundancy will be reduced.
Innovative business and operating Innovative business and operating
models and funding schemes models and funding schemes will
provide access to the testing provide wide access to the testing
capabilities for all stakeholders, capabilities. Engagement of the network
including academia and SMEs. with stakeholders to define emerging
needs and capabilities will ensure that
the inventory remains up to date.
5.6 Provide world- European aviation education is The actions described here are essential
leading education in world-leading, providing excellent to mitigate security risks to the aviation
aviation support to the aviation sector. system. They provide the framework to
Programmes are harmonised with achieve appropriate system-wide
European accreditation schemes governance to address policy, regula-
and a chartered aerospace engineer tion and oversight, and the develop-
qualification. ment and implementation of appropri-
ate management systems. Together,
these will address the means to achieve
common (or compatible) risk manage-
ment methods, a common minimum
level of security, and a harmonised
approach to security incident
management with security operations
centres across the aviation system.
132
5.7 Stimulate the Industry and research establish- The outcome of these developments will
involvement of ments are fully involved in educa- be enhanced awareness of security for
stakeholders in tional programmes ensuring that aviation personnel and society, taking
education students are better prepared for a account of cultural differences. Threats
career in aviation. Industry is will be identified and mitigated early,
reaping substantial benefits from leading to a high level of security that
this collaboration, which extends to provides the public with enhanced
apprenticeships and life-long confidence in air travel.
learning.
5.8 Make aviation The image of the aviation sector is These developments will provide the
attractive to positive and attractive. Sufficient capability to predict and prepare for
ensure inflow into numbers of people flow into the emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
educational educational programmes and Early warning and alerts will facilitate
programmes choose a career in aviation. This incident prevention and response
supports European aviation as system-wide, thereby maintaining
world leader. security across the entire aviation
spectrum.
Figure 6.1 - Timeline for Challenge 5: Prioritising research, testing capabilities and education (Strategic
133
1. European research and innovation strategies are jointly defined by all stakeholders,
public and private, and implemented in a coordinated way with individual responsibility.
2. Creation of a network of multi-disciplinary technology clusters based on collaboration

between industry, universities and research institutes.
3. Identification, maintenance and ongoing development of strategic European aerospace

test, simulation and development facilities. The ground and airborne validation and certification
processes are integrated where appropriate
4. Students are attracted to careers in aviation. Courses offered by European Universities

closely match the needs of the Aviation Industry, its research establishments and administrations
and evolve continuously as those needs develop
The continuation of the success of the European aeronautics sector in the long term requires a joint
research strategy (section 6.1), implemented through industry-research-academia cooperation
(section 6.2), with access to test and development facilities (section 6.3) the whole supported by a
steady influx of young talent (section 6.4).
6.1 European Research and Innovation Agenda
*Flightpath 2050 goal 20: “European research and innovation strategies are jointly defined by
all stakeholders, public and private, and implemented in a coordinated way with individual
responsibly”.
Aviation is recognized as one of the top five advanced technology sectors in Europe. Thus, it is
generally acknowledged that research infrastructures are extremely important to the aviation
industry and the scientific community working on aeronautics. Europe has the world‘s leading
research infrastructure covering the entire aviation system from wind tunnels through simulation
facilities to test aircraft. Industrial customers (i.e. aircraft manufacturers) make commercial use of
134
facilities for developing and enhancing their products during limited test periods. This contributes
towards making the facilities available for scientific research to other users who need them for
limited periods of time. This situation benefits the numerous research projects conducted under
national or EU programmes on both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and is conducive to improving
basic knowledge (of such matters as flow stability, transition, wakes, vortices and the combustion
process) through tests directly funded by research establishments to improve fuel efficiency and
reduce noise.
―European Research and Innovation Agenda‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
―European Research and Innovation Agenda‖
135
6.2 Industry- Research-Academia clusters
*Flightpath 2050 goal 21: “Creation of a network of multi-disciplinary technology clusters

based on collaboration between industry, universities and research institutes”
The creation of these technology clusters could be the result of 3 initiatives, two ongoing and one
to be restored from the past:
A – The (iii) demonstration and (iv) integration activities existing in the JUs Clean Sky and
SESAR;
B – The fundamental research in mathematics, physics and engineering existing in the ERC;
C – Restoring the (i) basic and (ii) industrial research that existed in the aeronautics
programme since the beginning and lapsed with increasing scale.
European research and innovation strategies are jointly defined by all stakeholders, public and
private, and implemented in a coordinated way with individual responsibility. This involves the
complete innovation chain from blue sky research up to technology demonstration. A network of
multi-disciplinary technology clusters has been created based on collaboration between industry,
universities and research institutes (EREA, PEGASUS, XNOISE, FORUM-AE, etc.). The sector is
organised to sustain the full research and innovation chain. This includes mechanisms for small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) to link with higher tier suppliers without any penalty for sub-contracting.
Research work with achieved previously maturation in its TRLs is continued and intensified with
particular emphasis on medium and high levels which are specifically focused on improving
components for existing aircraft. Fundamental aeronautics research is coherent with more applied
research and makes use of the European Research Council‘s scheme. In the short-term, attractive
and efficient research instruments are put in place, which ensure continuity between research on
promising breakthrough concept, their validation by focused RTD actions and finally their
demonstration in an integrated environment.
―Industry- Research-Academia clusters‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project
136
―Industry- Research-Academia clusters‖
6.3 Test, Simulation and Development Facilities
*Flightpath 2050 goal 22:” Identification, maintenance and ongoing development of strategic
European aerospace test, simulation and development facilities. The ground and airborne
validation and certification processes are integrated where appropriate”.
137
Research and development infrastructure is an indispensable tool to achieve a decisive competitive

edge in developing sustainable aviation products and services that meet the needs of EU citizens
and society. Appropriate core capabilities are available and accessible. Infrastructure and the
associated workforce are vital assets, which are maintained and further developed in a focused,
efficient and cost effective manner. Suitable access to these facilities enables knowledge transfer
across Europe and facilitates continuity from blue sky research to innovation in products and
services for the benefit of Europe. Strategic aviation infrastructure is of the highest quality and
efficiency, providing the basis for world-class research and competitive product development while
supporting education. It ranges from wind tunnels via iron and copper birds up to experimental
aircraft and simulation capabilities for in-flight and airport operations. Infrastructure is organised in
a network for the best usability of all stakeholders. The data quality and operational efficiency of
European aviation infrastructure helps industry to minimise risks and development costs, and helps
society to determine the impact of aviation in benefits such as fast transport as well as in penalties
such as impact on the atmosphere.
The days of duplication or multiplication of major aerospace test facilities are long gone, as shown
by some good examples of the last few decades: (i) the joint Dutch-German aero-acoustic wind
tunnel DNW; (ii) the joint British-French-German cryogenic pressurized wind tunnel ETW; (iii) the
choice of CIRA to build an icing wind tunnel and an atmospheric re-entry simulation facility not
existing elsewhere in Europe on a comparable scale. The rationalization of smaller scale test facilities
has diminished duplication and it may be time to look at updates, upgrades and new needs.
An European aeronautical facility programme would logically consist of the following steps:
o List by industry and certification authorities of the test facilities needed for the
foreseeable future and their appropriate specifications;
o comparison with the inventory of existing facilities in Europe to identify the needs (i)
already met; (ii) to be met by upgrades or (iii) requiring new facilities;
o To devise a funding and implementation plan, associating each test facility with one or
more technology clusters.
―Test, Simulation and Development Facilities‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE
2018).
138
―Test, Simulation and Development Facilities‖
6.4 Young Talent and Women in Aviation
*Flightpath 2050 goal 23: Students are attracted to careers in aviation. Courses offered by
European universities closely match the needs of the aviation industry, its research
establishments and administration and evolve continuously as those needs develop.
139
The aviation community is committed to lifelong learning and continuous education thus promoting
interest in the sector and stimulating innovation. Europe‘s students are attracted to careers in
aviation and perform highly. Courses offered by European Universities are academically challenging
and adapted continuously to support and match the evolving needs of the sector research
(establishments) and administrations. Educational policies across the EU motivate students to pursue
further studies in science, technology and mathematics to ensure a steady supply of talent for a first
class work force. The aviation community engages actively with European students from the earliest
age. Higher education is based on the adaptation of curricula based on the evolution of knowledge,
language and (soft) skill requirements derived from ICAO. The curricula are designed based on a
common understanding of the balance between multi-disciplinary and in-depth knowledge, such as,
for example, common language recommendations, the T-shaped professional and the Conceive-
Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) philosophy. This ensures that scientists of the future are capable
of integrating interdisciplinary skills of a technological, human and social nature. Also more detailed
requirements such as inclusion of a flight test, hands-on experience, and a minimum amount of
essential, aeronautics related knowledge are included.
In order to attract young people‘s interest to the Aeronautics and Air Transport sector, several
activities have been successfully implemented on the basis of Vision 2020/Flightpath 2050. Initially
DLR developed and implemented the concept of school_labs, offering hands-on experiments where
pupils perform research projects on small scale similar to the actual research projects in the DLR
labs. This close to reality research work has proven to convince young boys and girls to start a
career in natural sciences and/or engineering. On the basis of the very positive experiences at DLR
the EU Project RESTARTS (Raising European Student‘s Awareness in Aeronautical Research Through
School-Labs, this project, led by DLR involves 3 partners with a total budget of 11M€) fostered the
development of school labs in Europe by developing demonstration and experiment materials for
schools and allowing European school teams to experience a visit at one of the DLR School_Labs
providing direct contact between pupils and DLR researchers.
A public-private partnership between NLR and Fokker Landing Gear where a national research
centre shares its research infrastructure with industry in order to, together, achieve new innovations
in lightweight materials. This is unique in the (Dutch) aerospace sector and also of interest for high
tech - high spec companies outside of the aerospace sector. Ultra-modern equipment has been
purchased for this new facility, including a braiding machine for composites, which is one of the
largest in Europe. NLR already possessed some of the required equipment in its ACM Technology
Centre, where the focus is on TRLs 3 to 6. The ACM Pilot Plant will focus on TRLs 7 and 8.
―Young Talent and Women in Aviation‖ achievements at 1st stage of the researches on PARE Project
140
―Young Talent and Women in Aviation‖
141
References
ACARE Success Stories (2012) Aeronautics and Air Transport Research: Success Stories
http://www.acare4europe.org
ACARE Success Stories (2015) Aviation 15 years of Research and Innovation: Success stories
http://www.acare4europe.org/sites/acare4europe.org/files/document/20151902_Toweb%20brochur
e.pdf
Altunok T., Cakmak T. (2010) A technology readiness levels (TRLs) calculator software for systems
engineering and technology management tool // Adv. Eng. Software, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 769–778,
2010.
Banke J. (August 20, 2010) Technology Readiness Levels. Demystified, NASA.
Challenges of Growth (CG13, 2013) Summary Report. European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation (EUROCONTROL), June 2013.
Competition between Airbus and Boeing (2018). From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing
Corin-Stig D., Högman U., Bergsjö D. (2011) Assessment of Readiness for Internal Technology Transfer
- A Case Study // 21st Annu. Int. Symp. Int. Counc. Syst. Eng. INCOSE 2011, vol. 1, no. Malik 2002, pp.
893–907, 2011.
Craver J.T. et al. (26 October 2006) Technology Program Management Model. Army Space and Missile
Defense Command Technical Center, presented at the NDIA Systems Engineering Conference
Dawson B. (31 October 2007) The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations. Human Factors
Integration Design Technology Centre
Department of Homeland Security (2009) Science and Technology Readiness Level Calculator (ver
1.1). Final Report and User‟s Manual, Prepared for Department of Homeland Security Science and
Technology Directorate September 30, 2009
Deutsch C., Meneghini C., Mermut O., Lefort M. (2011) Measuring Technology Readiness to improve
Innovation Management INO. Retrieved 2011-11-27.
EARTO Recommendation (30April 2014) The TRL Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool,
EARTO Recommendation. 30April 2014
ECSS-E-HB-11A. (2017) Technology readiness level (TRL) guidelines. ECSS Secretariat ESA-ESTEC
Requirements & Standards Division, Noordwijk, The Netherlands1 March 2017
European Aviation in 2040 (CG18, 2018) Challenges of Growth. EUROCONTROL - 2018 (Edition 2).
Gallagher, S. (March 20, 2008) Croom: Acquisition Done Better, Faster, Cheaper. Federal Computer
Week, accessed December 8, 2015.
GAO TRA Guide (2016): Best Practices for Evaluating the Readiness of Technology GAO-16–410G. 147
p.
142
Gartner, Inc. (2015) Gartner Hype Cycles, accessed October 15, 2015.
Gerdes K., Schneider S. P., Cercy M. (2009) Risk reduction through use of external technical reviews,
technology readiness assessments, and technical risk ratings. Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., vol. 101, 2009.
GOST Р 56861–2016 (2016) Lifecycle management system. Development of concepts and technologies.
General provisions. Moscow. 11 p. (ГОСТ Р 56861–2016 (2016) Система управления жизненным
циклом. Разработка концепции изделия и технологий. Общие положения. Москва. 11 с.)
GOST Р 57194.1–2016 (2016) Transfer of technologies. General provisions. Moscow. 11 p. (ГОСТ Р

57194.1–2016 (2016) Трансфер технологий. Общие положения. Москва. 9 с.)
Heder M. (September 2017). From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector
Innovation. The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. 2017.
Hepher, T. (2012) Airbus A380 wing flaw undetected for a decade, Reuters article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/uk-airbus-a-idUSLNE84O00J20120525
High-Level Expert Group on Key Enabling Technologies (2017) Final Report. 2011. Retrieved
October 2017.
Hirshorn S., Sharon J. (2016) Final Report of the NASA Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Study
Team. NASA. 63 p.
Jebel’ V.V., Komarov А. V., Komarov К. А., Shurtakov К. V. (2018) Software for integrated assessment

of technological readiness of innovative scientific and technological projects // The Economics of
Science. V. 4, № 1, 2018. – P. 58-68.
Jimenez H., Schutte J., Mavris D. (2011) System readiness and risk assessment for advanced vehicle
concepts - discussion of fundamental concepts,‖ 49th AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. New Horiz. Forum
Aerosp. Expo., 2011.
Jimenez H., Mavris D.N. (2014) Characterization of Technology Integration Based on Technology
Readiness Levels. J. Aircr., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 291–302, Jan. 2014.
IATA Technology Roadmap, (June 2013), IATA Technology Roadmap, 4th Edition, June 2013
ISO 16290:2013. Space systems — Definition of the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and their
criteria of assessment
Komarov А. V., Petrov А. N., Sartory А. V. (2017) The model of integrated assessment of technological

readiness of innovative scientific and technological projects // The Economics of Science. V. 4,
Komarov A.V., Tihomirov I. A., Zhebel’ V.V. (2017) Informational and analytical service for providing

expert evaluation of the quality of patent research // Scientific service in the Internet: Proceedings of
the XIX All-Russian Scientific Conference. Moscow: Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics. P. 281–
289. № 1, 2018. – P. 47-57.
Krois P., Mogford R., Rehmann J. (April 2003) FAA/NASA Human Factors for Evolving Environments:
Human Factors, Attributes and Technology Readiness Levels Archived from the original on 2012-04-
26.
143
Kujawski E. (2013) Analysis and critique of the system readiness level,‖ IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
Part ASystems Hum., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 979–987, Jul. 2013.
1 Lavoie J.R., Daim T.U. (2017) Technology Readiness Levels Improving R&D Management: a
Grounded Theory Analysis. 017 Portland International Conference on Management of
Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 9-13 July 2017
Mackey R.M. (2011) Assessing and Maturing Technology Readiness Levels,‖ in System Health
Management: With Aerospace Applications, no. January, 2011, pp. 145–157.
Mai T. (July 31, 2015) Technology Readiness Level, NASA.
Moore G.A. (1998) Crossing the Chasm, Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Moorhouse D.J. (2002) Detailed Definitions and Guidance for Application of Technology Readiness
Levels,‖ J. Aircr., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 190–192, 2002.
NASA ESTO (2017) TRL Worksheet. NASA. https:/ / esto.nasa.gov/ files/ TRL_Worksheet_11-30-10.xls.
Nolte, W.L. et al. (20 October 2003) Technology Readiness Level Calculator. Air Force Research
Laboratory, presented at the NDIA Systems Engineering Conference"
PARE D1.1 (2018) State-of-the-art Flightpath 2050 goals. Deliverable under WP1 of the PARE project,
EC Grant agreement N° 769220, Horizon 2020, 29-05-2018
Rogers E. (2015) Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Indiana University, accessed December 8, 2015.
Petrov A.N., Sartory A. V., Filimonov A. V. (2016) Comprehensive assessment of the status scientific

and technical projects using Technology Project Readiness Level // The Economics of Science. V. 2.
№ 4. P. 244–260.
Sadin S.R., Povinelli F. P., Rosen R. (1989) The NASA technology push towards future space mission
systems // Acta Astronautica. V. 20. P. 73–33.
Sarfaraz M., Sauser B.J., and E.W. Bauer (2012) Using System Architecture Maturity Artifacts to
Improve Technology Maturity Assessment. Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 8, pp. 165–170, 2012.
Sommerlatte T., Deschamps J.-P. (1986) Der strategische Einsatz von Technologien. In Management
im Zeitalter der strategischen Führung. Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 39–76.
Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda – 2017 update. Vol. 1. Delivering Europe‘s Vision for
Aviation. Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE), DLR, 2017.
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) / Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) Process Implementation
Guide. (2013) U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management Revision, 1August
2013
TRA Guidance (2011) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance. Asst. Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, April 2011, Department of Defense.
TRA Guide (2011) Technology Readiness Assessment Guide. U.S. Department of Energy, September 15,
2011, DOE G 413.3-4A.
144
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) - The ESA Science Technology Development Route. European
Space Agency, Future Missions Office, Technology Preparation Section.
Technology Readiness Levels Handbook For Space Applications.

https://artes.esa.int/sites/default/files/TRL_Handbook.pdf: European Space Agency. 2008.
Till Albert (2015) Measuring Technology Maturity. An Informetric Approach // Dissertation zur
Erlangung der Doktorwürde durch den Promotionsausschuss Dr. rer. pol. der Universität Bremen,
Bremen, 13. Januar 2015
Tillack M. S. et al. (2009) AN EVALUATION OF FUSION ENERGY R&D GAPS USING TECHNOLOGY
READINESS LEVELS. FUSION Sci. Technol., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 949–956, Aug. 2009.
TPMM (2012) Frequently Asked Questions http://www.tpmm.info/FAQs.htm
TRA/TMP Process Implementation Guide (2013) U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Management
Revision 1, August 2013
TRL/CRL Calculator (2018) / NYSERDA Portal. https:/ / portal.nyserda.ny.gov/ servlet/

servlet.FileDownload?file=00Pt0000004FyRNEA0.
Tugurlan C., Kirkham H., Chassin D. (2011) Software Technology Readiness for the Smart Grid.
PNSQC 2011 Proc., pp. 1–11, 2011.
Valerdi R., Kohl R. J. (March 2004) An Approach to Technology Risk Management, Engineering
Systems Division Symposium MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29-31, 2004.
von Ohain J. (1939) Strahltriebwerke, insbesondere fьr Luftfahrzeuge, Patentschrift Nr. 767258, filed for
patent on 12 September 1939, the patent can be found online on the site of the
PDMAhttp://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=einsteiger

PARE Deliverable 2.1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARE Deliverable 2.1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deliverable D2.

Progress towards Flightpath 2050 goals

About this document

PP -Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE - Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

REVISION DATE AUTHOR

1st draft, v. 0.10 22.06.2018 Oleksandr Zaporozhets

1st draft, v. 0.11 30.06.2018 Oleksandr Zaporozhets

2 Meeting societal and market needs 63

3 Maintaining and extending industrial leadership 86

3.1 Retaining and strengthening market share 91

4 Protecting the environment and the energy supply 99

4.1 Reduction of Noise and Emissions 103

5 Ensuring safety and security 113

5.1 Ultra-low accident rate in commercial flight 117

6 Prioritising research, testing capabilities and education 130

1.3 6.3 Test, Simulation and Development Facilities 136

Figure 1.1: Technology Maturity 17

Challenge 5 Goal 20 ―European Research and Innovation Agenda‖

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is a systematic, metric-based assessment of how far

Identify the gaps in testing, demonstration and knowledge of a technology‘s current

Identify at-risk technologies that need increased management attention or additional

Figure 1: NASA TRL scale

Figure 2: Schematic of DOE Technology Readiness Levels (TRA/TMP Guide, 2013)

Figure 3: Risk versus TRL and complexity

Figure 4: Project phases and generalised institutional expectation of TRA outcome

TRA for current project up to TRL6

Production FRR CRR ELR

TRA opportunity for TRL6 TRL7 TRL8 TRL9

Figure 6: Research and Technology Acquisition and Product Development Chart

1 Methodological definition the benchmark of progress from

1.1 Technology maturity assessment

Aging technology is on the downward tail.

Figure 1.1: Technology Maturity

An operationalized technology maturity model consists of manifest variables which can be

Operationalized technology maturity models provide a full measuring model of latent

Is the technology feasible?

Will the technology mature within the required time frame?

Is the technology fit for the required purpose?

The uncertainty of a technology strategy again depends on several aspects, summarized by

maturity state of a technology,

technological position of the system (organization),

reliability of technological assumptions,

dependence of technology on other technologies in that industry, and the

reliability of R&D department‘s plans henceforth.

1.2. Technology Readiness Level of the technology

Figure 1.5: NASA TRL scale

Figure 1.7: Not only in Europe: application on Boeing-747.

1.3. Technology Readiness Assessment

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is a systematic, metric-based assessment of how far

Identify the gaps in testing, demonstration and knowledge of a technology‘s current

Identify at-risk technologies that need increased management attention or additional

Increase the transparency of management decisions by identifying key technologies that

THE MAIN LEVELS IN THE TRL METHOD FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Concept formulated. Practical

Research to Proof-of-concept. Analytical and

Lab-scale demonstration (“low

THE MAIN LEVELS IN THE TRL METHOD FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Prototype system designed. The

Prototype system tested in

Results of testing in its final

Actual system proved successful.

In some cases, for monitoring the technology progress throughout development.

Table 1.5: Colors used in the calculator TRL