Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:43:16.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fuel burn and emissions evaluation for a missed approach procedure performed by a B737-400

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

R. Dancila ,
R. Botez  and
S. Ford
R. Dancila*
Affiliation:
LARCASE, École de technologie supérieure, University of Quebec, Montréal, Canada
R. Botez*
Affiliation:
LARCASE, École de technologie supérieure, University of Quebec, Montréal, Canada
S. Ford
Affiliation:
CMC Electronics-Esterline
*
radu-ioan.dancila.1@ens.etsmtl.ca
ruxandra@gpa.etsmtl.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study conducted at the Laboratoire de recherche en commande active, avionique et aéroservoélasticité, École de technologie supérieure, regarding the costs in fuel burn and pollutant emissions corresponding to a flight profile determined by a missed approach procedure. The evaluated missed approach flight profile starts at the point where the missed approach decision is made and ends at the same point, after the aircraft completes the missed approach procedure.

This study uses the fuel burn and pollutant emissions data for a Boeing 737-400 aircraft (chosen at random for this study), published by the European Environment Agency, and the standard flying cycle model elaborated by Group 08 of the Task Force on Emissions Inventories and Projections – a task force created by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE)/the co-operative program for the monitoring and evaluation of the long-range transmission of air pollutants in the Europe (EMEP). The missed approach fight profile is based on the Area Navigation/Required Navigation Performance procedure for runway 13R of the King County International Airport/Boeing Field (BFI) in Seattle.

Four study cases are considered for the missed approach flight evaluation. These cases correspond to four navigation profiles – a combination of two lateral navigation profiles, one with a 20 nautical miles holding pattern and the other without, and two vertical navigation profiles. The results obtained for the missed approach flight profiles, in terms of fuel burn and emissions, are compared with the fuel burn and emissions reference data corresponding to a standard approach procedure and complete flights (from taxi out to taxi in).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1209 , November 2014 , pp. 1329 - 1348
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

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

References

1. EMEP/CORINAIR. EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, 2006, Section B851, EEA, 2006. Online. http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/group_08.pdf Google Scholar
2. Gagné, J., Murrieta, A., Botez, R. and Labour, D. New method for aircraft fuel saving using Flight Management System and its validation on the L-1011 aircraft, 2013 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference and International Powered Lift Conference (IPLC), Los Angeles, USA.Google Scholar
3. Dancila, B., Botez, R.M. and Labour, D. Fuel burn prediction algorithm for cruise, constant speed and level fight segments, Aeronaut J, 2013, 117, (1191), pp 491–503.Google Scholar
4. Sidibe, S. and Botez, R.M. Trajectory optimization of FMS-CMA 9000 by dynamic programming, 2013, CASI AÉRO 2013 conference, 60th Aeronautics Conference and AGM, Toronto, Canada, 30 April – 2 May.Google Scholar
5. Patron, R.F., Botez, R.M. and Labour, D. Optimized cruise in the presence of winds for the FMS CMA-9000 using genetic algorithms, 2013, CASI AÉRO 2013 conference, 60th Aeronautics Conference and AGM, Toronto, Canada, 30 April – 2 May.Google Scholar
6. Fays, J. and Botez, R.M. Algorithm for the aircraft trajectories considering no-fy-zones for a fight management system, The INCAS Bulletin, 2013, 5, (3).Google Scholar
7. Group 08 of Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections. B851_annex.zip, EEA, 2011. Online. <http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/B851_annex.zip>>Google Scholar
8. EMEP/CORINAIR. EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook -2006, EEA, 2006. Online. <http://http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4>>Google Scholar
9. Federal Aviation Administration. Seattle /Boeing Field /King County INTL (BFI), RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13R, FAA, 2012. Online. <http://fightaware.com/resources/airport/BFI/IAP/RNAV+(RNP)+Z+RWY+13R/pdf>>Google Scholar
10. Filippone, A. Comprehensive analysis of transport aircraft fight performance, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, April 2008, 44, (3), pp 192–236. Online. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042107000826>>Google Scholar
11. Brasseur, G.P. et al European scientifc assessment of the atmospheric effects of aircraft emissions, Atmospheric Environment, 1 July 1998, 32, (13), pp 2329–2418. Online. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223109700486X>>Google Scholar
12. Lee, S.H. et al Further considerations of engine emissions from subsonic aircraft at cruise altitude, Atmospheric Environment, November 1996, 30, (22), pp 3689–3695. Online. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1352231096001136>>Google Scholar
13. Anderson, B.E., Chen, G. and Blake, D.R. Hydrocarbon emissions from a modern commercial airliner, Atmospheric Environment, June 2006, 40, (19), pp 3601–3612. Online. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231005009295>>Google Scholar
14. Döpelheue, A. Aircraft emission parameter modeling, Air & Space Europe, May–June 2000, 2, (3), pp 34–37. Online. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S129009580080060X>>Google Scholar
15. Mahashabde, A. et al Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise and emissions, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, January 2011, 47, (1), pp 15–52. Online. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042110000382>>Google Scholar
16. Romano, D., Gaudioso, D. and De Lauretis, R. Aircraft emissions: a comparison of methodologies based on different data availability, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, May 1999, 56, (1), pp 51–74. Online. <http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1005972024261>>Google Scholar
17. Mazaheri, M., Johnson, G.R. and Morawska, L. Particle and gaseous emissions from commercial aircraft at each stage of the landing and takeoff cycle, Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43, (2), pp 441–446, Online. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es8013985>>Google Scholar