Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:29:05.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAEP/9-agreed certification requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard: a comment on ICAO Cir 337

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2016

J.E. Green  and
J.A. Jupp
J.E. Green*
Affiliation:
Royal Aeronautical Society, Greener by Design Group, London, England
J.A. Jupp
Affiliation:
Royal Aeronautical Society, Greener by Design Group, London, England
*
greens@woburnhc.freeserve.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Circular Cir 337 is the first step towards ICAO establishing an Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard to form part of Annex 16, Volume III to the Chicago Convention. It describes itself as ‘a work in progress’. This paper reviews Cir 337 against the background of flight physics, the published literature on aircraft fuel burn and CO2 emissions and the current practices of the aircraft and engine manufacturers and the airline operators. We have taken, as our starting point, the aim of ICAO to reduce the fuel used per revenue tonne-kilometre performed and argue that the Breguet range equation, which captures all the relevant flight physics, should be the basis of the metric system underpinning the standard. Our overall conclusion is that Cir 337 provides an excellent basis for the initial regulation of aviation's CO2 emissions and, further in the future, for developing measures to increase the fuel efficiency of the operational side of civil aviation. Our main criticism of the circular in its current form is that it does not address the ICAO goal of reducing fuel used per revenue tonne-kilometre performed and makes no reference to payload. This defect could be eliminated simply by omission of the exponent 0.24 of the Reference Geometric Factor (RGF) in the formula for the metric given in Chapter 2 (paragraph 2.2) of the circular. Retaining the RGF to the power unity in the metric and multiplying it by an appropriate value of the effective floor loading would convert it to what the 37th Assembly of ICAO called for – a statement of fuel used per revenue tonne-kilometre performed. Finally, correlating the amended metric against design range, as determined from the measured specific air range and the key certificated masses, provides a sound scientific basis for an initial regulation to cap passenger aircraft emissions.

Keywords

CO2 emissions regulationcivil aircraft fuel efficiencyfuel burn metricsBreguet range equationAircraft DesignAir TransportPerformance
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1226 , April 2016 , pp. 693 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

1. High-level meeting on international aviation and climate change, summary of decisions, ICAO HLM-ENV/09-SD/2, Montreal, 7 October 2009. Google Scholar
2. ICAO, Aircraft CO2 Emissions Standard Metric System, ICAO Fact Sheet AN 1/17, July 2012.Google Scholar
3. ICAO, CAEP/9 agreed certification requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard, ICAO Cir 337, AT/192, 2013.Google Scholar
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, US.Google Scholar
5. ICAO, Feasibility assessment of the goal of carbon-neutral growth for international air transport by 2020 (presented by the Peoples Republic of China), ICAO Working Paper A37-WP272 EX/57, September 2010.Google Scholar
6. Cumpsty, N., Alonso, J., Eury, S., Maurice, L., Nas, B., Ralph, M. and Sawyer, R. Report of the independent experts on the medium and long term goals for aviation fuel burn reduction from technology, ICAO Doc 9963, 2010.Google Scholar
7. Poll, D.I.A. On the effect of stage length on the efficiency of air transport, Aeronaut J, May 2011, 115, (1167), pp 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Küchemann, D. The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, 1978, Pergamon, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
9. Creemers, W.L.H. and Slingerland, R. Impact of intermediate stops on long-range jet-transport design, AIAA-2007-7849, 7th Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference (ATIO), 18-20 September 2007, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hahn, A.S. Staging airliner service, AIAA-2007-7759, 7th Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference (ATIO), 18-20 September 2007, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Langhans, S., Linke, F., Nolte, P. and Schneidre, H. System analysis for future long-range operation concepts, ICAS2010-11.3.4, 27th ICAS Congress, Nice, France, 2010.Google Scholar
12. Poll, D.I.A. A first order method for the determination of the leading mass characteristics of civil transport, Aeronaut J, May 2011, 115, (1167), pp 257–272.Google Scholar
13. Poll, D.I.A. On the application of light weight materials to improve aircraft fuel burn – reduce weight or improve aerodynamic efficiency?, Aeronaut J, August 2014, 118, (1206), pp 903–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Henderson, R.P., Martins, J.R.R.A. and Perez, R.E. Aircraft conceptual design for optimal environmental performance, Aeronaut J, January 2012, 116, (1175), pp 1–22.Google Scholar
15. Kenway, G.K., Henderson, R.P., Hicken, J.E., Kuntawala, N.B., Zingg, D.W., Martins, J.R.R.A. and McKeand, R.G. Reducing aviation's environmental impact through large aircraft for short ranges, AIAA 2010-1015, January 2010, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, Orlando, Florida, UK.Google Scholar
16. Green, J.E. Greener by design – the technology challenge, Aeronaut J, February 2002, 106, (1056), pp 57–113.Google Scholar
17. Green, J.E. Küchemann's weight model as applied in the first Greener by design technology sub group report: A correction, adaptation and commentary, Aeronaut J, August 2006, 110, (1110), pp 511–516.Google Scholar
18. Norris, G. Boeing adopts higher weights, more seats for standard performance rules, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 4 August 2015.Google Scholar