Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:16:24.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New method to compute the missed approach fuel consumption and its emissions

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

A. Murrieta-Mendoza  and
R. M. Botez
A. Murrieta-Mendoza
Affiliation:
Université du Québec – École de Technologie Supérieure – LARCASE, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
R. M. Botez*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec – École de Technologie Supérieure – LARCASE, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aeronautical industry has set for itself important environmental goals, creating the need of improved tools for measuring the polluting emissions generated by fuel burn. This paper describes a new method to estimate the fuel burn and the pollution generated by a landing approach and also for a missed approach procedure. Fuel emission estimations can be used to compare the costs of different routes. The method developed in this paper uses the Emissions Guide Book developed by the European Environment Agency as the needed database for the computations. This method gives estimations of the fuel burn and emissions, including the amounts of CO, NOx, HC, EICO, EINOx and EIHC for a given flight as its output. The flight computation is divided into two sections: one section for the aircraft's travelled distance and a second section for the time an aircraft flies under certain flight modes. Since this method computes the missed approach fuel and emissions contribution, it computes the burn for a given descent approach for a successful landing, as well as for the same descent approach with a missed approach procedure followed by a successful landing. These two landings are verified in a complete flight to study the missed approach contribution for a conventional mid-range flight. The results show that a descent with the missed approach procedure requires 5.7 times more fuel than a normal, successful descent. This extra fuel burn increases the pollution released to the atmosphere and would impact the airlines’ profit margin due to the added fuel costs and longer flight times, as well as any future economic measures imposed on the increased air and noise pollution.

Keywords

Missed approachgo-aroundemissionscalculationFlight Management Systeminterpolationaircraftlanding
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1228 , June 2016 , pp. 910 - 929
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.IATA. Vision 2050, 2011, International Air Transport Association, Singapore, p 87.Google Scholar
2.ICAO. Aviation's contribution to climate change, International Civil Aviation Organization, 2010, Montreal, Canada, p 260.Google Scholar
3.Black, D.A., Black, J.A., Issarayangyun, T. and Samuels, S.E.Aircraft noise exposure and resident's stress and hypertension: A public health perspective for airport environmental management. J Air Transport Management, 2007, 13, (5), pp 264–276. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.04.003.Google Scholar
4.Prats, X., Quevedo, J. and Puig, V. Trajectory management for aircraft noise mitigation, ENRI International Workshop on ATM/CNS, 2009, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
5.Civil Aviation Authority The noise benefits associated with use of continuous descent approach and low power/low drag approach procedures at Heathrow Airport. Analysis Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis, 1978, London, UK.Google Scholar
6.Clarke, J.P., Brooks, J., Nagle, G., Scacchioli, A., White, W. and Liu, S.R.Optimized profile descent arrivals at Los Angeles International Airport. J Aircraft, 2013, 50, (2), pp 360–369. doi:http:/dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.c031529.Google Scholar
7.Novak, D., Buckai, T. and Dadisic, T.Development, design and flight test evaluation of continuous descent approach procedure in FIR Zagreb, Scientific J on Traffic and Transportation Research, 2009, 21, (5), pp 319–329. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v21i5.247.Google Scholar
8.Sprong, K.R., Klein, K.A., Shiotsuki, C., Arrighi, J. and Liu, S. Analysis of AIRE continuous descent arrival operations at Atlanta and Miami, IEEE/AIAA 27th 2008 Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 26-30 October 2008, St. Paul, Minnesota, US, pp 3.A.5-1-3.A.5-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Kwok-On, T., Daniel, B. and Anthony, W. Development of continuous descent arrival (CDA) procedures for dual-runway operations at Houston Intercontinental. 6th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference (ATIO), 2006, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
10.De Lépinay, I., Dimitriu, D. and Melrose, A. Environmental impact assessment of continuous descent approaches at Manchester and Bucharest Airports, 35th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, INTER-NOISE 2006. vol. 6, Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, 2006, Honolulu, Hawaii, US, pp 3856–3863.Google Scholar
11.Kwok-On, T., Anthony, W. and John, B. Continuous descent approach procedure development for noise abatement tests at Louisville International Airport, KY, AIAA's 3rd Annual Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Forum, 2003, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Denver, Colorado, US. doi: 10.2514/MATIO03.Google Scholar
12.Stell, L. Predictability of top of descent location for operational idle-thrust descents, 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, 2010, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Fort Worth, Texas, US.Google Scholar
13.Roberson, W. and Johns, J.A. Fuel conservation strategies: Descent and approach. Aero, Vol. QTR_02-10, Boeing, 2010, p 4. Available at: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/5/.Google Scholar
14.Murrieta-Mendoza, A., Botez, R. and Ford, S. Estimation of fuel consumption and polluting emissions generated during the missed approach procedure, 33rd IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification, and Control (MIC 2014), 2014, ACTA Press, Innsbruck, Austria. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2316/P.2014.809-040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Dancila, R., Botez, R.M. and Ford, S.Fuel burn and emissions evaluation for a missed approach procedure performed by a B737-400, Aeronautical J, 2014, 118, (1209), p 20.Google Scholar
16.Jeddi, B.G. and Shortle, J.F. Throughput, risk, and economic optimality of runway landing operations, ATM Seminar, 2007, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
17.Félix-Patrón, R.S., Botez, R.M. and Labour, D.New altitude optimisation algorithm for the flight management system CMA-9000 improvement on the A310 and L-1011 aircraft, Aeronautical J, 2013, 117, (1194), pp 787–805.Google Scholar
18.Murrieta-Mendoza, A., Beuze, B., Ternisien, L. and Botez, R. Branch & bound-based algorithm for aircraft VNAV profile reference trajectory optimization, 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Aviation Forum, 2015, AIAA, Dallas, Texas, US. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-2280.Google Scholar
19.Félix-Patrón, R.S., Berrou, Y. and Botez, R.M.New methods of optimization of the flight profiles for performance database-modeled aircraft. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 2014, 229, (10), pp 1853–1867. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954410014561772.Google Scholar
20.Félix-Patrón, R.S., Kessaci, A. and Botez, R. Horizontal flight trajectories optimisation for commercial aircraft through a flight management system. Aeronautical J, 2014, 118, (1210), p 20.Google Scholar
21.Felix-Patron, R., Kessaci, A. and Botez, R.M. Flight trajectories optimization under the influence of winds using genetic algorithms, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference, 2013, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Boston, Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
22.Félix Patrón, R.S., Berrou, Y. and Botez, R.M. Climb, cruise and descent 3D trajectory optimization algorithm for a flight management system, AIAA/3AF Aircraft Noise and Emissions Reduction Symposium, 16-20 June 2014, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Atlanta, Georgia, US.Google Scholar
23.Murrieta-Mendoza, A. and Botez, R.M. Lateral navigation optimization considering winds and temperatures for fixed altitude cruise using the Dijkstra's algorithm, International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, 2014, Montreal, Canada. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2014-37570.Google Scholar
24.Gagné, J., Murrieta-Mendoza, A., Botez, R. and Labour, D. New method for aircraft fuel saving using Flight Management System and its validation on the L-1011 aircraft. Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 12-14 August 2013, Los Angeles, California, US. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4290.Google Scholar
25.Murrieta-Mendoza, A. and Botez, R.M. Vertical navigation trajectory optimization algorithm for a commercial aircraft, AIAA/3AF Aircraft Noise and Emissions Reduction Symposium, 2014, Atlanta, Georgia, US. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-3019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Dancila, B., Botez, R.M. and Labour, D. Fuel burn prediction algorithm for cruise, constant speed and level flight segments. Aeronatuical J, 2013, 117, (1191), pp 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Félix-Patrón, R.S., Schindler, M. and Botez, R.M. Aircraft trajectories optimization by genetic algorithms to reduce flight cost using a dynamic weather model, 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 22-26 June 2015, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dallas, Texas, US.Google Scholar
28.EMEP/CORINAIR. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook. 3rd ed., 2012, European Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/emep-eea-air-pollutant-emission-inventory-guidebook.Google Scholar
29.Randt, P.N., Jessberger, C. and Ploetner, K.O. Estimatng the fuel saving potential of commercial aircraft in future fleet-development scenarios, 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2015, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dallas, Texas, US.Google Scholar
30.Murphy, C.M., Miller, B. and Sherry, L. Effects of fuel price on total fuel burn and system capacity – an analysis of advanced engine and airframe technology and airline responses to changes in fuel price, 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2015, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dallas, Texas, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Pham, V.V., Tang, J., Alam, S., Lokan, C. and Abbass, H.A.Aviation emission inventory development and analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2010, 25, (12), pp 1738–1753. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.04.004.Google Scholar
32.Soler-Arnedo, M., Hansen, M. and Zou, B. Contrail sensitive 4D trajectory planning with flight level allocation using multiphase mixed-integer optimal control, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) Conference, 2013, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Murrieta-Mendoza, A. and Botez, R.M. Method to calculate aircraft VNAV trajectory cost using a performance database, International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, 2014, Montreal, Canada. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2014-37568.Google Scholar
34.Murrieta-Mendoza, A. and Botez, R. M.Methodology for vertical-navigation flight-trajectory cost calculation using a performance database. J Aerospace Information Systems, 2015, 12, (8), pp 519–532. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.I010347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Gleim, I.N. and Gleim, G.W.Airline Transport Pilot FAA Knowledge Test Book, 2015, Gleim Publishing, Gainesville, Florida, US.Google Scholar