category - tfeip secretariattfeip-secretariat.org/assets/guidebook-updates/may2016... · web viewa...

Draft Not To Be Quoted 1.A.3.a, 1.A.5.b Aviation

Category TitleNFR: 1.A.3.a, 1.A.5.b

*Civil and military aviation

SNAP: 080501

080502

080503

080504

080100

Domestic airport traffic (LTO cycles — <= 3000 ft (914.4 m))

International airport traffic (LTO cycles — <= 3000 ft (914.4 m))

Domestic cruise traffic ( > 3000 ft (914.4 m))

International cruise traffic ( > 3000 ft (914.4 m))

Military aviationISIC:

Version

Guidebook 20132016

Update history

Updated August April 20142016

For details of past updates please refer to the chapter update log available at the online Guidebook website http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013/

Lead authorsMorten Winther, Kristin Rypdal

Contributing authors (including to earlier versions of this chapter)Lene Sørensen, Manfred Kalivoda, Monica Bukovnik, Niels Kilde, Riccardo De Lauretis, Robert Falk, Daniela Romano, Robin Deransy, Laurent Box, Laura Carbo, Nuria Torres-Meana, Mark Whiteley.

Draft Not To Be Quoted 1

1

123

456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013/

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013/


Contents

1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................32 Description of sources ...............................................................................................................4

2.1 Aircraft engines emissions ..................................................................................................42.2 Techniques ..........................................................................................................................52.3 Activities related to flight movements .................................................................................92.4 Categories of flights included in activities ........................................................................102.5 Contribution from aviation to the combustion emissions from mobile sources ................112.6 Controls .............................................................................................................................11

3 Methods ..................................................................................................................................143.1 Choice of method ..............................................................................................................143.2 Tier 1 fuel-based methodology ..........................................................................................203.3 Tier 2 method ....................................................................................................................233.4 Tier 3 flight- and aircraft-type methodology .....................................................................293.5 Emission species profiles ..................................................................................................34

4 Data quality .............................................................................................................................374.1 Completeness ....................................................................................................................374.2 Double counting with other sectors ...................................................................................384.3 Verification .......................................................................................................................384.4 Uncertainty assessment .....................................................................................................384.5 Inventory quality assurance/quality control QA/QC .........................................................394.6 Gridding ............................................................................................................................394.7 Reporting and documentation ............................................................................................394.8 Areas for improvements in current methodology ..............................................................40

5 Glossary and abbreviations .....................................................................................................406 References ...............................................................................................................................41

6.1 Additional sources .............................................................................................................427 Point of enquiry .......................................................................................................................42Appendix A Projections ...........................................................................................................43Appendix B Additional comments on emission factors ...........................................................47Appendix C BC fractions of PM emissions from aviation .......................................................48Appendix D EUROCONTROL Fuel burn and emissions inventory system ............................52Appendix E A further description of emission species ............................................................54


2

2930

31

32333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465


1 OverviewThe scope of the emissions to be included comprises the civil aviation portion of combustion emissions from mobile sources that concerns the movement of people and/or freight by air. The activities comprise:

1. international airport traffic (LTO-cycles <= 3 000 ft (914.4 m) (1);

2. international cruise traffic (> 3 000 ft (914.4 m));

3. domestic airport traffic (LTO-cycles <= 3 000 ft (914.4 m));

4. domestic cruise traffic (> 3 000 ft (914.4 m)).

The scope of the emissions to be included comprises civil commercial use of airplanes, including scheduled and charter traffic for passengers and freight, air taxiing and general aviation. The international/domestic split should be determined on the basis of departure and landing locations for each flight stage and not by the nationality of the airline. Fuel used at airports for ground transport should be excluded from these NFR codes, and are reported under 1.A.5.b, Other Mobile. Fuel for stationary combustion at airports should also be excluded and reported under the appropriate stationary combustion category.

The importance of this sector ranges from negligible to quite significant for some pollutants’ contribution to the inventories for many countries. Importantly, emissions from this sector are often increasing at a higher rate than for many other sources. The major pollutants generated from these activities are CO2 and NOx, but with important contributions of CO, hydrocarbons and SO2.

Reporting

Inventory compilers should note that differences exist for the reporting of domestic LTO and cruise (SNAP codes 080501 and 080503, respectively) and international LTO and cruise (SNAP codes 080502 and 080504, respectively) between a) the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Convention and National Emissions Ceiling (NEC) Directive, and b) EU-MM and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Specifically, these instruments contain different definitions concerning whether the domestic and international LTO/cruise elements should be included within the reported national totals, or should be reported as additional ‘memo items’. The UNECE Reporting Guidelines ( 2) provide the definitions for reporting of emissions to the LRTAP Convention. Any questions concerning reporting of emissions to the Convention should be addressed to the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) Centre on Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP).

1() LTO is an abbreviation for the Landing and Take-Off cycle. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) defines the LTO cycle as those activities occurring below up a height of 3 000 feet (914.4 m) above ground level - See ICAO Doc 9889.2() Available at http://www.ceip.at


3

66

676869

70

71

72

73

74757677787980

8182838485

86

87

888990919293949596979899

100

101

4567

http://www.ceip.at/


2 Description of sources

2.1 Aircraft engines emissionsCombustion of hydrocarbons produces a variety of gases (such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and water) and particulates. Each of these substances is considered a distinct emission species (also called chemical species). Depending on context and convention, some distinct chemical species may be considered as a single emission species. [Potter, 2007]

The emission species produced by aviation mainly come from the combustion of jet fuel and aviation gasoline (the latter only for small aircraft and helicopters equipped with piston engines) that are used as fuel for the aircraft. The main emission species produced are:

carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), water vapour (H2O), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOX), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), and particulate matter (PM).

Figure 2-1 below depicts the air flow that goes through an engine of an aircraft and the emission species resulting from the combustion process. Other than the fuel burnt, the main output is compounded by carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H20). Other emissions in smaller quantities are also output in the process. In addition, the second part of the picture gives an idea of the proportions of each input and output gas.


8

102

103

104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128


Figure 2-1: Aircraft fuel combustion [Wuebbles et al., 2007]

2.2 Techniques

2.2.1 Aircraft enginesAs shown in Figure 2-2, the main types of aircraft engines are:

reciprocating (piston) engines, and gas turbine engines.

A reciprocating (piston) engine uses piston and crank mechanisms to extract the energy from fuel burned in a combustion chamber. This drives the propellers to give the aircraft momentum.

A gas turbine engine compresses air before burning fuel in a combustion chamber, thereby heating it. The major part of the energy produced is used for propelling the aircraft, whilst a minor portion is used to drive the turbine, which drives the compressor. There are 3 main types of gas turbine engine: Jet (J) engines, which include Turbojet and Turbofan engines; Turboprop engines (TP); and Turboshaft engines (TS). Turbojet engines use only energy from the expanding exhaust stream for propulsion, whereas turbofan and turboprop engines use energy from the turbine to drive a fan or propeller respectively for propulsion. Turboshaft engines are a form of gas turbine engine which is


9

129

130

131

132

133

134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150


optimized to produce shaft power rather than thrust. Turboshaft engines are commonly used in applications, such as helicopters and aircraft auxiliary power units, that require a sustained high power output, high reliability, small size, and light weight.Note that no APU are quantified in the calculation of emissions, but only the main engines of each aircraft.

Figure 2-2: Aircraft engine types

Table 2-1: Flight movements in Europe per aircraft type, 2015

ICAO

Code

Aircraft name Nb

Engines

Engin

e type

% of

Mvts

Cumu

l. %

Mvts

Most used engines equipping this

aircraft

B738 BOEING 737-800 2 J 16.7%

16.7%

CFM56-7B26, CFM56-7B24, CFM56-7B22

A320 AIRBUS A-320 2 J 16.3%

33.0%

CFM56-5B4/P, V2527-A5

A319 AIRBUS A-319 2 J 9.6% 42.7%

CFM56-5B5/P, CFM56-5B6/P

A321 AIRBUS A-321 2 J 5.5% 48.2%

V2533-A5, CFM56-5B3/P

E190 EMBRAER ERJ-190 2 J 3.4% 51.6%

CF34-10E

DH8D

DHC-8-400 DASH 8 2 TP 3.2% 54.8%

PW150A

B737 BOEING 737-700 2 J 2.1% 56.8%

CFM56-7B24, CFM56-7B22, CFM56-7B20

A332 AIRBUS A-330-200 2 J 1.6% 58.4%

TRENT 772B-60, CF6-80E1A3, PW4168A

CRJ9 CRJ-900 REGIONAL JET 2 J 1.6% 60.0 CF34-8C5


10

151152153154155

156

157

158


%B77W

BOEING 777-300ER 2 J 1.5% 61.5%

GE90-115B, GE90-115BL2

E170 EMBRAER 170 2 J 1.4% 62.9%

CF34-8E5

AT75 ATR-72-500 2 TP 1.3% 64.2%

PW127F, PW127

A333 AIRBUS A-330-300 2 J 1.3% 65.4%

TRENT 772B-60, PW4168A, CF6-80E1A2

B763 BOEING 767-300 2 J 1.3% 66.7%

PW4060, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B6

B733 BOEING 737-300 2 J 1.2% 67.9%

CFM56-3B1, CFM56-3C1, CFM56-3B2

B752 BOEING 757-200 2 J 1.2% 69.1%

RB211-535E4, RB211-535E4-B, RB211-535C

AT72 ATR-72-200 2 TP 1.0% 70.1%

PW124B

B772 BOEING 777-200 2 J 1.0% 71.1%

GE90-94B, GE90-85B, TRENT 892

B744 BOEING 747-400 4 J 1.0% 72.1%

CF6-80C2B1F, RB211-524H2, PW4056

DH8A DHC-8-100 DASH 8 2 TP 0.9% 73.0%

PW120A

E145 EMBRAER EMB-145 2 J 0.8% 73.8%

AE3007A, AE3007A1

B734 BOEING 737-400 2 J 0.8% 74.6%

CFM56-3C1

B736 BOEING 737-600 2 J 0.7% 75.3%

CFM56-7B20

RJ1H RJ-100 AVROLINER 4 J 0.7% 76.0%

LF507-1F

AT76 ATR-72-600 2 TP 0.6% 76.6%

PW127M

B788 BOEING 787-8 DREAMLINER 2 J 0.6% 77.2%

GENX-64B, TRENT 1000

B735 BOEING 737-500 2 J 0.6% 77.8%

CFM56-3B1, CFM56-3C1

BE20 SUPER KING AIR 200 2 TP 0.6% 78.4%

PT6A-42, PT6A-41

C56X CITATION XLS 2 J 0.6% 78.9%

PW545B

F100 FOKKER 100 2 J 0.5% 79.4%

TAY 650-15

SB20 SAAB 2000 2 TP 0.5% 80.0%

GMA2100A

A388 AIRBUS A-380-800 4 J 0.5% 80.5 TRENT 970-84, GP7270


11


%Data source: EUROCONTROL - STATFOR

Notes: J: turbofan or turbojet, TP: turboprop

Table 2-1 presents the most used engine types for each of the most used aircraft types flying IFR3 in the European airspace in 2015. It shows that 80% of the IFR flight movements in Europe are performed by only 31different types of aircraft, which represents a -% out of 546 different types of aircraft identified by EUROCONTROL-STATFOR. Each aircraft is of a type that is designated by an ICAO code as defined in the ICAO Doc 8643 - Aircraft Type Designators. For example, B738 designates a Boeing 737-800 (amongst others models of the same type), which is an aircraft with 2 jet engines. In Europe in 2015, the B738 aircraft fleet was mainly equipped with the following engines: CFM56-7B26, CFM56-7B24, and CFM56-7B22. B738 flights accounted for 16.7% of the total of 9,888,590 IFR flight movements in the European airspace in 2015.

2.2.2 Phases of flightAs illustrated on Figure 2-3, a typical aircraft flight includes several phases of flight which are:

1. taxi-out, 2. take-off, 3. climb-out,4. climb, 5. cruise, 6. descent,7. final approach, 8. landing, and9. taxi-in.

3 flights flying under civil instrument flight rules


12

159160161162163164165166167168169170171172

173

174175176177178179180181182183184185

1314


Figure 2-3: Typical phases of flight (source: EUROCONTROL)

Taxi-out is the controlled movement of an aircraft on the ground, under its own power, between its parking area and the point of the runway from which its taking-off operations will occur.

Take-off is the phase of flight in which an aircraft goes from the runway to flying in the air.

Climb - which on Figure 2-3 is decomposed into climb-out and climb - is the phase of flight during which the aircraft ascents to a predetermined cruising altitude after take-off. Although a single climb phase is typical, multiple step climb phases may also occur.

Cruise occurs between climb and descent phases and is usually the greater part of a journey. It ends as the aircraft approaches the destination where the descent phase of flight commences in preparation for landing. During the cruise phase, due to operational or air traffic control reasons, aircraft may climb or descent from one flight level to a higher or lower flight level. For very long flights, aircraft are able to fly higher as the weight of fuel aboard decreases. Usually, pilots request Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) to fly at the optimum flight level of the aircraft they are operating. This optimum flight level is dependent of the type of the aircraft, its operating weight, and the length of the flight, among others. And ATC generally accepts this request if it does not jeopardize safety.Higher flight levels are generally more fuel-efficient. For most commercial passenger aircraft, the cruise phase of flight consumes the majority of the fuel.

Descent is the phase of flight during which the aircraft decreases its altitude in preparation for landing and is the opposite of a climb. As for the climb, descent could be continuous or stepped due to operational or air traffic control reasons; continuous descent being the more fuel efficient operation.


15

186

187

188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214


Final approach is the last leg in an aircraft's approach to landing, when the aircraft is lined up with the runway and descending for landing.

Landing is the part of a flight where an aircraft returns to the ground up to the point where taxi-in starts.

Taxi-in is the movement of an aircraft on the ground, under its own power, that occurs from the point where the aircraft turns off the landing runway (after returning to normal taxi speed) to the point where it will park on the ground and shut down its engines.

2.3 Activities related to flight movementsIn this document, a flight movement starts when the aircraft begins taxiing out and finishes when the aircraft comes to a stop after taxiing in.

Exhaust emissions from aviation arise from the combustion of jet fuel and aviation gasoline. They arise during all activities related to flight movements and can be grouped into groups of activities as shown on (Source: EUROCONTROL) and listed below:

Pre-departure activities; Departure activities; En routeClimb/Cruise/Descent (CCD) activities; Emergency activities; Arrival activities;

Post-arrival activities;Maintenance activities.

Figure 2-4: Activities related to flight movements


16

215216217218219220221222223224

225

226227228229230231232233234235236237238239

240

241

242

243

244


(Source: EUROCONTROL)

Figure 2-5: Activities related to flight movements (source: EUROCONTROL)

Out of the activities related to flight movements listed above, the three main activities for which global fuel used and emissions inventory is possible are:

Departure activities, En routeCCD activities, and Arrival activities.

As illustrated in Figure 2-6:

Departure includes activities near the airport that take place below a height of 3000 feet (914.4 meters). It includes taxi-out, take-off and climb-out.

En routeCCD (‘Cruise’) is defined as all activities that take place above 3000 feet (914.4 meters). No upper limit of height is given. En routeCCD includes the climb from the end of the climb-out up to the cruise altitude, the cruise itself, and the descent from the cruise altitude to the start of the Arrival.

Arrival includes activities near the airport that take place below a height of 3000 feet (914.4 meters). It includes final approach, landing, and taxi-in phases of flight.

Note:In the aviation inventory domain, activities taking place during the Departure and Arrival phases of flight are added and reported together as Landing and Take-Off or LTO activities, while activities taking place during the Climb/Cruise/Descent (CCD) phases of flight are added and reported together as “’Cruise”’ activities.Activities taking place in the Departure and Arrival phases of flight are often added together and called Landing and Take-Off or LTO activities.


17

245

246

247

248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266

267


Figure 2-6: Aviation inventory activities versus typical phases of flight (source: EUROCONTROL)

2.4 Categories of flights included in activitiesIn principle, there are 4 categories of flight movements that should be included in aviation activities in a country. These categories are:

category 1 — Civil instrument flight rule (IFR) flights; category 2 — Civil visual flight rule (VFR) flights, also called general aviation; category 3 — Civil helicopters; category 4 — Operational military flights.

However, some categories might suffer from scarce or confidential data to be included or accounted as thoroughly as the other categories in aviation activities of a country.

Category 1 – Civil IFR flights: the category from which most emissions originate. Flight data movements are often recorded for this category of aircraft and methods for estimating the amount of fuel burn and emissions generated by this category are quite mature. Aircraft in category 1 can be classified according to the type of engine they are equipped with: turbojet, turboprop, or piston.

Category 2 - Civil VFR flights: concerns small aircraft used for leisure, agriculture, taxi flights, etc. Civil VFR flights are generally turboprop or piston engine-equipped aircraft.


18

268

269

270

271

272

273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292


Category 3 - Helicopters: concerns all types of rotorcraft. Helicopters are often operated under VFR and rarely under IFR. Therefore, it might be difficult to collect precise information on helicopter movements in a country. Today, most helicopters use turboshaft engines to power their rotors but some small helicopters still use piston engines. It should be noted that the phases of flight schematically represented in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-6 do not fit to the way helicopters manoeuvre.

Category 4 - Military aircraft: is in principle included in national inventories but the reporting of the emissions from military aircraft is under NFR code 1.A.5, and not 1.A.3.a. However, there may be some difficulties in estimating these activities due to scarce and often confidential military data. Some movements of military aircraft such as non-operational activities might be included in category 1.

2.5 Contribution from aviation to the combustion emissions from mobile sources

Figure 2-7 summarises the contribution of aviation to the combustion emissions from mobile sources.


19

293294295296297298299300301302303304305

306

307

308309310


Figure 2-7: Contribution from aviation to the combustion emissions from mobile sources.

Aviation exhaust emissions are categorised as being International or Domestic depending on whether the arrival airport is, or is not, in the same state as the departure airport (see Table 3-6).

2.6 ControlsCurrent environmental activities of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are largely undertaken through the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which was established by the Council in 1983. CAEP assists the Council in formulating new


20

311

312

313

314315316317

318

319320321


policies and adopting new Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) related to aircraft noise and emissions, and more generally to aviation environmental impact.

So far, the emission species regulated are: oxides of nitrogen (most recently updated in 2005); carbon monoxide (most recently updated in 1997); unburned hydrocarbon (most recently updated in 1984); and engine smoke.

The regulations published by ICAO, against which engines are certificated, are given in the form of the total quantity of pollutants (Dp) emitted in an LTO-cycle divided by the maximum sea level thrust (Foo) and plotted against engine pressure ratio at maximum sea level thrust.

Table 2-2 shows engine power settings and times-in-mode for the LTO-cycle specified by ICAO [ICAO, 2008].

Table 2-2: Default ICAO LTO cycle engine thrust settings and times in mode

Operating mode Thrust setting Time in operating mode(minutes)

Take-off 100 % Foo 0.7Climb-out 85 % Foo 2.2Approach-landing 30 % Foo 4.0Taxi/ground idle 7 % Foo 26.0

The ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank is a databank maintained by The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on behalf of ICAO that contains information on exhaust emissions (provided by engine manufacturers) for turbojet and turbofan engines that have entered production [ICAO 1995].

For turboprop engines, the Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI maintains a confidential database of emission indices (EI) of NOX, HC and CO with corresponding fuel flows. The datasheets composing this database have been supplied by the turboprop engine manufacturers, originally for the purposes of calculating emissions-related landing charges. The database can be requested via the dedicated webpage [FOI 2016].

The only source for emission data for piston engine aircraft is provided by the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is responsible for aviation development and the supervision of civil aviation activities in Switzerland. Note: In February 2016, under CAEP recommendation, a new CO2 emissions standard has been established, and was unanimously recommended by the 170 international experts on ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), paving the way for its ultimate adoption by the UN agency’s 36-State Governing Council. The standard would not only be applicable to new aircraft type designs as of 2020, but also to new deliveries of current in-production aircraft types from 2023. A cut-off date of 2028 for production of aircraft that do not comply with the standard was also recommended. In its current form the standard


21

322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336

337

338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353


equitably acknowledges CO2 reductions arising from a range of possible technology innovations, whether structural, aerodynamic or propulsion-based. The proposed global standard is especially stringent where it will have the greatest impact: for larger aircraft. Operations of aircraft weighing over 60 tonnes account for more than 90% of international aviation emissions. They also have access to the broadest range of emission reduction technologies, which the standard recognizes. But great care was also taken by the CAEP to ensure that the proposed Standard covers the full range of sizes and types of aircraft used in international aviation today. Its solution therefore comprehensively encompasses all technological feasibility, emission reduction potential, and cost considerations. [Slightly adapted from ICAO Newsroom 2016]

Contribution of air traffic to total emissions:The total contribution of aircraft emissions to total global anthropogenic CO2 emissions is considered to be about 2 % [IPCC, 1999]. This relatively small contribution to global emissions should be seen in relation to the fact that most aircraft emissions are injected almost directly into the upper free troposphere and lower stratosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that the contribution to radiative forcing is about 3.5 %. The importance of this source is growing as the volume of air traffic is steadily increasing.

The importance of air traffic in Europe for various air pollutants is illustrated in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Percentage contributions (min, max) made by the aviation sector to national total emissions reported by EU-27 Member States for years 1990 and 2013.

Domestic and international LTO (%)

International cruise (%) Domestic cruise (%)

1990 2013 1990 2013 1990 2013CO 0 - 0.9 0 - 5.6 0 - 1.1 0 - 1.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 1.4NMVOC 0 - 0.3 0 - 1.7 0 - 1.4 0 - 0.5 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.9NOx 0 - 2.2 0 - 4.3 0 - 3.6 0 - 17 0 – 1.0 0 - 2.3PM10 0 - 1.1 0 - 1.5 0 - 3.1 0 - 4.8 0 - 0.1 0 - 0.2PM2.5 0 - 0.8 0 - 1.9 0 - 5.8 0 - 7.6 0 - 0.1 0 - 0.2SOx 0 - 0.1 0 - 2.7 0 - 1.1 0 - 5.4 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.5

Data source: EEA Dataservice (2016)

2.7 Process descriptionExhaust emissions from aviation arise from the combustion of jet fuel (jet kerosene and jet gasoline) and aviation gasoline. They arise during the two activities illustrated in Figure 2-1.


22

354355356357358359360361362363364

365366

367

368369


Figure 2-8 Flow diagram for the contribution from aviation to mobile sources combustion emissions

The landing and take-off cycle includes all activities near the airport that take place below a height of 3 000 ft (914 m). This therefore includes taxi-in and -out, take-off, climb-out and approach-landing.

Cruise is defined as all activities that take place above 3 000 ft (914 m). No upper limit of height is given. Cruise in this handbook includes climb from the end of climb-out in the LTO cycle to the cruise altitude, cruise and the descent from cruise altitude to the start of LTO operations of landing. Figure 2-2 below illustrates the standard flying cycles.


Takeoffand

Landing

Fuellingof

aircraft

Fuel

CruiseInternationalDestination

Domestic Destination

23

370

371372

373374375

376377378379

380


Figure 2-2 Standard flying cycles

In principle, the activities include all flights in a country. Civil air traffic (which includes general aviation) is often divided into three categories with operational military flights making a fourth category:

category 1 — Civil instrument flight rule (IFR) flights;

category 2 — Civil visual flight rule (VFR) flights, also called general aviation;

category 3 — Civil helicopters;

category 4 — Operational military flights.

Flight data are often recorded for category 1 only, and most emissions will originate here. Category 2 contains small aircraft used for leisure, agriculture, taxi flights, etc.

Data are mostly available for turbofans, but estimates also have to be made from turboprop and piston engine aircraft (which are currently not subject to any emissions regulation).

Aircraft in category 1 can be classified into types and engines as outlined in Table 2-1. This table presents aircraft and engines most frequently used in European and American aviation, although other engines may be used in significant numbers. Also note that some large long-distance planes not on this list may be important for fuel consumption (e.g. DC10, A340). In addition, emissions from turboprop aircraft may be significant in national aviation in some countries. More types and engines exist and jet engines can be seen in International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) (1995) or in the ICAO online databank hosted by the UK Aviation Authority (www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=90).

Military aircraft activities (category 4) are in principle included in the inventory. There may, however, be some difficulties in estimating these due to scarce and often confidential military data. One should also be aware that some movements of military aircraft might be included in category 1, for example non-operational activities.

Other emissions arise from the following activities:

start up of engines,

auxiliary power operation,

fuel dumping in emergencies,

fuelling and fuel handling,

maintenance of aircraft engines,

painting of aircraft,

service vehicles for catering and other services,

anti-icing and de-icing of aircraft with much of the substances used flowing off the wings during idle, taxi, and take-off and evaporates.

Emissions from start up of engines

There is currently little information available to estimate emissions from start up of engines and these are not included in the LTO cycle. This is not of great importance for total national emissions, but they may have an impact on the air quality in the vicinity of airports.


24

381

382

383384385

386

387

388

389

390391

392393

394395396397398399400401

402403404405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414415

416

417418419

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702&pagetype=90


Auxiliary power operations

Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) are used where no other power source is available for the aircraft and may vary from airport to airport. This is the case, for example, when the aircraft is parked away from the terminal building. The APU fuel use and the related emissions should be allocated on the basis of aircraft operations (number of landings and take-offs). However, no methodology has currently been developed. The use of APUs is being severely restricted at some airports to maintain air quality, and therefore this source of fuel use and emissions may be declining. In total terms, the fuel consumption and emission contribution from this source is regarded as very small (Winther et al., 2006).

Fuel dumping in emergencies

From time to time aircraft will have to dump fuel before landing so that they do not exceed a certain maximum landing weight. This is done at a location and altitude where there will be no local impact at ground level. Only large long-range aircraft will dump fuel. Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) emissions might become significant at very large airports with frequent long distance flights. However, since the most probable altitude of these emissions will be above 1 000 m, these are currently not relevant for United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) reporting. The airport authorities and airline companies might give information on the extent (frequency and amount) of dumping and the altitude at particular airports.

[2.2] TechniquesIn general there are two types of engines: reciprocating piston engines and gas turbines. Reciprocating piston engines extract the energy from fuel burned in a combustion chamber using a piston and crank mechanism. This drives the propellers to give the aircraft momentum. The gas turbine engines compress air before burning fuel in a combustion chamber, thereby heating it. The major part of the energy is used for propelling the aircraft, whilst a minor portion is used to drive the turbine, which drives the compressor. Turbojet engines use only energy from the expanding exhaust stream for propulsion, whereas turbofan and turboprop engines use energy from the turbine to drive a fan or propeller for propulsion.

Table 2-1 Movements in Europe per aircraft type*, 2011

ICA

O

Cod

e

Typ

e na

me

Nb

Eng

ines

Eng

ine

type

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Mos

t use

d en

gine

ty

pes

A320 AIRBUS A-320 2 TJ 13.3% 83.4% 13.3% V2527-A5, CFM56-AB4/P

B738 BOEING 737-800 2 TJ 12.3% 85.1% 25.6% CFM56-7B26, CFM56-7B27

A319 AIRBUS A-319 2 TJ 9.7% 89.9% 35.3% CFM56-5B6/P, CFM56-5B5/P

A321 AIRBUS A-321 2 TJ 4.6% 82.4% 39.9% V2533-A5, CFM56-5B1/2P

DH8D DHC-8-400 DASH 8 2 TJ 3.0% 91.7% 42.9% PW150A

B733 BOEING 737-300 2 TJ 2.9% 86.0% 45.8% CFM56-3B2, CFM56-3C1

AT72 ATR-72-200 2 TP 2.8% 90.1% 48.6% PW124B, PW127

B737 BOEING 737-700 2 TJ 2.4% 87.1% 51.0% CFM56-7B22, CFM56-7B20

E190 EMBRAER ERJ-190 2 TJ 2.2% 95.1% 53.1% CF34-10E

B735 BOEING 737-500 2 TJ 1.7% 63.4% 54.8% CFM56-3C1, CFM56-3B1


25

420421422423424425426427

428

429430431432433434435436

437

438

439440441442443444445446

447


B752 BOEING 757-200 2 TJ 1.7% 53.5% 56.5% RB211-535E4

B734 BOEING 737-400 2 TJ 1.5% 80.6% 58.0% CFM56-3C1, CFM56-3B2

B763 BOEING 767-300 2 TJ 1.5% 16.4% 59.5% PW4060, CF6-80C2B6F

CRJ9 CRJ-900 REGIONAL JET 2 TJ 1.5% 95.0% 60.9% CF34-8C5

B744 747-400,INTL.WINGLET 4 TJ 1.4% 5.5% 62.4% CF6-80C2B1F, PW4056

CRJ2 RJ-200 REGIONAL JET 2 TJ 1.4% 88.2% 63.7% CF34-3B1

A332 AIRBUS A-330-200 2 TJ 1.3% 7.4% 65.1% PW4168A

E145 EMBRAER EMB-145 2 TJ 1.3% 94.4% 66.3% AE3007A1

B772 BOEING 777-200 2 TJ 1.2% 1.3% 67.5% GE90-94B, PW4090

E170 EMBRAER170 2 TJ 1.0% 90.4% 68.5% CF34-8E5

MD82 BOEING MD-82 2 TJ 1.0% 97.3% 69.5% JT8D-217C, JT8D-219

Data source: Eurocontrol - STATFOR, the Norwegian Civil Aviation Administration (personal comm.)

Notes:TJ - turbojet, TP - turboprop*The number of movements does not necessarily reflect the relative importance with respect to fuel use and emissions, which in addition are mostly determined by aircraft size and flight distances.

Military aircraft activities (category 4) are in principle included in the inventory. There may, however, be some difficulties in estimating these due to scarce and often confidential military data. One should also be aware that some movements of military aircraft might be included in category 1, for example non-operational activities.

[2.3] EmissionsThe emissions produced by aviation come from the use of jet fuel (jet kerosene and jet gasoline) and aviation gasoline (used to fuel small piston engine aircraft only) that are used as fuel for the aircraft. Consequently, the principal pollutants are those common to other combustion activities, i.e. CO2, CO, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, with SO2 emissions being dependent of the level of sulphur in the fuel. Other important species, emitted at relatively low concentrations include PM (including BC4), N2O and CH4.

[2.4] ControlsICAO's current environmental activities are largely undertaken through the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which was established by the Council in 1983. The species regulated are:

oxides of nitrogen (most recently updated in 2005);

carbon monoxide (most recently updated in 1997);

unburned hydrocarbon (most recently updated in 1984); and

engine smoke.

Compliance with the standards on the oxides of nitrogen is the most challenging task for the makers of aircraft engines.

4 For the purposes of this guidance, BC emission factors are assumed to equal those for elemental carbon (EC). For further information please refer to Chapter 1.A.1 Energy Industries and Appendix C of this chapter.


26

448449450451452453454455456

457458459460

461

462

463464465466467468

469

470471472

473

474

475

476

477478

2728

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-a-combustion/1-a-1-energy-industries


The regulations published by ICAO, against which engines are certificated, are given in the form of the total quantity of pollutants (Dp) emitted in an LTO-cycle divided by the maximum sea level thrust (Foo) and plotted against engine pressure ratio at maximum sea level thrust. Table 2-2 shows engine power settings and times-in-mode for the LTO-cycle specified by ICAO (ICAO, 1993).

Table 2-2 Standard landing and take-off cycles in terms of thrust settings and time spent in the specific mode

Operating mode Thrust setting(% of maximum sea level static thrust)

Time-In-Mode(min)

Take-off 100 % Foo 0.7Climb-out 85 % Foo 2.2Approach-landing 30 % Foo 4.0Taxi/ground idle 7 % Foo 26.0Source: ICAO, 1993

The limit values for NOx are given by the formulae in Table 2-3 which includes CAEP/8 limits (39) although they are not yet integrated into the published editions of ICAO Annex 16 Part II.


29

479480481482483

484485

486

487488


Table 2-3 Current certification limits for NOx for turbo jet and turbo fan engines

Applicability Limit value

Manufacture Date Engine Parameter

≥ 1 January 1986≤ 31 December 1995a)

≤ 31 December 1999b)- Dp / Foo = 40 + 2 ∙ π00

CAEP/2

> 31 December 1995a)

> 31 December 1999b)- Dp / Foo = 32 + 1.6 ∙ π00

CAEP/4


π00 ≤ 30

Foo ≤ 89.0 kN

Foo > 89.0 kN........................

30 < π00 ≤ 62.5

Foo ≤ 89.0 kN

Foo > 89.0 kN........................

π00 > 62.5

Dp / Foo = 37.572 + 1.6 ∙ π00 - 0.2087 ∙ Foo

Dp / Foo = 19 + 1.6 ∙ π00

...............................................................................

Dp / Foo = 42.71 + 1.4286 ∙ π00 - 0.4013 ∙ Foo

+ 0.00642∙ π00 ∙ F00

Dp / Foo = 7 + 2.0 ∙ π00

...............................................................................

Dp / Foo = 32 + 1.6 ∙ π00

CAEP/6


π00 ≤ 30

Foo ≤ 89.0 kN

Foo > 89.0 kN........................

30 < π00 ≤ 82.6

Foo ≤ 89.0 kN

Foo > 89.0 kN........................

π00 > 82.6

Dp / Foo = 38.5486 + 1.6823 ∙ π00 - 0.2453 ∙ Foo

- 0.00308 ∙ π00 ∙ F00

Dp / Foo = 16.72 + 1.4080 ∙ π00

...............................................................................

Dp / Foo = 46.1600 + 1.4286 ∙ π00 - 0.5303 ∙ Foo

+ 0.00642 ∙ π00 ∙ F00

Dp / Foo = -1.04 + 2.0 ∙ π00

...............................................................................

Dp / Foo = 32 + 1.6 ∙ π00

CAEP/8


π00 ≤ 30

Foo ≤ 89.0 kN

Foo > 89.0 kN........................

30 < π00 ≤ 104.7

Foo ≤ 89.0 kN

Dp / Foo = 40.052 + 1.5681 ∙ π00 - 0.3615 ∙ Foo

- 0.0018 ∙ π00 ∙ F00

Dp / Foo = 7.88 + 1.4080 ∙ π00

...............................................................................

Dp / Foo = 41.9435 + 1.505 ∙ π00 - 0.5823 ∙ Foo


30

489


Foo > 89.0 kN........................

π00 > 104.7

+ 0.005562 ∙ π00 ∙ F00

Dp / Foo = -9.88 + 2.0 ∙ π00

...............................................................................

Dp / Foo = 32 + 1.6 ∙ π00

* Generally Foo > 26.7 kN a) model production b) individual production

Source: International Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection, ICAO, Annex 16, Volume II, Part III, Paragraph 2.3.2, 2nd edition July 1993, plus amendments: Amendment 3 (20 March 1997) ,Amendment

4 (4 November 1999), Amendment 5 (24 November 2005) + CAEP/8

where:

Dp = the sum of emissions in the LTO cycle in g;

Foo = thrust at sea level take-off (100 %);

oo = pressure ratio at sea level take-off thrust point (100 %).

Further information on legislation can be obtained from the ICAO website

The equivalent limits for HC and CO are Dp/Foo = 19.6 for HC and Dp/Foo = 118 for CO (ICAO, Annex 16, Vol. II, paragraph 2.2.2).

Smoke is limited to a regulatory smoke number = 83.6*(Foo) ^ (-0.274) or a value of 50, whichever is the lower.

The relevance of the data within this report is to indicate that whilst the certification limits for NOx

are getting lower, those for smoke, CO and HC remain unchanged.

Contribution of air traffic to total emissions:

The total contribution of aircraft emissions to total global anthropogenic CO2 emissions is considered to be about 2 % (IPCC, 1999). This relatively small contribution to global emissions should be seen in relation to the fact that most aircraft emissions are injected almost directly into the upper free troposphere and lower stratosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that the contribution to radiative forcing is about 3.5 %. The importance of this source is growing as the volume of air traffic is steadily increasing.

The importance of air traffic in Europe for various air pollutants is illustrated in Table 2-4.


31

490

491

492

493

494

495

496497

498499

500501

502

503

504505506507508509

510


Table 2-4 Range of contributions to reported air pollutant emissions from air traffic in 2007, illustrated for the EU-27 (% of reported national total to the LRTAP Convention).

Category Domestic and international LTO(%)

Domestic cruise(%)

International cruise(%)

SO2 0-0.6 0-0.4 0-3.4

NOx 0-5.6 0-1.5 0-9.8

NMVOC 0-3.8 0-1.1 0-1.0

CO 0-6.1 0-0.6 0-2.0

PM10 0-0.7 0-0.2 0-2.0

PM2.5 0-0.9 0-1.8 0-3.9

Source: EEA Dataservice. European Community LRTAP Convention emission inventory dataset 1990-2007.


32

511512

513


[3] Methods

2.8[3.1] Choice of method

2.8.1[3.1.1] Overview

Figure 3-9Figure 3-1 presents the decision tree to follow to determine the appropriate Tier method for estimating the total fuel consumption and emissions from aviation. In Figure 3-1 a procedure is presented to select the methods for estimating the emissions from aviation. This decision tree is applicable to all nations. When estimating aviation emissions the following should be considered:

use as detailed information as is available;

use as detailed information as is available;

if the source category is a key source, then a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method must be used for estimating the emissions.


33

514

515

516

517518519520521

522

523

524

525526

527


.

Figure 3-9: Decision tree for determining the appropriate Tier method to apply


34

528

529

530


Figure 3-10 Decision tree for determining the appropriate Tier method to applyDecision tree for emissions from aviation

The three Tiers are harmonised with those specified in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines.

Table 3-1 Table 3-4 summarises the data required to use the three Tiers in terms of activity measure and the degree of technology stratification required for the category 1 (IFR) flights. It will often be the case that the overall emissions for Ccategory 2 and 3 flights are sufficiently small and the statistics available so poor, that a Tier 1 approach for these portions of aviation is appropriate.


Start

Collect data on TOL fordomestic and international,

Flights, ideally by aircraft type

Apply Tier 1default EFs

based on fuelconsumption

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Decision tree for Aviation

Use Tier 3 EFs for each flight (by components) stratified

by engine technology

Use Tier 2 EFs for fuel consumption used for domestic/ international flights, LTO/cruise

activity and aircraft type

Are dataon start and

final destination byaircraft type

available

Are TOLdata, ideally by

aircraft typeavailable

Is this a key source?

35

531

532533

534

535536537538539


Table 3-43-5 Summary of input data required for the three Tiers of inventory methodologyActivity Technology stratificationData

and tools used

Tier 1 Fuel sales sub-divided into domestic and international usage.Total LTO numbers for domestic and international.

Use average fleet mix (i.e. generic aircraft EFs) and average factors for LTO and cruise.

Tier 2 Fuel sales sub-divided into domestic and international use, as for Tier 1.LTO numbers for domestic and international, per aircraft type.

Use of aircraft specific LTO EFs and average EFs for cruise.

Tier 3 Data for each flight containing aircraft type and flight distance, sub-divided into domestic and international.

Tier 3A: Use specific aircraft type/engines data from the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter, available from http://eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook.[EMEP/EEA Guidebook].

Tier 3B: Use EUROCONTROL Advanced Emissions’ Model (AEM), US/FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) or similar tools; with specific airports taxi timesUse specific aircraft type data from the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter, available from http://eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook .

The Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies are both based on LTO data and the quantity of fuel sold or used as illustrated in Figure 3-11Figure 3-2. It is assumed that fuel used equals fuel sold. From the total fuel sold for aircraft activities, allocations are made according to the requirements for IPCC and UNECE reporting. The emission estimation can be made following either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 methodology outlined below.

For estimating the total emissions of CO2, SO2 and heavy metals the Tier 1 methodology is sufficient, as the emissions of these pollutants are dependent on the fuel only and not on technology. The emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 are aircraft and payload dependent. Therefore, when estimating the total emissions of these pollutants, it may be appropriate to consider the aircraft activity in more detail, using the Tier 2 methodology. The Tier 3 methodology may be used to get an independent estimate of fuel and CO2 emissions from domestic and international air traffic.


x EF x EF

x EFx EF

Emissions forDomestic

LTO

Emissions forInternational

LTO

Domestic CruiseFuel Use

Emissions forDomesticCruise

Emissions forInternational

Cruise

International CruiseFuel Use

Fuel Sold forInternational

Use

Fuel Sold forDomestic

Use

Number ofLTO’s forDomestic

Flights

Domestic LTOFuel Use

International LTOFuel Use

Fuel Consumptionper Domestic

LTO

Fuel Consumptionper International

LTO

Number ofLTO’s for

InternationalFlights

Total National Numberof LTO’s

Total National Fuel Sold forAircraft

36

540

541

542543544545546

547548549550551552

553

http://eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook





Figure 3-11 Estimation of aircraft emissions using the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies

Figure 3-2 Estimation of aircraft emissions using the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies

2.8.2[3.1.2] Choice of activity data

The way of deriving the activity statistics are critical to the difference between Tier 1 and 2. Since emissions from domestic aviation are reported separately from international aviation and for LTO and cruise, it is necessary to disaggregate activity data between these


37

554

555

556

557

558

559560561


components. This section lays out options as to how this should be done —consistent also with the approach for estimating greenhouse gases. The basic starting point is national statistics on fuel consumption and for Tier 2 data on take-off and landings with more detailed information about aircraft type/engines.aircraft type information.

Domestic and international split

To disaggregate the activity data between domestic and international, the following definitions should be applied irrespective of the nationality of the carrier (Table 3–2Table 3-6). For consistency, it is good practice to use similar definitions of domestic and international activities for aviation. In some cases, the national energy statistics may not provide data consistent with this definition. It is good practice that countries separate the activity data consistent with this definition. In any case, a country must clearly define the methodologies and assumptions used.

Table 3-63-7 Criteria for defining international or domestic aviation (applies to individual legs of journeys with more than one take-off and landing).

Journey type between two airports Domestic International

Departs and arrives in same country Yes No

Departs from one country and arrives in another No Yes

Flight between two airports Domestic InternationalDeparts and arrives in the same state Yes NoDeparts from one state and arrives in another No Yes

Note:

Based on past experience compiling aviation emissions inventories, difficulties have been identified regarding the international/domestic split, in particular obtaining the information on passenger and freight drop-off and pick up at stops in the same country that was required by the 1996 IPCC Guidelines/GPG2000 (Summary report of ICAO/UNFCCC Expert Meeting April 2004). Most flight data are collected on the basis of individual flight segments (from one take-off to the next landing) and do not distinguish between different types of intermediate stops (as called for in GPG2000). Basing the distinction on flight segment data (origin/destination) is therefore simpler and is likely to reduce uncertainties. It is very unlikely that this change would make a significant change to the emission estimates (5).This does not change the way in which emissions from international flights are reported as a memo item and not included in national totals.

Improvements in technology and optimization of airline operating practices have significantly reduced the need for intermediate technical stops. An intermediate technical stop would also not change the definition of a flight as being domestic or international. For example if explicit data is available, countries may define international flight segments that depart one country with a destination in another country and make an intermediate technical stop. A technical stop is solely for the purpose of refuelling or solving a technical difficulty and not for the purpose of passenger or cargo exchange.

5 () It is good practice to clearly state the reasoning and justification if any country opts to use the GPG2000 definitions.


38

562563564565

566

567568569570571572573

574575

577

578

579580581582583584585586587588589

590591592593594595596

3940


If national energy statistics do not already provide data consistent with this definition, countries should then estimate the split between domestic and international fuel consumption according to the definition, using the approaches set out below.

Top-down data can be obtained from taxation authorities in cases where fuel sold for domestic use is subject to taxation, but that for international use is not taxed. Airports or fuel suppliers may have data on delivery of aviation kerosene and aviation gasoline to domestic and to international flights. In most countries tax and custom dues are levied on fuels for domestic consumption, and fuels for international consumption (bunkers) are free of such dues. In the absence of more direct sources of data, information about domestic taxes may be used to distinguish between domestic and international fuel consumption.

Bottom-up data can be obtained from surveys of airline companies for fuel used on domestic and international flights, or estimates from aircraft movement data and standard tables of fuel consumed or both. Fuel consumption factors for aircraft (fuel used per LTO and per nautical mile cruised) can be used for estimates and may be obtained from the airline companies.

Examples of sources for bottom-up data, including aircraft movement, are:

● statistical offices or transport ministries as a part of national statistics,● airport records,● ATC (Air Traffic Control) records, for example Eurocontrol statistics,● air carrier schedules published monthly by independent providers of travel information which contains worldwide timetable passenger and freight aircraft movements as well as regular scheduled departures of charter operators.

statistical offices or transport ministries as a part of national statistics,

airport records,

ATC (Air Traffic Control) records, for example Eurocontrol statistics,

air carrier schedules published monthly by independent providers of travel information OAG which contains worldwide timetable passenger and freight aircraft movements as well as regular scheduled departures of charter operators. It does not contain ad-hoc charter aircraft movements.

Some of these sources do not cover all flights (e.g. charter flights may be excluded). On the other hand, airline timetable data may include duplicate flights due to code shares between airlines or duplicate flight numbers. Methods have been developed to detect and remove these duplicates. ([Baughcum et al., 19961998; Sutkus et al., 2001)].

Large commercial aircraft

This includes aircraft that to a large extent reflect the 2004 operating fleet and some aircraft types for back compatibility, identified by minor models. To minimise table size, some aircraft minor models were grouped when LTO emission’s factors were similar. The original data source for the Large Commercial Aircraft group LTO emissions’ factors is the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank ([ICAO, 2004a1995). ]. The ICAO data is the basis for the further simulation of LTO and cruise emission factors made by MEET (1997) and ANCAT (1998)EUROCONTROL given in the from the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter, which is available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website. (www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook).


41

597598599

600601602603604605606

607608609610

611

612613614615616617

618

619

620

621622623624

625626627628

629

630

631632633634635636637638639

640

DERANSY Robin, 21/04/16,

To be revised!!

http://www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook


Turboprops

This group includes aircraft that are representative of the 2004 Turboprop fleet, which can be represented by three typical aircraft sizes based on engine shaft horsepower. The original data source for the Turboprop group LTO emissions’ factors is the Swedish Aeronautical Institute (FOI) LTO Emissions Database.

The equivalent data for regional jets, low-thrust jets (engines with thrust below 26.7 kN) and piston engine aircraft need to be obtained from other sources. The relationship between actual aircraft and representative aircraft types are provided in the Table 3-12Tables 3–7 and Table3-133–8.

Aircraft fleet data may also be obtained from various sources. ICAO collects fleet data through two of its statistics sub-programmes: the fleet of commercial air carriers, reported by States for their commercial air carriers, and civil aircraft on register, reported by States for the civil aircraft on their register as of 31 December [(ICAO, 1995 2004b)].

Some ICAO States do not participate in this data collection, in part because of the difficulty surrounding splitting the fleet into commercial and non-commercial entities. Consequently, ICAO also makes use of other external sources. One of these sources is the International Register of Civil Aircraft, 2004, published by the Bureau Veritas (France), the CAA (UK) and ENAC (Italy) in cooperation with ICAO. This database contains the information from the civil aircraft registers of some 45 States (including the United States) covering over 450 000 aircraft.

In addition to the above, there are also commercial databases of which ICAO makes use. None cover the whole fleet as they have limitations in scope and aircraft size. Among these are the BACK Aviation Solutions Fleet Data (fixed-wing aircraft over 30 seats), AirClaims CASE database (fixed wing jet and turboprop commercial aircraft), BUCHAir, publishers of the JP Airline Fleet (covers both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft). Other companies such as AvSoft may also have relevant information. Further information may be obtained from these companies’ websites.

2.8.3[3.1.3] Military aircraft

Although military aviation is not reported here, it makes sense to include a basic description of the methodology in this chapter, appropriately cross-referenced from chapter for NFR code 1.A.5.

Military activity is defined here as those activities using fuel purchased by or supplied to the military authorities of the country. Emissions from aviation fuel use can be estimated using the Tier 1 algorithm and the same calculations approach recommended for civilian aviation. Some types of military transport aircraft and helicopters have fuel and emissions’ characteristics similar to civil types. Therefore, default emission factors for civil aircraft should be used for military aviation unless better data are available. Alternatively, fuel use may be estimated from the hours in operation. Default fuel consumption factors for military aircraft are given in Tables 3–9 and 3–10.

Military aircraft (transport planes, helicopters and fighters) may not have a civilian analogue, so a more detailed method of data analysis is encouraged where data are available. Inventory


42

641

642643644645

646647648649

650651652653

654655656657658659660

661662663664665666667

668

669

670671672

673674675676677678679680

681682


To be revised!


compilers should consult military experts to determine the most appropriate emission factors for the country’s military aviation.

Due to confidentiality issues, many inventory compilers may have difficulty obtaining data for the quantity of fuel used by the military. Military activity is defined here as those activities using fuel purchased by or supplied to the military authorities in the country. Countries can apply the rules defining civilian, national and international aviation operations to military operations when the data necessary to apply those rules are comparable and available. In this case, the international military emissions may be reported under International Aviation (International Bunkers), but must then be shown separately. Data on military fuel use should be obtained from government military institutions or fuel suppliers. If data on fuel split is unavailable, all the fuel sold for military activities should be treated as domestic.

Emissions resulting from multilateral operations pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations (UN) should not be included in national totals; other emissions related to operations shall be included in the national emissions totals of one or more parties involved. The national calculations should take into account fuel delivered to the country’s military, as well as fuel delivered within that country but used by the military of other countries. Other emissions related to operations (e.g. off-road ground support equipment) shall be included in the national emissions totals in the appropriate source category.

These data should be used with care as national circumstances may vary from those assumed in this table. In particular, distances travelled and fuel consumption may be affected by national route structures, airport congestion and air-traffic control practices.

2.9[3.2] Tier 1 fuel-based methodology

2.9.1[3.2.1] Algorithm

The Tier 1 approach for aviation is based on quantity of fuel consumption data for aviation split by LTO and cruise for domestic and international flights separately. The method uses a simple approach to estimate the split of fuel use between cruise and LTO, as shown schematically in Figure 3-11Figure 3–2. (This approach was labelled the ‘very simple methodology’ in the previous version of the Guidebook).

The Tier 1 approach for aviation emissions uses the general equation;

Epollutant=ARfuel consumption×EFpollutant (1)

where:

Epollutant = annual emission of pollutant for each of the LTO and cruise phases of domestic and international flights;

ARfuel consumption =activity rate by fuel consumption for each of the flight phases and trip flight types;

EFpollutant = emission factor of pollutant for the respective flight phase and trip flight type.

This equation is applied at the national level, using annual national total fuel use disaggregated by domestic and international flights. Information on fuel consumption for


43

683684

685686687688689690691692693

694695696697698699700

701702703

704

705

706

707708709710711

712

713

714

715716

717718

719720

721722


domestic and international flights should be available from national statistics as described above or is widely available from UN statistical yearbooks or national statistics. Aircraft emission estimates according to the Tier 1 approach can be obtained by following the steps detailed in subsection 3.2.33.2.3.

2.9.2[3.2.2] Default emission factors

Tier 1 emission factors (EFPollutant, Fuel type) assume an averaged technology for the fleet, and knowledge of the number of domestic and international LTO cycles for the nation. Default fuel and emission factors values are presented in Table 3-8Table 3–3, but need statistics to be split into cruise and LTO as well as domestic and international.

Where statistics are available for fuel use and the number of LTOs by domestic and international flights, the assumptions on LTO fuel consumption below can be used to split these data by LTO and cruise using the following equation.

(AVIATION EQUATION 1)Total fuel = LTO fuel +cruise fuel

Where:

(AVIATION EQUATION 2)LTO fuel = number of LTOs x fuel consumption per LTO

(AVIATION EQUATION 3)Cruise fuel = total fuel consumption — LTO fuel consumption

2.9.2.1[3.2.2.1] Jet kerosene

Using the relationships above and the data in Table 3-8Table 3–3, the emissions for the four different NFR codes can be calculated.


44

723724725726

727

728729730731

732733734

735737

738

739

740742

743

744746747

748

749

750751


Table 3–3 Emission factors values and fuel use for the Tier 1 methodology using jet kerosene as fuel. Emission factors values are given on a representative aircraft basis

Table 3-8: Emission values and fuel use for the Tier 1 methodology using jet kerosene as fuel. Emission values are given on a representative aircraft basis

Tier 1 fuel use and emission factorsvaluesDomestic Fuel SO2 CO2 CO NOx NMVOC CH4 N2O PM2.5

LTO (kg/LTO) — average fleet (B737-400)

825 0.8 2600 11.8 8.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.07

LTO (kg/LTO) — old fleet (B737-100)

920 0.9 2900 4.8 8.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.10

Cruise (kg/tonne) — average fleet (B737-400)

- 1.0 3150 2.0 10.3 0.1 0 0.1 0.20

Cruise (kg/tonne) — old fleet (B737-100)

- 1.0 3150 2.0 9.4 0.8 0 0.1 0.20

International Fuel SO2 CO2 CO NOx NMVOC CH4 N2O PM2.5

LTO (kg/LTO) — average fleet (B767)

1617 1.6 5094 6.1 26.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.15

LTO (kg/LTO) — average fleet (short distance, B737-400)

825 0.8 2600 11.8 8.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.07

LTO (kg/LTO) — average fleet (long distance, B747-400)

3400 3.4 10717 19.5 56.6 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.32

LTO (kg/LTO) — old fleet (DC10) 2400 2.4 7500 61.6 41.7 20.5 2.3 0.2 0.32LTO (kg/LTO) — old fleet (short distance, B737-100)

920 0.9 2900 4.8 8.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.10

LTO (kg/LTO) — old fleet (long distance, B747-100)

3400 3.4 10754 78.2 55.9 33.6 3.7 0.3 0.47

Cruise (kg/tonne) — average fleet (B767)

- 1.0 3150 1.1 12.8 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.20

Cruise (kg/tonne) — old fleet (DC10)

- 1.0 3150 1.0 17.6 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.20

Notes:1. Sulphur content of the fuel is assumed to be 0.05 % S (by mass) for both LTO and cruise activities.2. Assuming a cruise distance of 500 nm for short distance flights and 3 000 nm for long distance flights.Source: derived from ANCAT/EC2 1998, Falk 1999 and MEET 1999.3. PM2.5 data (= PM10 emissions).Source: inferred from smoke data from ICAO database (ICAO 2006) using the methodology described in ICAO (2007) 4. BC fractions of PM (f-BC) = 0.48. Source: for further information see Appendix C

[3.2.2.2] Aviation gasoline

Aviation gasoline is assumed to only be used for domestic aviation. Table 3—-4 provides the Tier 1 emission factors for NFR 1.A.3.a.ii.(i): Civil aviation (domestic, LTO) for gasoline fuelled aircraft. These emission factors are based on data for piston engine aircraft provided in Table 3-9Table 3—-14. The 95 % confidence limits quoted are 50 % and 200 % of the mean values.


45

752753

754755

756

757

758759760761762


This table needs tob e completly reconstruct as referenced aircraft are quite old. It would be useful to know which method was used to calculate CH4 and N20 values


Table 3-4 Tier 1 emission factors for NFR 1.A.3.a.ii.(i): Civil aviation (domestic, LTO)

Table 3-9: Tier 1 emission factors for NFR 1.A.3.a.ii.(i): Civil aviation (domestic, LTO)

Note:If national PM emission factors are available, a BC fraction of PM (f-BC) = 0.15 is suggested. Source: for further information see Appendix C

2.9.3[3.2.3] Calculation steps for Tier 1

The Tier 1 approach is based on the premise that data on the quantities of fuel sold for aviation use are available, most probably from nationally collected data. It also assumes that the annual quantity of fuel used is the same that sold.

Information on the country's total number of LTOs needs to be available, preferably also the destination (long and short distance) for international LTOs, together with a general knowledge about the aircraft types carrying out aviation activities.

Aircraft emission estimates according to the Tier 1 methodology can be obtained by following the steps below:.

1. Obtain the total amount of fuel sold for all aviation (in ktonnes).

2. Obtain the amount of fuel used for domestic aviation only (in ktonnes).

3. Calculate the total amount of fuel used for international aviation by subtracting the domestic aviation (step 2) from the total fuel sold (step 1).

4. Obtain the total number of LTOs carried out for domestic aviation.

[5.] Calculate the total fuel use for LTO activities for domestic aviation by multiplying the number of domestic LTOs by the domestic fuel use factors for one representative aircraft (Table 3-8Table 3–3) (step 4 x fuel use for representative aircraft). Fuel use factors are suggested for an old and an average fleet.

5.[6.] Calculate the fuel used for cruise activities for domestic aviation by subtracting the fuel used for domestic LTO (step 5) from the total domestic fuel used (step 2).

[7.] Estimate the emissions related to domestic LTO activities by multiplying the emission factors values (per LTO) for domestic traffic with the number of LTO for domestic


CodeNFR Source Category 1.A.3.a.ii.(i)

FuelNot estimated

Not applicable

Lower UpperNOx 4 kg/tonne fuel 2 8 Calc from Tier 2CO 1200 kg/tonne fuel 600 2400 Calc from Tier 2NMVOC 19 kg/tonne fuel 9.5 38 Calc from Tier 2TSP 0 kg/tonne fuel 0 0 Use Road TransportPM10 0 kg/tonne fuel 0 0 Use Road TransportPM2.5 0 kg/tonne fuel 0 0 Use Road Transport(*) SO2 1 kg/tonne fuel 0.5 2 Assuming 0.05% S by mass

Aldrin, Chlordane, Chlordecone, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptabromo-biphenyl, Mirex, Toxaphene, HCH, DDT, PCB, HCB, PCP, SCCP

SOx, NH3, Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn, PCDD/F, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Pollutant Value Unit 95% confidence interval Reference

Tier 1 default emission factorsNameCivil aviation (domestic, LTO)

Jet Gasoline and Aviation Gasoline

46

763

764

765

766

767

768769770

771772773

774775

776

777

778779

780

781782783784

785786

787788


traffic. Emission factors values are suggested for an old and an average fleet by representative aircraft (Table 3-8)(Table 3–3).

[8.] Estimate the emissions related to domestic cruise activities by multiplying the respective emission factors values (in emission/fuel used) in Table 3-8 Table 3–3 with the domestic cruise fuel use. Emission factors are suggested for an old and an average fleet by representative aircraft.

6.[9.] Repeat step 4 to 8 substituting domestic activities with international. It is for international flights preferable to distinguish between short (< 1 000 nm (6)) and long-distance flights (> 1 000 nm). The latter is normally performed by large fuel consuming aircraft compared to the shorter distance flights (e.g. within Europe). If this distinction cannot be made the LTO emissions are expected to be largely overestimated in most countries.

[10.]

2.10[3.3] Tier 2 method

2.10.1[3.3.1] Algorithms

The Tier 2 approach applies if it is possible to obtain information on LTOs per aircraft type but there is no information available on cruise distances. The level of detail necessary for this methodology is the aircraft types used for both domestic and international aviation, together with the number of LTOs carried out by the various aircraft types.

Apart from this level of further detail according to aircraft type, the algorithms are the same as for the Tier 1 approach:

Epollutant= ∑Aircraft types

ARfuel consumption, aircraft type×EF pollutant , aircraft type(2)

where, analogous to before:

Epollutant = annual emission of pollutant for each of the LTO and cruise phases of domestic and international flights;

ARfuel consumption, aircraft type = activity rate by fuel consumption for each of the flight phases and trip flight types, for each aircraft type;

EFpollutant, aircraft type = emission factor of pollutant for the respective flight phase and trip flight type, for each aircraft type.

6() Where nm = nautical miles, 1 nm = 1 852 km.


47

789790

791792793794

795796797798799800

801

802

803

804805806807

808809

810

811

812813

814815

816817

48


[3.3.2] Aircraft-type based fuel used and emission factorsvalues

Table 3-10 Table 3–5 lists LTO fuel consumption and emission factors for certain aircraft types. Note that the values provided in Table 3-10 for LTO are based on standard ICAO taxi times. These which may differ significantly from average taxi times at European airports. A new Excel Table accompanying the EEA/EMEP Aviation Chapter provides a mean to easily estimate the amount fuel use and emissions exhausted during the LTO cycle for large range of aircraft at a particular European Airport for a particular year between 2005 and 2015 based on average taxi times as provided by EUROCONTROL’s Central Office of Delay Analysis (CODA).Future work for this chapter includes plans to update the LTO values based on European average taxi times.

Table 3-5 Examples of aircraft types and emission factors values for LTO cycles as well as fuel consumption per aircraft type, kg/LTO

Table 3-10: Examples of aircraft types and emission values for LTO cycles as well as fuel consumption per aircraft type, kg/LTO

Air

craf

t Ic

ao

# of

en

gine

s

CO

2_kg

NO

x_kg

CO

_kg

HC

_kg

H2O

_kg

Pm25

_kg

Bur

ntFu

el_

kg

A306 2 5427.9 25.9 14.8 1.2 2119.5 0.1 1723.1

A310 2 4745.8 19.5 28.7 6.5 1853.1 0.1 1506.6

A319 2 2169.8 7.5 9.5 2.0 847.2 0.1 688.8

A320 2 2750.7 10.8 5.5 0.1 1074.1 0.1 873.3

A332 2 7029.3 35.6 16.2 1.3 2744.8 0.1 2231.5

A333 2 5934.6 27.6 13.0 1.0 2317.3 0.1 1884.0

A343 4 6362.6 34.8 25.2 3.9 2484.5 0.3 2019.9

A345 4 5867.3 28.3 26.2 4.2 2291.0 0.2 1862.6

A346 4 10624.8 64.7 15.0 0.2 4148.7 0.2 3373.0

A388 4 13048.6 67.3 29.6 0.4 5095.2 0.2 4142.4

B737 2 2454.5 9.1 8.0 0.9 958.4 0.1 779.2

B738 2 2775.5 12.3 7.1 0.7 1083.8 0.1 881.1

B742 4 9684.9 47.5 27.5 3.2 3781.7 0.2 3074.6

B743 4 10806.0 57.0 18.3 2.5 4219.5 0.2 3430.5

B744 4 10457.0 44.5 25.3 2.1 4083.2 0.2 3319.7

B752 2 4292.2 15.0 12.3 0.2 1676.0 0.1 1362.6

B753 2 4610.5 17.9 11.6 0.1 1800.3 0.1 1463.6

B762 2 4607.4 23.8 14.8 3.3 1799.1 0.1 1462.7

B763 2 5590.6 28.2 14.5 1.2 2183.0 0.1 1774.8

B772 2 7346.1 55.8 12.6 0.5 2868.5 0.1 2332.1

B773 2 7588.0 63.3 17.7 2.0 2962.9 0.1 2408.9

B77L 2 9736.1 69.8 47.5 5.1 3801.7 0.2 3090.8

B77W 2 9298.0 61.2 48.1 5.3 3630.7 0.2 2951.8

DC10 3 7263.7 35.7 20.6 2.4 2836.3 0.2 2305.9

DC85 4 4745.8 19.5 28.7 6.5 1853.1 0.1 1506.6

DC87 4 5339.9 15.6 26.3 1.5 2085.1 0.1 1695.2


49

818

819820821822823824825826827

828829

830831


F2TH 2 535.3 1.3 5.2 1.6 209.0 0.0 169.9

MD11 3 8277.9 38.2 18.3 1.4 3232.3 0.2 2627.9

T154 3 5939.9 12.0 82.9 13.2 2319.4 0.2 1885.7Notes:(a) For CH4 and NMVOC it is assumed that emission factors for LTO cycles are 10 % and 90 % of total VOC (HC), respectively ([Olivier, 1991). ]. Studies indicate that during cruise no methane is emitted (Wiesen et al., 1994). (b) Estimates based on IPCC Tier 1 default values.(c) Sulphur content of the fuel is assumed to be 0.05% for both LTO and cruise activities.(d) PM2.5 data (= PM10 emissions).Source: ICAO database (ICAO 20061995) and ICAO (2007).Source: Derived from ANCAT/EC2 (1998), Falk (1999) and MEET (1999).ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank (ICAO 1995). - http://easa.europa.eu/environment/edb/aircraft-engine-emissions.php(e) BC fractions of PM (f-BC) = 0.48. Source: for further information see Appendix C

For jet aircrafts, Table 3-11Table 3–6 provides a way of mapping some of the most important actual aircraft to the smaller list representative aircraft types in Table 3-10Table 3–5.

Table 3–6 Correspondence between representative jet aircraft and other jet aircraft types

Table 3-11: Correspondence between representative jet aircraft and other jet aircraft types

Generic aircraft type ICAO IATA Generic aircraft type ICAO IATA Generic aircraft type ICAO IATAAirbus A310 A310 310 Boeing 737-400 B734 734 Fokker 100 F100 100

312 B735 735 Fokker F-28 F28 F28313 B736 736 TU3A31 B737 737 Boeing 737-100 * 2 DC8 DC8

Airbus A320 A318 318 73A D8FA319 319 73B D8MA320 320 73F D8SA321 321 73M 707

32S 73S 70FAirbus A330 A330 330 B86 IL6

332 JET B72333 Boeing 747-100-300 B741 741 VCX

Airbus A340 A340 340 B742 742McDonnell Douglas DC-9 DC9 D92

342 B743 743 D93343 747 D94

BAe 111 BA11 B11 74D D95B15 74E D98CRV 74F D9SF23 A4F DC9F24 74L F21YK4 74M YK2

BAe 146 BA46 141 74RMcDonnell Douglas DC-10 DC10 D10

143 IL7 D11146 ILW D1C14F C51 D1F

Boeing 727 B721 721 Boeing 747-400 B744 744 L10B722 722 Boeing 757 B752 757 L11B727 727 B753 75F L12

72A TR2 L15


50

832

833834

835

836


Not sure we need to keep this table? Idem table 3-7 and 3-8.


To be updated and most frequent engine for this aircraft used

http://easa.europa.eu/environment/edb/aircraft-engine-emissions.php

http://easa.europa.eu/environment/edb/aircraft-engine-emissions.php


72F Boeing 767-300 ER B763 762 M1172M 763 M1F

72S 767McDonnell Douglas M82

MD81-88 717

TU5 AB3 MD90 M80TRD AB4 M81

Boeing 737-100 B731 731 AB6 M82B732 732 A3E M83B733 733 ABF M87

DAM Boeing 777 B772 777 M88B773 772 M90

773Notes:

1. MD90 goes as MD81-88 and B737- 600 goes as B737- 400.2. DC8 goes as double the B737- 100. F50, Dash8 — see separate table.

Turboprops may be classified by the number of seats they contain, and use this classification to provide representative aircraft types, see Table 3-12Table 3–7. Table 3-13 Table 3–8 contains an overview of smaller aircraft types.

Table 3–7 Classification of turboprops

Table 3-12: Classification of turboprops

Representative aircraft*Up to 30 seats Dornier 328Up to 50 seats Saab 2000Up to 70 seats ATR 72* More representative aircraft are included in the accompanying spreadsheet to the chapter (available from the[ EMEP/EEA Guidebook website www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook]), if the actual turboprop in use is known.

Table 3–8 Overview of smaller aircraft types

Table 3-13: Overview of smaller aircraft types

Aircraft type Aircraft category/engine

principle

Maximum take-off weight

according to Frawley’s

Rank in Danish inventory 1998

Can_CL604 (CL60) L2J 18 19Canadair RJ 100 (CARJ) L2J 24 17CitationI (C500) L2J 5.2 10Falcon2000 (F2TH) L2J 16.2 -Falcon900 (F900) L3J 20.6 8Avro_RJ85 (BA46) L4J 42 1C130 (C130) L4T 70.3 1P3B_Orion (L188) L4T 52.7 2AS50 (AS50) H1T 2 2S61 (S61) H2T 8.6 1Notes:L = landplane, H= helicopter, J = jet engine, T = turboprop, 1, 2 or 4 equals the number of engines.Source: Supplied by Danmarks Miljøundersøkelser.


51

837

838839840

841

842

843844845846

847

848

849850851852



2.10.2[3.3.3] Calculation steps for Tier 2

The Tier 2 methodology is predominantly a top down (fuel sold) methodology that uses statistics on aviation fuel consumption (split by domestic and international). To split the fuel use by LTO and cruise detailed LTO activity and knowledge of aircraft fleet composition are needed to provide a more accurate inventory as opposed to using only average emission factors per mass of fuel used (the Tier 1 approach). The Tier 2 methodology should include all types of aircraft frequently used for domestic and international aviation. The Table 3-11Tables 3–6 and Table 3-12 3–7 provides a way of mapping actual aircraft to representative aircraft types in the database.

The approach can best be described by the following steps:.

1. Obtain the total amount of fuel sold for all aviation (in ktonnes).

[2.] O obtain the total amount of fuel used for domestic aviation (in ktonnes);

[3.] C calculate the amount of fuel used for international aviation by subtracting the domestic aviation (step 2) from the total fuel sold (step 1) (in ktonnes);

[4.] Obtain the total number of LTOs carried out per aircraft type for domestic aviation. Group the aircraft into the groups of generic aircraft given in the Table 3-11Tables 3–6 and 3–7Table 3-12. Use Table 3-13 Table 3–8 for miscellaneous smaller aircraft.

[5.] Calculate the fuel use for LTO activities per aircraft type for domestic aviation. For each aircraft type, multiply the fuel use factor in the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter (available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook ) corresponding to the specific aircraft type in the Table 3-11 Tables 3–6 and Table 3-123–7 with the number of domestic LTOs carried out for the generic aircraft (fuel use factor in LTO for aircraft type * number of LTOs with the same aircraft type). The calculations are carried out for all types of generic aircraft. Calculate the total fuel use for LTO activities by summing all contributions found under step 5 for domestic aviation. If some types of national aircraft in use are not found in the table, use a similar type taking into account size and age. For LTOs for smaller aircraft and turboprops, see also section on non-IFR flights. Their emissions will have to be estimated separately, by a simpler method.

2.[6.] Calculate the total fuel use for domestic cruise by subtracting the total amount of fuel for LTO activities found in step 6 from the total in step 2 (estimated as in the Tier 1 methodology).

[7.] Estimate the emissions from domestic LTO activities per aircraft type. The number of LTOs for each aircraft type is multiplied by the emission factor related to the particular aircraft type and pollutant. This is done for all generic aircraft types. Relevant fuel use and emission factors values can again be found in the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter (available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook). If some types of national aircraft in use are not found in the latter database, use a similar type taking into account size and age. For LTOs for smaller aircraft, see also section on non-IFR flights. Their emissions will have to be estimated separately by a simpler method.

[8.] Estimate the emissions from domestic cruise activities. Use the domestic cruise fuel use and the corresponding emission factor for the most common aircraft type used for


52

853

854855856857858859860861

862

863

864

865866

867868869

870871872873874875876877878879880881

882883884

885886887888889890891892893

894895


Maybe it is better to use “value” instead of “factor”?


Maybe?


Instead of using this Table they could use the LTO calculation Excel table and use airport specific taxi times to calculate the LTO values.


What is the point of grouping the aircraft into groups of generic aircraft?






domestic cruise activities (the Tier 1 methodology or Tier 3 methodology). Relevant fuel use and emission factors values can be found in Table 3-8Table 3–3 or accompanying spreadsheet for the Tier 3 methodology (available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook).).

3.[9.] Calculate the total emissions for LTO activities for domestic aviation. Add up all contributions from the various aircraft types as found under step 7. The summations shall take place for each of the pollutants for which emissions are to be estimated (for CO2, NOx, SO2, etc.).

4.[10.] Calculate the total emissions for cruise activities for domestic aviation. Add up all contributions from the various types of aircraft types as found under step 8). The summations shall take place for each of the pollutants for which emissions are to be estimated (for CO2, NOx, SO2, etc.).

5.[11.] Repeat the calculation (step 4-10) for international aviation.

2.10.3[3.3.4] Abatement

Technology abatement approach is not relevant for this methodology.

[3.3.5] Military aircraft

The Tier 2, i.e. aircraft type-specific, methodology is also applicable to calculating the emissions from military aircraft. However, it should be noted that the reporting of emissions from military aircraft is under NFR code 1.A.5, not 1.A.3.a.

There are two potential activity indicators:

total fuel used by military aircraft, or

number of flight hours, per aircraft type, multiplied by average fuel consumption in kg/hr.

Table 3-14Tables 3–9 and Table 3-15 3–10 provide generic and aircraft specific fuel consumption data for military aircraft. The emission factors given in Table 3-8Table 3–3 (which are per unit of fuel combusted) can then be used with the fuel used data to calculate emissions.

Table 3-9 Fuel consumption factors for generic military aircraft

Table 3-14: Fuel consumption factors for generic military aircraft

Group Sub-group Representative type Fuel flow kg/hour

1. Combat Fast jet — high thrustFast jet — low thrust

F16Tiger F-5E

32832100

2. Trainer Jet trainersTurboprop trainers

HawkPC-7

720120

3. Tanker/transport Large tanker/transport C-130 2225


53

896897898899

900901902903

904905906907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914915916

917

918

919

920

921

922923924925

926

927


EUROCONTROL is not competent to review this section.



Small transport ATP 499

4. Other MPAs, maritime patrol C-130 2225Source: ANCAT, British Aerospace/Airbus.

Table 3-10 Fuel consumption per flight hour for specific military aircraft

Table 3-15: Fuel consumption per flight hour for specific military aircraft

Aircraft Type

Aircraft descriptionFuel use

(litres per hour)

A-10A Twin engine light bomber. 2 331B-1B Four engine long-range strategic bomber. Used by USA only. 13 959B-52H Eight engine long-range strategic bomber. Used by USA only. 12 833C-12J Twin turboprop light transport. Beech King Air variant. 398C-130E Four turboprop transport. Used by many countries. 2 956C-141B Four engine long-range transport. Used by USA only. 7 849C-5B Four engine long-range heavy transport. Used by USA only. 13 473C-9C Twin engine transport. Military variant of DC-9. 3 745E-4B Four engine transport. Military variant of Boeing 747. 17 339F-15D Twin engine fighter. 5 825F-15E Twin engine fighter-bomber. 6 951F-16C Single engine fighter. Used by many countries. 3 252KC-10A Three engine tanker. Military variant of DC-10. 10 002KC-135E Four engine tanker. Military variant of Boeing 707. 7 134KC-135R Four engine tanker with newer engines. Boeing 707 variant. 6 064T-37B Twin engine jet trainer. 694T-38A Twin engine jet trainer. Similar to F-5. 262

[3.4] Tier 3 flight- and aircraft-type methodologyThe Tier 3 methodologies are based on actual flight movement data, either for Tier 3A origin and destination (OD) data or for Tier 3B full flight trajectory information. Hence tThese methodologies are bottom-up, flight-based, rather than top-down calculation-based on the fuel consumed. An example of a system implementing a Tier 3 methodology is Further details are provided in Appendix D.

Tier 3A takes into account cruise emissions for different flight distances. Hence Consequently, details on the origin (departure) and destination (arrival) airports and aircraft type are needed to use this approach, for both domestic and international flights. In Tier 3A, inventories are modelled using average fuel consumption and emissions data for the LTO phase and various cruise phase lengths, for an array of representative aircraft categories.

The data used in Tier 3A methodology takes into account that the amount quantity of emissions generated varies between phases of flight. The methodologyIt also takes into account that fuel burn is related to flight distance, while recognising that this fuel burn can be comparably higher on over relatively short distances than on longer routes. This is because aircraft use a higher amount ofmore fuel per distance for the LTO cycle compared to with the cruise phase.


54

928929

930

931

932

933

934935936937938

939940941942943

944945946947948949


The Tier 3B methodology is distinguished from the Tier 3A by the calculation of fuel burnt and emissions throughout the full trajectory of each flight segment using aircraft- and engine-specific aerodynamic performance information. To use Tier 3B, sophisticated computer models are required to address all the equipment, performance and trajectory variables and calculations for all flights in a given year.

Models used for Tier 3B level calculation can generally specify output in terms of aircraft, engine, airport, region, and global totals, as well as by latitude, longitude, altitude and time, for fuel burn and emissions of CO, hydrocarbons (HC), CO2, H2O, NOx, and SOx. To be used in preparing annual inventory submissions, a Tier 3B model must calculate aircraft emissions from input data that take into account air-traffic changes, aircraft equipment changes, or any input-variable scenario.

Ideally, the components of Tier 3B models are designed to The components of Tier 3B models ideally are incorporated so that they can be readily updated, so that the models are dynamic and can remain current with evolving data and methodologies. A list of Tier3B models can be found on the ICAO CAEP MDG web page dedicated to MDG greenhouse gas approved models at http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/modelling-and-databases.aspx.[EASA/ICAO, 2011].

Examples of models include the system for assessing Aviation’s Global Emissions (SAGE) by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (Kim, 2005 a and b; Malwitz, 2005) and AERO2k (Eyers, 2004) by the European Commission.

The Tier 3 methodology described in this chapter only relates to Tier 3A.

[3.4.1] Algorithm

[3.4.2] As for Tier 2 EFs for CO2, SO2, heavy metals are based on the fuel used, and PM are calculated from the PM2.5 emissions. The emissions of NOx, HC, CO and smoke, as well as the fuel used, are calculated on a flight by flight basis using EFs available from the accompanying spreadsheet to the chapter, which is available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website (www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook).

[3.4.3] An illustrative data set for a Boeing 737-400 is given in Table 3–11. How this data may be used to calculate the emission from a flight is illustrated with the example in subsection 3.4.4 of the present chapter.

[3.4.4] Tier 3A fuel use and emission factorsvalues

As for Tier 2 emission values for CO2, SO2, heavy metals are based on the fuel used, and PM are calculated from the PM2.5 emissions. The emissions of NOx, HC, CO and smoke, as well as the fuel used, are calculated on a flight by flight basis using emission values available from the accompanying spreadsheet to the chapter, which is available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website (www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook).


55

950951952953954

955956957958959960

961962963964965966

967968969

970

971

972973974975976977

978979980

981

982983984985986

987


http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/modelling-and-databases.aspx



[3.4.4.1] IFR flights

The fuel used and emission factors values for the Tier 3 methodology for more than 250 jets and turboprop and for different flight distances are listed provided in the accompanying spreadsheet to the Aviation chapter, which is available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website (www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook).

Disclaimer: The fuel burnt and emission data provided in this spreadsheet are for supporting EU and EU Member States in the maintenance and provision of European and national homogeneous emissions’inventoriesemissions’ inventories. These data should not be used for comparing fuel efficiency and emissions data between aircraft models and manufacturers.

Note: The updated fuel burn and emissions values provided in the accompanying spreadsheet to the Aviation chapter were calculated by using the EUROCONTROL IMPACT noise and emissions model to derive/generate the "more fuel efficient" trajectory for each couple (aircraft airframe / engine(s)) selected for a selection of stage lengths within this aircraft airframe maximum observed stage length, then by processing the trajectories obtained with the EUROCONTROL AEM model version 2.5.3, in stand-alone mode, for calculating the fuel burn and the emissions values. These values are significantly different from the values obtained previously with the older ‘PIANO’ model. A detailed description on how these data were calculated is provided inside the spreadsheet itself as well as the exact list of couples (aircraft airframe / engine(s)) covered.

Table 3–11 Illustrative spreadsheet for Boeing 737-400 equipped with two 1CM005 engines.

Note that the values provided for LTO are based on standard ICAO taxi times. These may differ significantly from average taxi times at European airports. Future work for this chapter includes plans to update the LTO values based on European average taxi times in which case LTO values in the table below may change significantly. Note that the updated values provided in Table 3-11 were calculated using optimum trajectory profiles with the AEM tool (see Appendix D), and are significantly different from the values obtained previously with the older ‘PIANO’ model.

Table 3–11 Illustrative dataset for Boeing 737-400. Standard flight distances (nm) [1nm = 1.852 km]

Table 3-16: Illustrative spreadsheet for Boeing 737-400 equipped with two 1CM005 engines.


56

988

989990991992

993

994

995996997998999

1000100110021003

10041005

1006



Note: The values provided for LTO are based on standard ICAO taxi times. These may differ significantly from average taxi times at European airports. A new accompanying spreadsheet available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website provides the means to calculate fuel used and emissions’ LTO values for all European airports from 2005 to 2015.

B737-400 125 250 500 750 1000 1500 2000Distance (km) Climb/Cruise/Descent 231.5 463 926 1389 1852 2778 3704Fuel (kg) Flight Total 1921.9 2700.3 4120.1 5617.6 7099.2 10221.9 13208.2

LTO 842.5 842.5 842.5 842.5 842.5 842.5 842.5

a. Taxi out 271.3 271.3 271.3 271.3 271.3 271.3 271.3b. Take off 88.7 88.7 88.7 88.7 88.7 88.7 88.7c. Climb out 231.8 231.8 231.8 231.8 231.8 231.8 231.8d. Climb/cruise/descent 1079.4 1857.8 3277.6 4775.1 6256.7 9379.4 12365.8e. Approach landing 150.7 150.7 150.7 150.7 150.7 150.7 150.7f. Taxi in 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NOx (kg) Flight Total 26.5 36.1 52.2 68.9 85.5 120.8 154.5LTO 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4

a. Taxi out 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1b. Take off 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7


57

1007

1008

1009


c. Climb out 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9d. Climb/cruise/descent 18.1 27.6 43.8 60.5 77.0 112.4 146.1e. Approach landing 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3f. Taxi in 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

HC (g) Flight Total 994.7 1075.9 1223.2 1331.7 1437.5 1647.0 1856.3LTO 674.8 674.8 674.8 674.8 674.8 674.8 674.8


CO (g) Flight Total 17689.6 19294.6 22290.4 24641.3 26937.8 31590.5 36039.8LTO 11976.4 11976.4 11976.4 11976.4 11976.4 11976.4 11976.4


This provides details of NOx, hydrocarbon, CO emissions and fuel usage for the different phases of flights of different distances. For other species the fuel based values given for the Tier 2 methodology, Table 3–4, should be used in conjunction with the fuel usage data.

[3.4.4.2] Fuel consumption and emission factors for representative aircraft types

The emission factors for NOx, hydrocarbons, CO and the fuel used for all the components of a flight (see Figure 2–2) are available from the accompanying spreadsheet to the chapter (available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website www.eea.europa.eu/emep-eea-guidebook) for the representative jet and turboprop (TP) aircraft types listed in Table 3–12.

Table 3–12 Representative aircraft types given in the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter (available from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook website)

ICAO aircraft type

Description

A306 Airbus A300 – B4A310 Airbus A310A318 Airbus A318A319 Airbus A319A320 Airbus A320A321 Airbus A321A332 Airbus A330-200A333 Airbus A330-300A343 Airbus A340-200/300A345 Airbus A340-500A346 Airbus A340-600A388 Airbus A380-800AN26 Antonov 26AT45 ATR 42 - 45


58

1010

101110121013

1014

1015101610171018

10191020


This is no longer needed as described in the Excel spreadsheet abnd covers more than 250 aircraft types.



I do not see the need for this section.


Not needed anaymore – merge with the previous section.



ICAO aircraft type

Description

AT43 ATR 42 - 320AT72 ATR 72 - 200B721 Boeing 727-100B722 Boeing 727-200B731 Boeing 737 100B732 Boeing 737-200B733 Boeing 737-300B734 Boeing 737-400B735 Boeing 737-500B736 Boeing 737-600B737 Boeing 737-700B738 Boeing 737-800B741 Boeing 747-100/300/800B742 Boeing 747-200B744 Boeing 747-400B752 Boeing 757-200B753 Boeing 757-300B762 Boeing 767 200B763 Boeing 767 300 ERB772 Boeing 777-200 ERB773 Boeing 777-200 LRFB77L Boeing 777-300B77W Boeing 777-300 ERBA11 BAe 1-11JS31 Bae Jetstream 31JS41 Bae Jetstream 41B190 Beech 1900C airlineBE20 Beech Super King Air 200BB350 Beech Super King Air 350C130 Lockheed C-130H HerculesC550 Cessna Citation IIC208 Cessna 208 CaravanCRJ1 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-100CRJ2 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-200CRJ9 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-900DH8A Dash 8 ADH8C Dash 8 CDH8D Dash 8 DDC10 McDonnell Douglas MD-11DC85 McDonnell Douglas DC8-50DC86 McDonnell Douglas DC8-60/70DC91 McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10

DC92 McDonnell Douglas DC-9-20/30/40/50

D328 Dornier 328-110E110 Embraer 110P2A BandeiranteE120 Embraer EMB120 BrasilliaE145 Embraer ERJ145E170 Embraer ERJ170-ERJ175E190 Embraer ERJ190F2TH Falcon 2000


59


ICAO aircraft type

Description

F100 Fokker F100F27 Fokker F27F28 Fokker F28F50 Fokker F50

L410 Let L-410 TurboletMD11 McDonnell Douglas MD-11MD82 McDonnell Douglas MD-82/87/88MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-83B462 BAe146 -100/200/300RJ85 Avro RJ85SB20 Saab 2000SF34 Saab 340BSH36 Shorts 360-300SW4 Swearingen Metro IIIT204 Tupolev TU 204

[3.4.4.3] Non-IFR flights

There is little information available on emission factors for non-IFR flights and it is at present not possible to recommend default emission factors. Generally, the NOx emission factors will be lower and the CO and VOC factors substantially higher than for IFR flights.

Fuel consumption factors are given for two categories of aircraft (Cessna and others) to be used if other information of fuel used is not available (Table 3-17 and Table 3-18Table 3–13). Please note that the tables apply to single engine aircraft only. If the aircraft is fitted with two engines (e.g. Cessna 500), then double the fuel consumption. Ranges of emission factors are shown in MEET (1997). A summary is given in Table 3-19Table 3–14.

Some emission factors and fuel use factors for helicopters and military flights are given in Table 3-20Tables 3–15, Table 3-21 3–16 and Table 3-223–17. Also note that many types of military aircraft may have civil equivalents.

Table 3–13 Fuel consumption for piston-engined aircraft, litre/hour

Table 3-17: Fuel consumption for piston-engined aircraft, litre/hour

Cessna C 152, C 172, C 182(single engine)

0 feet altitude 2000 feet alt. 4000 feet alt

75 % power (=135 HP) 41 42 no data70 % power (=126 HP) 37 38 3965 % power (=117 HP) 33.5 34 34.5Note:For an average use 36 litre/hour.

Table 3-18: Fuel consumption (continued).

Robin (French aircraft), various Piper types (single engine) 0 feet altitude 4000 feet alt.

70 % power 36.5 no data64 % power 34 33.558 % power 31 31Note:


60

1021

1022

102310241025

10261027102810291030

103110321033

1034

1035

103610371038

1039

1040


To be reviewed!


For an average use 33 litre/hour.

Table 3–14 Examples of emission factors for piston-engined aircraft, g/kg fuel

Table 3-19: Examples of emission factors for piston-engined aircraft, g/kg fuel

NOx HC CO SO2

Netherlands FL 0-30 2.70 20.09 1,054 0.21FL 30-180 4.00 12.50 1,080 0.17Germany 3.14 18.867 798 0.42Note:Multiply FL by 100 to obtain the altitude in feet.Source: MEET Deliverable No 18(1997).

Table 3–15 Examples of emission factors for helicopters and military flights [g/kg fuel]

Table 3-20: Examples of emission factors for helicopters and military flights [g/kg fuel]

Nature of flights NOx HC CO SO2

Germany LTO-cycle 8.3 10.9 39.3 1.1helicopter cruise 2.6 8.0 38.8 1.0

combat jet 10.9 1.2 10.0 0.9

cruise cruise 0.46-3 km 10.7 1.6 12.4 0.9

cruise cruise > 3 km 8.5 1.1 8.2 0.9

Netherlands Average 15.8 4.0 126 0.2

F-16 15.3 3.36 102 0.2

Switzerland LTO-cyCycle 4.631 2.59 33.9 1.025

cruise 5.034 0.67 14.95 0.999Source: MEET Deliverable No 18.Notes:1. If national PM emission factors are available, a BC fraction of PM (f-BC) = 0.48 is suggested. Source: for

further information see Appendix C

Table 3–16 Emission factors for helicopters of selected countries

Table 3-21: Emission factors for helicopters of selected countries

g/kg NOx HC CO SO2

Germany: cruise 2.6 8.0 38.8 0.99

Netherlands: cruise 3.1 3.6 11.1 0.20

Switzerland 13.3 0.3 1.1 0.97

Source: MEET (1997).MEET Deliverable No 18.

Table 3–17 Fuel consumption factors for military aircraft

Table 3-22: Fuel consumption factors for military aircraft

Group Sub-group Representative type Fuel flow kg/hour

1. Combat Fast jet — high thrust F16 3283


6110411042

1043

1044

104510461047

1048

1049

1050

10511052

1053

1054

10551056

1057

1058

EEA, 10/05/16,

Delete this table? Outdated?


Fast jet — low thrust Tiger F-5E 2100

2. Trainer Jet trainers

Turboprop trainers

Hawk

PC-7

720

120

3. Tanker/transport Large tanker/transport

Small transport

C-130

ATP

2225

499

4. Other MPAs, maritime patrol C-130 2225

Source: ANCAT, British Aerospace/Airbus


62

1059


[3.4.5] Activity dataTier 3A algorithm

The Tier 3A methodology is based on actual flight movement data.

The amount of fuel use and eEmissions species are calculated using the emission factors values described in subection subsection 3.4.2, and the flight movement data obtained nationally or through organisations collecting such information.

[3.4.5.1] The aircraft movement methodology (Tier 3) for IFR flights

The total emissions from aircraft are given by the sum of emissions from various technologies of aircraft in a continuous set of flying modes. In this methodology we will simplify the calculations are simplified by classifying the aircraft into a representative set of generic aircraft types and into two classes of flying modes, that of LTO and that of cruise. However, the methodology allows adjustment for actual times-in-mode of LTO at individual airports. This method also permits the use of individual aircraft/engine combinations if the data are available.

The methodology involves the following steps:.[1.] Select the aircraft andCollect flight details from National data, for example Civil Aviation

records, airport records, the Eurocontrol EUROCONTROL Agency in Europe, or the OAG schedule timetable. This will identify the aircraft that were used in the inventory period, the number of LTOs for each and the mission distance flown.

1. For the aircraft actually flying, select the aircraft used to represent them from the table of equivalent aircraft (Table 3-11 and Table 3-12Tables 3–6 and 3–7). This is called the ‘representative aircraft’. Use Table 3-13 Table 3–8 for miscellaneous smaller aircraft. See also Subsection 3.4.5.2 3.4.3.2 on non-IFR flights. Their emissions will have to be estimated separately, by a simpler method.

[2.] Note the distance of the mission. See subsection 3.1.23.1.2 ‘activity data’ for a description of how this may be determined.

[3.] From the attached spreadsheets (available from the EMEP/EEA guidebook website), select an aircraft type. The spreadsheet will automatically provide the fuel used and the amount of emissions data corresponding to the LTO phase for the representative aircraft, and the fuel used and the amount of emissions data for En routeCCDthe cruise portion of the flight for a series of predetermined stage lengths.t

2. , for both fuel used and all emissions. The fuel used and associated emissions from this table represent the fuel and emissions in the boundary layer below 3 000 ft (914 m). This gives an estimate of emissions and fuel used during the LTO phase of the mission.For a specific distance not listed in the predetermined stage lengths, simply enter the distance in the “En routeCCD stage length box” and the spreadsheet will automatically perform a linear interpolation to calculate the corresponding amount of fuel used and emissions.

[4.] From the table of representative aircraft types vs. mission distance (attached spreadsheets), select the aircraft, and select the missions which bracket the one which is actually being flown. The fuel used is determined as an interpolation between the two. This is an estimate of fuel used during operations above 3 000 ft (914 m) (cruise fuel use).


63

1060

1061

106210631064

1065

1066

1067106810691070107110721073

1074

1075107610771078

10791080108110821083

10841085

10861087108810891090

109110921093109410951096

1097109810991100


What the point of this Section? We propose to delete



[5.] The total quantity of fuel used for the mission flight is the sum of the fuel used for LTO plus the fuel used in all operations above 3 000 ft (914 m)the En routeCCDcruise portion of the flight.

[6.] Now apply step 4 to the table of pollutants (NOx, CO and HC) emitted vs. mission distance and here again interpolate between the missions, which bracket the one being flown. This is an estimate of emissions during operations above 3 000 ft (914 m) (cruise emissions).

[7.] The total of pollutants emitted during the flight is the sum of the pollutants emitted in LTO plus the quantity emitted in the En routeCCDcruise portion of the flight.

3. in the rest of the mission.

See subsection 3.4.4 for an example on how to apply the method.

The use of energy, and therefore emissions, depends on the aircraft operations and the time spent at each stage. Table 2-2 Table 2–2 shows engine power settings and times-in-mode for the LTO-cycle specified by ICAO (ICAO, 20081993). The actual operational time-in-mode might vary from airport to airport depending on the traffic, environmental considerations, aircraft types as well as topographical conditions. The proportion of fuel used in a mission flight which is attributed to LTO decreases as mission the flight distance increases. Thus a substantial part of the fuel consumption takes place outside the LTO-cycle. Studies indicate that the major part of NOx (60–80 %), SO2 and CO2 (80–90 %) is emitted at altitudes above 1 000 m. For CO it is about 50 % and for VOC it is about 20–40 % ([Olivier, 1991).].

Where times-in-modes are different from the assumptions made in this report, corrections may be made from basic data in the spreadsheets (also available from the Task Force Secretariat and website) or in the ICAO databank [ICAO 1995]..

Please note: the total estimated fuel use for domestic aviation must be compared to sales statistics or direct reports from the airline companies. If the estimated fuel deviates from the direct observation, the main parameters used for estimating the fuel must be adjusted in proportion to ensure that the mass of fuel estimated is the same as the mass of fuel sold.

2.10.3.1[3.4.5.2] Non IFR-flights

For some types of military or pleasure aircraft the numbers of hours in flight is a better activity indicator for estimating the fuel used and the emissions produced than the number of LTOs. In some cases the quantity of fuel used may be directly available.

Compile information on fuel used by aircraft category. The fuel types, kerosene and aviation gasoline should be reported separately. If not directly available, estimate the fuel used from the hours of operation and fuel consumption factors.

Select the appropriate emission factors and fuel use factors from Table 3-18 Tables 3–13 to Table 3-223–17.

Multiply the fuel consumption data in tonnes by the fuel-based emission factors to obtain an annual emission estimate.


64

110111021103

1104110511061107

11081109

1110

1111

111211131114111511161117111811191120

112111221123

1124112511261127

1128

112911301131

113211331134

11351136

11371138

1139


[3.4.6] An illustrative example

A B737-400 aircraft is travelling a mission distance of 1 723 nm. Based on the data given in Table 3.11, we want to estimate the fuel use:

the fuel use for LTO is taken directly from the table and is 842.5 kg (independent of mission distance);

for operation above 3 000 feet (cruise/climb/descent), the fuel used is 9 379.4 + ((12 365.8–9 379.4)*(1 723–1 500)/(2 000–1 500)) = 10 711.3 kg

The emissions of the various pollutants may be estimated in the same way:

the LTO NOx may be read directly from the table = 8.4 kg;

for operation above 3 000 feet (flight less LTO), the NOx is 112.4 + ((146.1–112.4)*(1 723–1 500)/(2 000–1 500)) = 127.4 kg

EINOx for the mission is therefore (8.3+127.4) kg / (842.5+10 711.3) kg = 11.7 g NOx per kg fuel. This may be used as a check to ensure that no arithmetic error has been made in the calculations.

For pollutants not given in the Table 3–11 we recommend using the Tier 2 approach based on the estimate fuel use calculated using the Tier 3 approach.

[3.5] Emission sSpecies profilesSince very few experiments have been reported where the exhaust gas from aircraft turbines has been analysed in detail, it is not possible to give a specific emission species profile. In terms of NOx and VOC, the profiles vary with the thrust setting of the aircraft and therefore on the activity. In terms of aircraft cruise, it is not possible to obtain accurate estimates for emission factors.

In terms of the LTO activity, the situation is similar. Attempts have been made to estimate the composition of the VOC profile. USEPA (2009) reports a VOC profile for aircraft equipped with turbofan, turbojet, and turboprop engines. The composition is presented in Table Table3-233–18.

Please note that the thrust setting during the landing and the take-off of the aircraft are different (see Table 2-2Table 2–2). Therefore, it is likely that the species profile will be different for the two situations.


65

1140

11411142

11431144

11451146

11471148

1149

11501151

11521153

11541155

1156

1157

11581159116011611162

1163116411651166

116711681169

1170117111721173117411751176


This section is not needed anymore as the spreadsheet provides a mean to calculate all distances.


Table 3–18 Speciated gas phase profile for aircraft equipped with turbofan, turbojet, and turboprop engines

Table 3-23: Speciated gas phase profile for aircraft equipped with turbofan, turbojet, and turboprop engines


66

11771178

11791180


4-methyl-1-pentene 691-37-2 0.00069 n-octane 111-65-9 0.00062acetaldehyde d 75-07-0 0.04272 n-pentadecane 629-62-9 0.00173acetone 67-64-1 0.00369 n-pentane 109-66-0 0.00198

acetylene 74-86-2 0.03939 n-propylbenzene 103-65-1 0.00053

acrolein d 107-02-8 0.02449 n-tetradecane 629-59-4 0.00416benzaldehyde e 100-52-7 0.0047 n-tridecane 629-50-5 0.00535benzene d 71-43-2 0.01681 n-undecane 1120-21-4 0.00444butyraldehyde 123-72-8 0.00119 o-ethyltoluene 611-14-3 0.00065c14-alkane No CAS 0.00186 o-tolualdehyde 529-20-4 0.0023c15-alkane No CAS 0.00177 o-xylene d 95-47-6 0.00166c16-alkane No CAS 0.00146 p-ethyltoluene 622-96-8 0.00064c18-alkane No CAS 0.00002 p-tolualdehyde 104-87-0 0.00048

c4-benzene + c3-aroald No CAS 0.00656 phenol d108-95-2 0.00726

c5-benzene + c4-aroald No CAS 0.00324 propane 74-98-6 0.00078

cis-2-butene 590-18-1 0.0021 123-38-6 0.00727

cis-2-pentene 627-20-3 0.00276 propylene 115-07-1 0.04534crotonaldehyde 4170-30-3 0.01033 styrene d 100-42-5 0.00309dimethylnapthalenes 28804-88-8 0.0009 toluene d 108-88-3 0.00642ethane 74-84-0 0.00521 trans-2-hexene 4050-45-7 0.0003ethylbenzene d 100-41-4 0.00174 trans-2-pentene 646-04-8 0.00359ethylenef 74-85-1 0.15461 valeraldehyde 110-62-3 0.00245formaldehyde d,f 50-00-0 0.1231 unidentified b NA 0.29213Sum of all compounds 1

propionaldehyde d


67

1181


Source: US EPA, (2009)a CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service

b

See discussion of unidentified species in Section 2.1 of this report.

c For commercial, military, general aviation, and air taxi aircraft equipped with turbofan, turbojet, and

turboprop engines. d

Identified as a HAP in Section 112 of the CAA (shaded above).

e Identified in IRIS as having toxic characteristics (shaded above).

f Values were adjusted from those shown in the Technical Support Document to account for

rounding and to facilitate inclusion of the data in the SPECIATE database (where the required sum of the values is 1.00000). Note: Values in this table may be revised in the future as additional engine data are available.


68

11831184118511861187118811891190119111921193

CARBO Laura, 22-04-16,

This table should be regenerated; the image doesn’t have the same resolution as if it was a word table.


3[4] Data quality

3.1[4.1] CompletenessRegardless of method, it is important to account for all fuel used for aviation in the country. The methods are based on total fuel use, and should completely cover CO2 emissions. However, the allocation between LTO and cruise will not be complete for Tier 2 method if the LTO statistics are not complete. Also, Tier 2 method focuses on passenger and freight carrying scheduled and charter flights, and thus not all aviation. In addition, Tier 2 method does not automatically include non-scheduled flights and general aviation such as agricultural airplanes, private jets or helicopters, which should be added if the quantity of fuel is significant. Completeness may also be an issue where military data are confidential; in this situation it is good practice to aggregate military fuel use with another source category.

There are additional challenges in distinguishing between domestic and international emissions. As each country’s data sources are unique for this category, it is not possible to formulate a general rule regarding how to make an assignment in the absence of clear data. It is good practice to specify clearly the assumptions made so that the issue of completeness can be evaluated.

Other aviation-related activities that generate emissions include fuelling and fuel handling in general, maintenance of aircraft engines and fuel jettisoning to avoid accidents. Brake and tyre wear also contribute to emissions at airports andAlso, in the wintertime, anti-ice and de-ice treatment of wings and aircraft is a further source of emissions at airports complexes. Many of the materials used in these treatments flow off the wings when planes are idling, taxiing, and taking off, and then evaporate. These emissions are, however, considered very minor and specific methods to estimate them are therefore not included.

There are additional challenges in distinguishing between domestic and international emissions. As each country’s data sources are unique for this category, it is not possible to formulate a general rule regarding how to make an assignment in the absence of clear data. It is good practice to specify clearly the assumptions made so that the issue of completeness can be evaluated.

In addition, the following paragraphsemission sources provide additional information on what isare not includedaccounted for in the methods described in preceding sections.

Emissions from start-up of engines

There is currently little information available to estimate emissions from start-up of engines and these are not included in the LTO cycle. This is not of great importance for total national emissions, but they may have an impact on the air quality in the vicinity of airports.

Auxiliary power operations

Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) are used where no other power source is available for the aircraft and may vary from airport to airport. This is the case, for example, when the aircraft is parked away from the terminal building. The APU fuel use and the related emissions should be allocated on the basis of aircraft operations (number of landings and take-offs). However, no methodology has currently been developed. The use of APUs is being severely restricted at some airports to maintain air quality, and therefore this source of fuel use and emissions may be declining. In total


69

1194

1195

119611971198119912001201120212031204

12051206120712081209

1210121112121213121412151216

12171218121912201221

12221223

122412251226

122712281229123012311232


terms, the fuel consumption and emission contribution from this source is regarded as very small [Winther et al., 2006].

Fuel dumping in emergencies

From time to time aircraft will have to dump fuel before landing so that for safety reasons they do not exceed a certain maximum landing weight. This is generally done at a location and altitude where there will be no local impact at ground level. Only large long-range aircraft will dump fuel. Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) emissions might become significant at very large airports with frequent long distance flights. However, since the most probable altitude of these emissions will be above 1 000 m, these are currently not relevant for United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) reporting. The airport authorities and airline companies might give information on the extent (frequency and amount) of dumping and the altitude at particular airports.

3.2[4.2] Double counting with other sectorsEmissions and fuel burnt from over-flights are excluded from these calculations to avoid double counting of emissions.

3.3[4.3] VerificationThe methodology presented here could be used with international flight statistics (for example ATC providers) to provide a crosscheck against estimates made by individual national experts on the basis of national fuel and flight statistics.

National estimates may be checked against central inventories like ANCAT (1998) and NASA (1996) for 1991/92 and 1992, respectively.

Estimated emissions and fuel use per available seat kilometres travelled may also be compared between countries and aircraft types to ensure the credibility of the data which have been collected.


70

12331234

1235

123612371238123912401241124212431244

1245

12461247

1248

124912501251

12521253

125412551256


[4.4] Uncertainty assessmentThe uncertainties of the estimated aircraft emissions are closely associated with the emission factors assigned to the estimations.

The emissions of CO2 (and fuel use) are generally determined with a higher accuracy than the other pollutants.

3.3.1[4.4.1] Tier 1 approach

The accuracy of the distribution of fuel between domestic and international will depend on the national conditions.

The use of ‘representative’ emission factors may contribute significantly to the uncertainty. In terms of the factors relating to the LTO activities, the accuracy is better than for cruise (due to the origin of the factors from which the average values are derived from). It would be hard to calculate a quantitative uncertainty estimate. The uncertainty may however lie between 20–30 % for LTO factors and 20–45 % for the cruise factors.


The accuracy of the distribution of fuel between domestic and international will depend on the national conditions. The uncertainties lie mainly in the origin of the emission factors. There is a high uncertainty associated with the cruise emission factors.


Uncertainties lie in emission factors for the engines. ICAO (1995) estimates that the uncertainties of the different LTO factors are approximately 5–10 %. For cruise, the uncertainties are assumed to be 15–40 %.

3.4[4.5] Inventory quality assurance/quality control QA/QCNo specific issues.

3.5[4.6] GriddingAirports and emissions should be associated with the appropriate territorial unit (e.g. country). The airports can be divided into territorial units in the following way:

the fuel and emissions from specific airports can be identified, and then summed to show the emissions from region, which in turn can be summed for a country as a whole. Airports located in the various territorial areas should be identified;

from the total national emission estimate emissions can be distributed to the territorial areas and airports using a key reflecting the aviation activity (e.g. the number of landings and take-off cycles) between territorial areas and airports.

3.6[4.7] Reporting and documentationNo specific issues.


71

1257

1258

12591260

12611262

1263

12641265

12661267126812691270

1271

127212731274

1275

127612771278

1279

1280

1281

12821283

128412851286

128712881289

1290

1291


3.7[4.8] Areas for improvements in current methodologyThe list given below summarises causes for concern and areas where further work may be required.

LTO It is a key priority to update the fuel consumption and emission factors with data from the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank maintained by EASA. in order to better reflect the emission performance of today's aircraft in use.

Estimates of fuel used and emissions based on ICAO cycles (refer to ICAO[ICAO 2008] Annex 16, Volume I) it may not reflect accurately the situation of aircraft and airport operations.

The relationship between the minor pollutants and the regulated pollutants (HC, CO, NOx) may need to be investigated in more detail.

Emissions above 3 000 ft (914 m)It is a key priority to update the fuel consumption and emission factors in order to better reflect the emission performance of today's aircraft in use. The proposed Eurocontrol EUROCONTROL fuel burn and emissions’ calculation tool (AEM) uses Eurocontrol’s EUROCONTROL’s Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) for calculating fuel burnt and emissions above 3 000 ft. This data base contains altitude- and attitude-dependent performance and fuel burn data for many more than 200 types of aircraft.

The emission factors and fuel use for short distances (125 and 250 nm) are difficult to model and the suggested values are highly uncertain.

The actual distance flown compared with great circle distances that are given in the OAG timetable may vary by up to 10–11 % in Europe ([ANCAT/EC2 1998).].

PM emissions, including PM2.5

There is a fundamental inconsistency between PM emissions (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5) reported by LRTAP Parties to the EMEP Centre for Emission Inventories and Projections (CEIP), evident by there being variable ratios in PM2.5/TSP and PM2.5/PM10. The most common value reported is 1.00, i.e. it is assumed that all PM emissions from aircraft can be viewed as PM 10. This is the relationship assumed in this Guidebook.

4[5] Glossary and abbreviations

AERONOX EU-project ‘The impact of NOx-emissions from aircraft upon the atmosphere at flight altitudes 8-15 km’ (AERONOX, 1995)

ANCAT Abatement of Nuisance Caused by Air Transport, a technical committee of the European Civil Aviation Conferences (ECAC)

ATC Air Traffic ControlCAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental ProtectionCCD Climb, Cruise and Descent phases of flights, referred to as “Cruise” or “En route”ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation


72

1292

1293

12941295

1296

129712981299

130013011302

13031304

13051306

130713081309131013111312

13131314

13151316

13171318

13191320132113221323

1324

1325

132613271328132913301331133213331334


IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeLTO Landing/Take-off

5[6] ReferencesANCAT (1998). ANCAT/EC2 Global Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1991/1992 and 2015.

Report by the ECAC/ANCAT and EC working group. Ed. R Gardner. ISBN 92-828-2914-6, 1998.

ATAG (2014). Reducing Emissions from Aviation through Carbon/Neutral Growth from 2020. Working paper developed for the 38th ICAO Assembly September/October 2013.

Baughcum, S. L., Sutkus Jr., D. J., and Hendersonm, S. C. (1998): Year 2015 Aircraft Emission Scenario for Scheduled Air Traffic, NASA-CR-1998-207638.

Falk (1999). Estimating the fuel used and NOx produced from Civil passenger aircraft from ANCAT/EC2 Inventory data. Report No DTI/EID3C/199803. 1999.

EAEREASA et al (2016). EASA/EEA/EUROCONTROL , European Aviation Environmental Report 2016, ISBN: 978-92-9210-197-8, https://www.eurocontrol.int/environment

EEA Dataservice (2015). European Union emission inventory report 1990-2013 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP).

EPA (1985). Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Vol. II: Mobile sources, 4th edition. https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/ap42.htm

EPA (2009), US EPA: Recommended Best Practice for Quantifying Speciated Organic Gas Emissions from Aircraft Equipped with Turbofan, Turbojet, and Turboprop Engines, Version 1.0, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and AEE-300 - Emissions Division Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration. EPA-420-R-09-901 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420r09901.pdf

Eyers, C.J., Norman, P., Plohr, M., Michot, S., Atkinson, K., and Christou, R.A., (2004),‘AERO2k Global aviation emissions inventories for 2002 and 2025.’ QINEYIQ/04/01113 UK, December 2004.

ICAO (1995). Engine exhaust emissions databank. First edition. Doc 9646-AN/943. Currently hosted and maintained as a website version: https://www.easa.europa.eu/node/15672

ICAO (2007). The ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual, Preliminary Edition 2007, ICAO Doc 9889.

ICAO (2008). International Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection Annex 16, Volume II Aircraft Engine Emissions (third ed.).

ICAO (2010). ICAO Environmental Report: Aviation’s Contribution to Climate Change.

ICAO Newsroom (2016). http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/New-ICAO-Aircraft-CO2-Standard-One-Step-Closer-To-Final-Adoption.aspx

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html

IPCC (1999). IPCC special report: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Summary for policymakers. IPCC-XV/Doc. 9a.


73

1335133613371338

1339

134013411342

13431344

13451346

13471348

13491350

13511352

13531354

135513561357135813591360

136113621363

13641365

13661367

13681369

1370

13711372

13731374

13751376

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html

http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/New-ICAO-Aircraft-CO2-Standard-One-Step-Closer-To-Final-Adoption.aspx

http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/New-ICAO-Aircraft-CO2-Standard-One-Step-Closer-To-Final-Adoption.aspx

https://www.easa.europa.eu/node/15672

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/420r09901.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/ap42.htm


Malwitz, A., Kim, B., Fleming, G., Lee, J., Balasubramanian, S., Waitz, I., Klima, K., Locke, M., Holsclaw, C., Morales, A., McQueen, E., Gillette, W., (2005), ‘SAGE: Validation assessment, model assumptions and uncertainties’ FAA-EE-2005-03, September 2005.

MEET (1997). Manfred T. Kalivoda and Monika Kudrna, Methodologies for estimating emissions from air traffic. MEET Deliverable No 18. The European Commission.

MEET (1998). Spencer C. Sorensen (ed). Future Non-Road Emissions. MEET Deliverable No 25. The European Commission.

MEET (1999). Transport Research, 4th Framework Programme, Strategic Research, DG VII 1999. ISBN 92-828-6785-4. European Communities 1999.

NASA (1996). Baughcum S. et al. Scheduled Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992. Database development and analysis, NASA contract report no 4700, NASA Langley Research Centre.

Olivier, J.G.J. (1991). Inventory of Aircraft Emissions: A Review of Recent Literature. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Report No 736 301 008, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.

Potter, B (2007). As updated in http://www.firewords.net/definitions/emission_species.htm

Sutkus Jr., D. J., Baughcum, S. L., and DuBois, D. P. (2001): Scheduled Civil Aircract Emission Inventories for 1999: Database Development and Analysis, NASA-CR-2001-211216.

Winther, M., Kousgaard, U. & Oxbøl, A. 2006. Calculation of odour emissions from aircraft engines at Copenhagen Airport. Science of the Total Environment (366), pp. 218–232.

Wuebbles D., M. Gupta, and M. Ko, 2007: Evaluating the impacts of aviation on climate change. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 88, 157–168.

5.1 Additional sourcesEUROCONTROL Advanced Emission Model (AEM)

http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/advanced-emission-model-aem

EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/emep-eea-air-pollutant-emission-inventory-guidebook/emep

EUROCONTROL – STATFOR. http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

EUROCONTROL – CODA. http://www.eurocontrol.int/coda

EUROCONTROL – BADA. http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/bada

ICAO DOC 8643 – Aircraft Type Designators, last updated March 2016. http://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/default.aspx

Innovata http://www.innovata-llc.com/

FOI, data extracted April 2016. http://www.foi.se/en/Our-Knowledge/Aeronautics/FOIs-Confidential-database-for-Turboprop-Engine-Emissions/

OAG http://www.oag.com/

UNECE Reporting Guidelines. Available at http://www.ceip.at


74

137713781379

13801381

13821383

13841385

138613871388

138913901391

1392

139313941395

13961397

13981399

1400

1401

14021403

140414051406

1407

1408

1409

14101411

1412

14131414

1415

1416

1417

http://www.ceip.at/

http://www.oag.com/

http://www.foi.se/en/Our-Knowledge/Aeronautics/FOIs-Confidential-database-for-Turboprop-Engine-Emissions/

http://www.foi.se/en/Our-Knowledge/Aeronautics/FOIs-Confidential-database-for-Turboprop-Engine-Emissions/

http://www.innovata-llc.com/

http://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.eurocontrol.int/services/bada

http://www.eurocontrol.int/coda

http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/emep-eea-air-pollutant-emission-inventory-guidebook/emep

http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/emep-eea-air-pollutant-emission-inventory-guidebook/emep

http://www.firewords.net/definitions/emission_species.htm


AERONOX (1995). U. Schumann (ed.). The Impact of NOx Emissions from Aircraft upon the Atmosphere at Flight Altitudes 8–15 km. ISBN-92-826-8281-1.

ANCAT (1998). ANCAT/EC2 Global Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1991/1992 and 2015. Report by the ECAC/ANCAT and EC working group. Ed. R Gardner. ISBN 92-828-2914-6, 1998.

Archer, L.J., Aircraft emissions and the environment. Oxford Institute for Energy studies. 1993. ISBN 0948061 79 0.

CAEP (1998). CAEP 4th meeting, 1998. CAEP-SG/2-Report pp. B-2, B-3.

Döpelheuer, A., og M. Lecht (1998): Influence of engine performance on emission characteristics. RTO AVT Symposium on ‘Gas Turbine Engine Combustion, Emissions and Alternative Fuels’. NATO Research and Technology Organization. RTO meeting proceedings.

EPA (1985). Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Vol. II: Mobile sources, 4th edition.

Eyers, C.J., Norman, P., Plohr, M., Michot, S., Atkinson, K., and Christou, R.A., (2004),‘AERO2k Global aviation emissions inventories for 2002 and 2025.’ QINEYIQ/04/01113 UK, December 2004.

Falk (1999). Estimating the fuel used and NOx produced from Civil passenger aircraft from ANCAT/EC2 Inventory data. Report No DTI/EID3C/199803. 1999.

Frawley (1999). The International Directory of Civil Aircraft 1999/2000, Airlife Publishing Ltd, Shrewsbury, England, ISBN NO: 1-84037-118-8.

Hasselrot, A. (2000). Database Model for Studying Emissions from Aircraft in Variable Flight Profile. The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden (FOI, Aerodynamic Division - FFA). FFA TN 2000-69.

ICAO (1989a). (Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, CAEP): ICAO exhaust emissions databank. Presented at Working Group 3 meeting October 1989, Mariehamn, Aland (ref. WG3 BIP 4).

ICAO (1989b). The economic situation of air transport: review and outlook 1978 to the year 2000. ICAO, Montreal, Circular 222-AT/90.

ICAO (1993). International Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection Annex 16, Volume II Aircraft Engine Emissions (second ed.) ICAO, 1993.

ICAO (1995). Engine exhaust emissions databank. First edition. Doc 9646-AN/943.

EASA/ICAO (2011) Engine exhaust emissions databank. http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/modelling-and-databases.aspx.

ICAO (1995b). Aircraft engine emissions. UNECE Workshop on Control Technology for Emissions from Off-road Vehicles, and Machines, Ships and Aircraft. Oslo, 8–9 June, 1995.

ICAO (2006). Aircraft engine emissions databank. Downloadable from website www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=702&pagetype=90

ICAO (2007). The ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual, Preliminary Edition 2007, ICAO Doc 9889.

IPCC (1990). IPCC First Assessment Report. Volume III: WG III Formulation of Response Option Strategies.

IPCC (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

IPCC (1999). IPCC special report: Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Summary for policymakers. IPCC-XV/Doc. 9a.

Kim, B., Fleming, G., Balasubramanian, S., Malwitz, A., Lee, J., Ruggiero, J., Waitz, I., Klima, K., Stouffer, V., Long, D., Kostiuk, P., Locke, M., Holsclaw, C., Morales, A., McQueen, E.,


75

14181419

14201421

14221423

1424

142514261427

1428

142914301431

14321433

14341435

143614371438

143914401441

14421443

14441445

1446

14471448

14491450

14511452

14531454

14551456

1457

14581459

14601461

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=702&pagetype=90




Gillett, W., (2005a). ‘SAGE: The system for assessing aviation’s global emissions’. FAA-EE-2005-01, (September 2005).

Kim, B., Fleming, G., Balasubramanian, S., Malwitz, A., Lee, J., Waitz, I., Klima, K., Locke, M., Holsclaw, C., Morales, A., McQueen, E., Gillette, W., (2005b), ‘SAGE: Global aviation emissions inventories for 2000 through 2004’. FAA-EE-2005-02, September 2005.

Malwitz, A., Kim, B., Fleming, G., Lee, J., Balasubramanian, S., Waitz, I., Klima, K., Locke, M., Holsclaw, C., Morales, A., McQueen, E., Gillette, W., (2005), ‘SAGE: Validation assessment, model assumptions and uncertainties’ FAA-EE-2005-03, September 2005.

MEET (1997). Manfred T. Kalivoda and Monika Kudrna, Methodologies for estimating emissions from air traffic. MEET Deliverable No 18. The European Commission.

MEET (1998). Spencer C. Sorensen (ed). Future Non-Road Emissions. MEET Deliverable No 25. The European Commission.

MEET (1999). Transport Research, 4th Framework Programme, Strategic Research, DG VII 1999. ISBN 92-828-6785-4. European Communities 1999.

NASA (1996). Baughcum S. et al. Scheduled Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992. Database development and analysis, NASA contract report no 4700, NASA Langley Research Centre.

Nüsser, H-G. and Schmitt, A. (1990). The global distribution of air traffic at high altitudes, related fuel consumption and trends. In: Schumann, U. (ed.): Air traffic and the environment - background, tendencies and potential atmospheric effects. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1990, pp. 1–-11.

OAG timetable, World Airways Guide. Reed Travel Group, Dunstable, England.

Olivier, J.G.J. (1991). Inventory of Aircraft Emissions: A Review of Recent Literature. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Report No 736 301 008, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.

Olivier, J.G.J (1995). Scenarios for Global Emissions from Air Traffic. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Report No 773 002 003, Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Petzold, A., A Döpelheuer, C.A. Brock og F. Schröder (1999): In situ observations and model calculations of black carbon emissions by aircraft at cruise altitude. Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 104. No D18. 22,171-22,181.

USEPA (2009), Recommended Best Practice for Quantifying Speciated Organic Gas Emissions from Aircraft Equipped with Turbofan, Turbojet, and Turboprop Engines, Version 1.0, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and AEE-300 - Emissions Division Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration. EPA-420-R-09-901 Winther, M., Kousgaard, U. & Oxbøl, A. 2006. Calculation of odour emissions from aircraft engines at Copenhagen Airport. Science of the Total Environment (366), pp. 218–232.

6[7] Point of enquiryEnquiries concerning this chapter should be directed to the relevant leader(s) of the Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projection’s expert panel on Transport. Please refer to the TFEIP website (www.tfeip-secretariat.org/) for the contact details of the current expert panel leaders.


76

14621463

146414651466

146714681469

14701471

14721473

14741475

14761477

1478147914801481

1482

148314841485

14861487

148814891490

14911492149314941495149614971498

1499

1500150115021503

http://www.tfeip-secretariat.org/


Appendix A Projections

Future aircraft emissions will be determined by the volume of air traffic, Air Traffic Management (ATM) improvements, new aircraft technologies and the rate at which the aircraft fleet changes.

This appendix presents a series of projections based upon information from theFollowing the publication of the European Aviation Environmental Report 2016 (EASA et al., 2016), prepared by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the European Environment Agency (EEA) and EUROCONTROL, as well as other collaborators (European Commission/EC, FOCA, UK CAA), a series of projections are included in this Appendix. These projections focus on air traffic growth, noise and emissions increase, and the overall change in the environmental side of aviation due to future technological developments, social changes, and climate change. This Appendix is mainly based on [EAER, 2016].

The environmental impacts of European aviation have increased following the growth in air traffic. Between 1990 and 2005 air traffic and emissions of CO2 have both increased by about 80%. However due to technological improvements, fleet renewal, increased ATM efficiency and the 2008 economic downturn, both emissions and noise exposure in 2014 are around 2005 levels. Future improvements are not expected to be sufficient to prevent an overall growth in emissions during the next 20 years, but may stabilise noise exposure by 2035. Figure A-12 Figure A-1 depicts the forecasted European air traffic from 2005 to 2035, with different scenarios beyond 2014 depending on a traffic growth higher or lower than expected. According to the base traffic forecast, after remaining stable between 2005 and 2014 air traffic is expected to increase a further 45% between 2014 and 2035.

Figure A--1213 European air traffic forecast [Source: EAEREASA et al., 2016]

As seen in Figure A-14Figure A-2, CO2 emissions follow the same trend as air traffic: from 1990 to 2014 CO2 emissions increased by 80%, remaining stable between 2005 and 2014; they are however also expected to increase by a further 45% between 2014 and 2035. NOx emissions have doubled from 1990 to 2014, but technological developments are expected to increase at a lower rate than in previous years, a further 43% between 2014 and 2035, considering also the air traffic growth forecast.


77

1504

15051506

15071508150915101511151215131514

1515151615171518151915201521152215231524

1525

1526

1527

152815291530153115321533


Figure A--1415 Forecast of traffic growth and CO2 and NOx emissions increase depending on the traffic growth [Source: EAEREASA et al., 2016]

In 2015, 92 European airports were participating in the Airport Carbon Accreditation programme, and 20 of these airports were carbon neutral. Around 80% of passengers in Europe were handled via an airport with a certified environmental or quality management system. However, bBy 2035, in the absence of continuing efforts, it is anticipated that some 20 major European airports will face significant congestion and related environmental impacts due to air traffic growth.

Aircraft and their engines must meet international standards for noise and pollutant emissions. Pollutant emissions from engines have been significantly reduced by technological developments. This has been promoted by more stringent NOx limits which have been introduced to avoid potential trade-offs due to the demand for more fuel efficient engines. The average NOx margin to CAEP/6 limit for in-production engine types has increased by about 15% over the last 5 years. Additional standards for CO2 and particulate matter are currently being developed and are expected to enter into force in the near future.


78

1534

1535

1536

15371538

1539

15401541154215431544

1545154615471548154915501551


Table A-24Table A-1 summarises the different aviation emission species and their change between 2005 and 2014. It also includes the forecasted change up to 2035.

Table A--2425 Summary of emission indicators based on IMPACT data [Source: EAER 2016]

20052014

(% change vs. 2005)

Base forecast 2035Advanced / Low technology

(% change vs. 2005)Average fuel burn (kg) perpassenger kilometre 0.0388 0.0314

(-19%)0.0209 – 0.0222(-46%) (-43%)

CO2 (Mt) 144 151(+5%)

207 – 219(+44%) (+53%)

NOx (1,000 t) 650 732(+13%)

920 – 1049(+42%) (+61%)

NOx below 3,000 ft. (1,000 t) 53.3 58.8(+10%)

73.3 – 83.1(+37%) (+56%)

HC (1,000 t) 20.8 17.0(-18%)

22.9(+10%)

HC below 3,000 ft. (1,000 t) 7.8 6.4(-18%)

11.0(+40%)

CO (1,000 t) 143 133(-7%)

206(+44%)

CO below 3,000 ft. (1,000 t) 52.4 48.2(-8%)

85.5(+63%)

Volatile PM (1,000 t) 4.18 4.47(+7%)

6.93(+66%)

Volatile PM below 3,000 ft.(1,000 t) 0.27 0.27

(-1%)0.41

(+50%)Non-volatile PM (1,000 t) 2.67 2.38

(-11%)3.16

(+18%)Non-volatile PM below 3,000 ft.(1,000 t) 0.15 0.13

(-14%)0.17

(+11%)

[Source: EASA et al., 2016]

Slower growth brings a slowly ageing fleet. Newer aircraft and engines are more environmentally efficient, so the age of the European aircraft fleet is an important indicator. The mean aircraft age (weighted by the number of flights made by each aircraft) has crept up from 9.6 to 10.3 years, with only 2009 and 2010 seeing reductions (Figure A-14Figure A-2). These reductions were driven by the rapid expansion of the low-cost fleet, which is younger than average, and retirements of less fuel-efficient older aircraft by the traditional scheduled operators in response to higher fuel prices and falling demand (retirements jumped to over 6% of the fleet per year in 2008 and 2009). In more recent years, the fleet began to age again as a result of slower low-cost carrier growth, and very limited fleet renewal by the traditional-scheduled carriers. In 2014, about half of all flights were by aircraft built in 2005 or later. This figure increases to three quarters when considering only low-cost carriers. The mean age of the non-scheduled charter fleet has increased most rapidly, reflecting the decline of this segment and the switch to scheduled operations. The rapid expansion of business aviation up to 2008 was accompanied by the introduction of new aircraft, but business aviation declined sharply with the economic downturn, with the focus subsequently shifting to increased utilisation rather than buying new aircraft. The mean age of aircraft used for all-cargo operations (i.e. not including the passenger flights which often carry cargo too) is around 19 years during the whole of this period due to the generally lower daily aircraft utilisation.


79

15521553

1554

1555

15561557155815591560156115621563156415651566156715681569157015711572


Figure A--1617 Mean Aircraft age has crept beyond 10 years [Source: EAEREASA et al., 2016]

Table A-2 below reflects the projection of fleet age distribution between 2010 and 2020.

Table A-2 World fleet age profile in 2010 and 2020 (%)

Age (years)

% in 2010 % in 2020

0–5 27.6 32.56–10 20.5 22.911–15 19.7 17.816–20 23.5 16.221–25 8.6 10.6

Note: Growth of fleet from 2010 to 2020 is 26 %.

The commercial uptake of sustainable alternative drop-in fuels in the aviation sector is very slow, but it is assumed to play a largen increasing role in reducing aviation greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades. As of 2016, three jet fuel production pathways from bio-based feedstocks have been approved for use in commercial aviation with different blending grades (ASTM, D75660). It is worth highlighting that reductions in atmospheric CO2 from aviation biofuel use occur from feedstock production and fuel conversion and not from fuel combustion itself. The range of potential CO2eq savings of sustainable alternative drop-in fuels depends on feedstock and agricultural practices as well as efficiency of conversion processes on the one hand, and on the CO2eq emissions profile of the fossil jet fuel baseline, which is used for comparison.

The European Advanced Biofuels Flightpath provides a roadmap to achieve an annual production rate of 2 million tonnes of sustainably produced biofuel for civil aviation by 2020. European commercial flights have trialled sustainable alternative fuels. However regular production of sustainable aviation alternative fuels is projected to be very limited in the next few years, and thus it is unlikely that the roadmap 2020 target will be achieved.

The reader is advised to refer to the European Aviation Environmental Report website where the final report can be downloaded, along with hand-outs and the Executive Summary in various languages. The underlying data in the figures can also be downloaded as excel spreadsheets. It is currently envisaged to update this report every three years, while the associated website will be updated on a more frequent basis.


80

1573

1574

1575

1576

1577

1578

157915801581158215831584158515861587

15881589159015911592

15931594159515961597

CARBO Laura, 21-04-16,

There is no projection on aircraft age up to 2035

http://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer


Future aircraft emissions will be determined by the volume of air traffic, new aircraft technologies and the rate at which the aircraft fleet changes.

According to the IPCC (1999), total global passenger-km will grow by 5 % annually between 1990 and 2015 with a corresponding growth in fuel use of 3 % per year over the same period. The difference is explained by an anticipated improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency. The anticipated growth rates in individual countries will probably be described in the transport plans, which should be available from national Ministries of Transport.

Over the last 30 years, aircraft engines have improved in efficiency, and due to the high cost of fuel, this trend is expected to continue. As mentioned in subsection 3.7, it is expected that tightening the emission regulations will lead to a decrease in NOx emission factors.

NOx may be reduced by introducing engines fitted with double annular combustion chambers (MEET, 1998). This technology has been implemented in new aircraft e.g. B737-600. Proposed average changes in emission factors are shown in Table A1. Note that these may be larger or smaller according to the rate at which the aircraft fleet is renewed (see below).

Table A1 Changes in emission factors relative to current level (baseline scenario)

NOx CO HC2010 -10 % -6 % -6 %2020 -20 % -27 % -24 %

Research is being undertaken on engines to substantially reduce emissions of NOx, CO and HC (MEET 1998). However, the time scale over which the results from this research will become commercially available is unclear, and therefore their use in baseline projections is not recommended.

Research is also on-going to improve the aircraft design to further improve fuel efficiency. Also using new materials may prove to be beneficial (MEET, 1998). In a baseline scenario an annual improvement of average fuel efficiency of 1.5–2.5 % is recommended.

The rate of change of the aircraft fleet depends very much on the country of operation. Although an aircraft is expected to have a long life, typically 25 to 35 years, it will often be sold to other operators, possibly in other countries, and possibly converted to other uses (for example for carrying freight). Noise regulations may also influence the rate of change of aircraft fleet. For a projection of national emissions, it is expected that the major airlines are in a position to provide the most accurate information on anticipated fleet changes as part of their long-term plans. An analysis of future aircraft fleet made by UK BERR (MEET, 1998) is shown in Table A2.

Table A2 World fleet age profile in 2010 and 2020 (%)

Age (years) 2010 20200–5 27.6 32.56–10 20.5 22.911–15 19.7 17.816–20 23.5 16.221–25 8.6 10.6Note: Growth of fleet from 2010 to 2020 is 26 %.


81

1598

15991600

16011602160316041605

160616071608

1609161016111612

1613

1614

1615161616171618

161916201621

1622162316241625162616271628

1629

16301631


The commercial use of alternative fuels in aircraft is still a long way off and should not be incorporated into any national baseline emission projection. Hydrogen is the most likely alternative to kerosene (MEET, 1998). This fuel will be more efficient and has lower emissions compared to kerosene (producing NOx and water vapour, but no carbon compounds). However, the life-cycle emissions depend on how the hydrogen is produced. Hydrogen is very energy-demanding to produce, and introducing hydrogen as an alternative fuel will also require massive investments in ground infrastructure in addition to rebuilding aircraft.


82

1632163316341635163616371638

163916401641


Appendix B Additional comments on emission factors

ICAO (1995) (exhaust emission databank) provides basic aircraft engine emission data for certificated turbojet and turbofan engines covering the rate of fuel used, and the emission factors for HC, CO and NOx at the different thrust settings used. Other relevant emission data are derived from other sources. The exhaust emission databank is now accessible via the internet [ICAO 1995], via URL www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=702&pagetype=90. In addition to HC, CO and NOx this version also contains emission factors for smoke at the different thrust settings (columns BL to BO of the databank in reference ICAO 2006). PM emission factors can be derived from those for smoke, the methodology used for this conversion (the so-called First Order Approximation version 3 - FOA3) is published in ICAO (2007).

The heavy metal emissions are, in principle, determined from the metal content of kerosene or gasoline. Thus, general emission factors for stationary combustion of kerosene and combustion of gasoline in cars may be applied. The only exception is lead. Lead is added to aviation gasoline to increase the octane number. The lead content is higher than in leaded car gasoline, and the maximum permitted levels in UK are shown below. A value of 0.6 g lead per litre gasoline should be used as the default value if there is an absence of better information. Actual data may be obtained from the oil companies.

Table B-1: Lead content of aviation gasoline, UKAVGAS designation Maximum lead content (as Tetra ethyl lead)

AVGAS 80 0.14 g/l

AVGAS low lead 100 0.56 g/l

AVGAS 100 0.85 g/l

There is little information on particulate matter from aircraft. In Petzol et al. (1999) and Döpelheuer et al. (1998) data are published for various aircraft types. Petzol (1999) also describes the particle size. For newer aircraft the size distribution is dominated by particles with a diameter between 0.025 and 0.15 m. For newer aircraft (certificated after 1976), e.g. A300, B737 and DC10 the emission factor is found to be about 0.01 g/kg fuel. Döpelheuer (1998) also gives data for different phases of the flight for A300. The factor is higher at take-off (0.05 g/kg) and lower at cruise (0.0067 g/kg), while the factor for climb and descent is about 0.01 g/kg. From combustion science principles it is anticipated that the PM2.5/PM10 ratio for aircraft engines will be similar to, or higher than, that for internal combustion engines. Given that the ratio for IC engines is found to be 94 %, it is reasonable to assume that for aircraft their PM emissions can be considered as PM 2.5. The PM2.5/PM10 ratio most commonly used when reporting values within EMEP is 1.0. This is the relationship assumed in this Guidebook.

Little information is currently available about possible exhaust emissions of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) from aircraft engines. Emissions of water (H2O) may be derived from the fuel consumption at the rate of 1 237 kg water/kg fuel.

Using the emission factors, special emphasis should be put on the assumptions of the weight per cent of sulphur (assumed at 0.05 %). If the sulphur percent of the fuel used is different, this should be taken into account. If the sulphur per cent used for example is 0.01 % instead of 0.05 %, the emission factor should be divided by 5 to show the true factor.


83

1642

1643

164416451646164716481649165016511652

1653165416551656165716581659

1660

166116621663166416651666166716681669167016711672

167316741675

1676167716781679

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=702&pagetype=90


Appendix C BC fractions of PM emissions from aviation

In order to maintain consistency throughout the guidebook, it should be noted that the literature emission factor values used here directly represent elemental carbon (EC), and these values are assumed to be equal to BC.

Table C1 presents an overview of the five studies which have been regarded relevant as sources for BC fractions of PM emissions (f-BC) from aviation. Apart from f-BC fractions, for each study the engine type and emission test modes are listed, as well as the PM emission sampling conditions, as far as information is available. Some of the following references also report figures for OC which can be input for the further assessment of OC fractions of PM (f-OC).

Petzold et al. (2009) carry out test rig measurements of the emissions from four engine operational conditions in the SAMPLE (Study on sampling and measurement of aircraft particulate emissions) project. The measurements of PM are adjusted to include the particulate emissions in form of water bound sulphate. BC and EC values are also measured. Petzold et al. (2009) find that BC equals EC. No trend in emission could be observed for variations in engine test modes.

Petzold et al. (2003) simulates in a test rig for cruise power settings the emission influence from low, medium and high fuel sulphur content used by old and new engine technologies, respectively. BC and TC (total carbon) emissions are measured. Subsequently, the TC emissions are adjusted with 30 % in upwards direction (c.f. Petzold et al. (2009)) in order to calculate the total mass of PM and determine the f-BC fraction. No trend in emission could be observed for variations in engine test modes.

Rogers et al. (2005) carried out ground based plume measurements of the emissions from a jet engine military fighter and a turbo shaft engine being used by military helicopters. Rogers et al. (2005) measures EC, OC and total PM mass emissions, and mention the measured EC factor as the “black factor”. Based on one test run they derive BC factors which can be related to the PM mass emission factors.

Kinsey et al (2010) reports ground based plume emission measurements for nine commercial aircraft engines in three field campaigns of the Aircraft Particles Emissions eXperiment (APEX) 1-3 study. In the supplementary material for Kinsey et al. (2010), EC emissions are interpreted as BC and further it is noted that volatile PM emissions consist of sulphur and organic PM. In Kinsey et al. (2010) for five aircraft engines, the total PM mass emissions are split into volatile (PMvol) and non volatile (PMnon vol) fractions. For the present note, the non volatile share of total PM is assumed to be equivalent to the f-BC fraction.

Agrawal et al. (2008) measured the emissions of e.g. PM, EC and OC from four commercial aircraft. No trend in emission could be observed for variations in engine test modes. For the present discussion note EC values are used for BC, following the assumptions made by e.g. Rogers et al. (2005) and Kinsey et al. (2010).

Winther et al. (2012) calculated the emissions of PM for aircraft engines in Copenhagen Airport based on actual flight operational data and aircraft/engine combinations. The FOA3 method (I[ICAO, 2008b)] was used to estimate the PM emissions, split into volatile PM coming from the


84

1680

1681168216831684168516861687168816891690169116921693169416951696169716981699170017011702170317041705170617071708170917101711171217131714171517161717171817191720172117221723172417251726


sulphur in the fuel and exhaust VOC, and non volative PM from soot. Subsequently, a fuel weighted f-BC fraction (non volatilenon-volatile share of total PM) was derived taking into account the landing, take off and taxi engine power modes. The f-BC fraction for Copenhagen Airport was similar to the f-BC fraction calculated for LTO for Shiphol Airport in Amsterdam also using the FOA3 method (pers. comm. Andreas Petzold, DLR, 2012).f-BC, and f-OC (where available) fractions derived from the above mentioned studies are listed in the following Table C-1.

Table C-1 BC & OC fractions (%) of PM emissions from relevant studies

Study Aircraft/Engine types Test conditions f-BC f-OCa

Petzold et al. (2003) Old engine Cruise, low sulphur 61

Cruise, medium sulphur 44

Cruise, high sulphur 50

New engine Cruise, low sulphur 75

Cruise, medium sulphur 31

Cruise, high sulphur 40

Agrawal et al. (2008) CFM56-7B22 Mode 1 (4 & 7 %) 31 91.2

Mode 2 (30 & 40 %) 8 14

Mode 3 (65 %) 59 16

Mode 4 (85 %) 59 24

CFM56-3B1 Mode 1 (4 & 7 %) 48 67

Mode 2 (30 & 40 %) 60 60%

Mode 3 (65 %) 26 44

Mode 4 (85 %) 85 12

CFM56-3B2 Mode 1 (4 & 7 %) 55 79

Mode 2 (30 & 40 %) 69 33

Mode 3 (65 %) 74 19

Mode 4 (85 %) 79 19

CFM56-7B22 Mode 1 (4 & 7 %) 47 189

Mode 2 (30 & 40 %) 72 127

Mode 3 (65 %) 86 15

Mode 4 (85 %) 68 35

Rogers et al. (2005) Military F404-GE-400, T700-GE-401 65%-80%, 67%-98% 56 19

Kinsey et al. (2010) CFM56-2C1 Various power modes 38 62

CFM56-3B1 Various power modes 21 79

AE3007A1E Various power modes 38 62

P&W4158 Various power modes 46 54

RB211-535E4B Various power modes 59 41

Petzold et al. (2009) Test rig Condition1 66

Condition2 33

Condition3 54

Condition4 36

Winther et al. (2012) Copenhagen Airport fleet/engine Landing 33

Take off 54


85

17271728172917301731173217331734

1735


Taxi 30

Petzold et al. (2003) Average 50

Agrawal et al. (2008) Average 58

Rogers et al. (2005) Average 56

Kinsey et al. (2010) Average 40

Petzold et al. (2009) Average 47

Winther et al. (2012) Average 39

Average (All) Average 48

a Where f-OC values are >100, the literature indicates this could be due to sampling methods producing a positive artefact. In this case, the OC positive artefact was assumed to offset hydrogen and oxygen content of the organic mass, based on previous research [(Shah et al., 2004a; and Shah et al., 2004b;).' [(Agrawal et al. 2008]).

ConclusionThe amount of available data is regarded as being too scarce to propose different f-BC fractions for different Tiers and explicitly for LTO and cruise in the guidebook chapter for aviation. Hence, the same average f-BC fraction (f-BC = 0.48) will be proposed for the simple LTO and cruise methodology in Tier 1, the aircraft type specific Tier 2 methodology, the aircraft type city-pair based Tier 3 methodology, and for military aircraft. For piston engined aircraft data from Winther and Nielsen (2011) will be used (f-BC = 0.15) based on information from Kupiainen and Klimont (2004).

Table C-2 list the tables in the guidebook chapter for aviation which contain f-BC fraction information. These fractions must then be combined with the existing PM factors in GB in order to establish the final BC emission factor in each case.

Table C-2 Guidebook tables which contain f-BC fraction dataTable no. Tier Detail f-BC source

3-3 1 Old/average fleet; LTO and cruise emf. Present note; f-BC = 0.48

3-5 2 LTO emf. per aircraft type Present note; f-BC = 0.48

3-4 1 Piston engined aircraft Winther et al. (2011) ; f-BC = 0.48

3-15 2 Military Present note; f-BC = 0.48

AcknowledgmentAndreas Petzold, DLR, must be thanked for technical discussions.

ReferencesAgrawal, H., Sawant, A.A, Jansen, K., Miller, J.W. Cocker III, D.R. 2008: Characterization of

chemical and particulate emissions from aircraft engines, Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 4380–4392.

ICAO (2008): ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Working Group 3 – Emissions Technical, 4th Meeting, 20-24th May 2008, Montreal, Canada, Working Paper: FOA3.0 Guidance Manual for Use By MODTF, CAEP8-WG3-WP08 (FOA3.0 Guidance Manual).ICAO COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION


86

17361737173817391740

1741

1742174317441745174617471748174917501751175217531754

1755

1756

17571758

1759

1760176117621763

1764176517661767


WORKING GROUP 3 - EMISSIONS TECHNICAL, 4th Meeting, 20-24th May 2008, Montreal, Canada, Working Paper: FOA3.0 Guidance Manual for Use By MODTF, CAEP8-WG3-WP08 (FOA3.0 Guidance Manual).

Kinsey, J.S., Dong, Y., Williams, D.C, Logan, R. 2010: Physical characterization of the fine particle emissions from commercial aircraft engines during the Aircraft Particle Emissions eXperiment (APEX) 1-3, Atmospheric Environment 44 (2010) 2147-2156.

Kupiainen, K. & Klimont, Z., 2004: Primary emissions of submicron and carbonaceous particles in Europe and the potential for their control. Interim Report IR-04-079. IIASA, Austria, 115pp.

Petzold, A., Stein, C., Nyeki, S., Gysel, M., Weingartner, E., Baltensperger, U., Giebl, H., Hitzenberger, R., Döppelheuer, A., Vrchoticky, S., Puxbaum, H., Johnson, M., Hurley, C. D., Marsh, R., Wilson, C. W. 2003: Properties of jet engine combustion particles during the PartEmis experiment: Microphysics and Chemistry, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 13, 1719, doi:10.1029/2003GL017283.

Petzold, A., Marsh, R., Johnson , M., Miller, M., Sevcenco, Y., Delhaye, D., Vancassel, X., Ibrahim, A., Veira, A., Williams, P., Bauer, H., Crayford, A., Morris, S., Kay, P., Bowen, P., Bachalo, W.D., Raper, D. 2009: Study on sampling and measurement of aircraft particulate emissions SAMPLE – Final Report, EASA.2008.OP.13, 46 pp., DLR Germany.

Rogers, F., Arnott, P., Zielinska, B., Sagebiel, J., Kelly, K.E., Wagner, D. Lighty, J.S. Sarofim, A.F 2008: Real-Time Measurements of Jet Aircraft Engine Exhaust, J. Air & Waste Management Association. 55:583–593.

Winther, M.; Nielsen, O.-K., 2011: Technology dependent BC and OC emissions for Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands calculated for the time period 1990-2030. Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011), s. 5880-5895.

Winther, M., Kousgaard, U., Ellermann, T., Ketzel, M., Løfstrøm, P., Massling, A., & Nøjgaard, J. K. (2012). Emissions from aircraft and handling equipment in Copenhagen Airport. Paper presented at 19th International Transport and Air Pollution Conference 2012, Thessaloniki, Greece.


87

176817691770

1771

177217731774

1775

177617771778

1779

17801781178217831784

1785

1786178717881789

1790

179117921793

1794

179517961797

1798

17991800180118021803


Appendix D EUROCONTROL Fuel burn and emissions inventory systemAppendix D Example of a Tier 3A / Tier 3B methodology, EUROCONTROL’s Advanced Emissions Model (AEM)

EUROCONTROL has developed a Fuel burn and emissions inventory system (FEIS) that produces estimates of the total masses of jet fuel (for aircraft powered by turbojet, turbofan, or turboprop engines) and aviation gasoline (for aircraft powered by piston engines) burnt by all the aircraft that, during the year before, made relevant flights that departed from, or arrived at, or both, an airport (or aerodrome ) that is located in a relevant part of the territory of one of the 28 states that are members of the European Union (EU). The total masses of certain gaseous species and types of particulate matter (PM) that were emitted due to the burning of this jet fuel and aviation gasoline are also estimated.

This work is done in support of both the EEA and the states that are members of the EU. But, in addition, EUROCONTROL also produces estimates of the same quantities for those states that are members of the European Environment Agency (EEA) but that are not members of the EU.

The purpose of this Appendix is to provide a high level description both the procedure by which these estimates are produced and the tools that are used to do the calculations.

The system developed by EUROCONTROL concerns only aircraft movement information available within the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage; it also concerns only IFR flights (no VFR flights) and all flights operated as military or special operations are excluded. For aircraft movements for which the trajectory is partly or completely outside of the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage, trajectories are completed or generated for aircraft movements identified in commercial aircraft schedule databases.

For the time being, the FEIS relays mainly on the capability of the EUROCONTROL Advanced Emission Model (AEM) to process large amount of data in a reasonable time.

In the context of the Fuel burn and emissions inventory system, AEM is used as follow:

AEM processes flight movements to estimate the amount of fuel burnt, and then estimate the emissions resulting from the combustion of this fuel in the engines. A flight movement is the movement on the ground and in the air of an aircraft (an airframe + engine(s)) following a 4D path (or profile).

Above 3,000 ft, this profile is described in terms of a sequence of straight-line segments that are retrieved from the updated flight plan data managed by the EUROCONTROL Network Manager Operations Centre or partly or completely generated for flight movements outside of the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage. The fuel burn is calculated for each segments of a flight profile thanks to the aircraft performance information provided by the EUROCONTROL’s Base of Aircraft Data (BADA). This database provides altitude- and attitude-dependent performance and fuel burn data for more than 200 aircraft types. Once the amount of fuel burnt is calculated for each segment, the Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 (BFFM2) is used to correct the amount of fuel that is burnt before multiplying by the emission indices.


88

1804

1805

1806

1807

1808

18091810181118121813181418151816

181718181819

18201821

182218231824182518261827

18281829

1830

1831183218331834

1835183618371838183918401841184218431844


But, below 3,000 ft, because information about flight profile is not sufficiently accurate, AEM calculates the amount of fuel burnt according to the ICAO LTO cycle methodology which, was defined by the ICAO Engine Certification specifications, and models flight movements (below 3,000 ft) as a series of defined thrust levels for defined lengths of time associated to each LTO cycle flight phases. The fuel burn is calculated thanks to the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Data Bank (AEED) which provides emission indices and fuel flow for a very large number of aircraft engines. As EUROCONTROL has developed table associating a large range of aircraft model to the engines they are generally equipped, AEM can link each flight movement processed by AEM to a specific engine as identified by its Unique Identification Number (UID) as listed in the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank. A “standard” LTO cycle lasts for a total of 32 minutes and 54 seconds of which for 26 minutes the engines are in idle mode while taxiing out before taking off and taxiing in after landing (19 minutes and 7 minutes respectively). But for many airports in Europe, the time spent with the engine thrust set to idle is different from the 26 minutes of the ICAO LTO cycle. Therefore, to improve the accuracy of the system, EUROCONTROL replaces default ICAO taxi-in and taxi-out times with actual average annual airport taxi-in and taxi-out times as calculated by EUROCONTROL’s Central Office of Delay Analysis (CODA). Once the amount of fuel burnt in a phase of the LTO cycle is known, the associated emissions can be calculated.

This appendix describes the application of a Tier 3a/Tier 3b methodology using the Advanced Emission Model (AEM) from EUROCONTROL, which is one of the models approved by the ICAO/CAEP Modelling and Databases group.

The methodology proposed by EUROCONTROL concerns only aircraft movement information available within the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage; it also concerns only IFR flights (plus civil helicopters). No military flight are included, and non-IFR flights are also excluded.

Below 3,000 ft, the fuel burn calculation is based on the LTO cycle defined by the ICAO Engine Certification specifications. The ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank includes emission indices and fuel flow for a very large number of aircraft engines. The AEM links each aircraft appearing in the input traffic sample to one of the engines listed in the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank. EUROCONTROL can provide a larger range of aircraft performance modelling and a larger list of equivalent aircraft types when the exact performance model is not available.

Because of the lack of accuracy of the fuel burn and emissions calculations when modelling that part of an aircraft’s trajectory under 3000 ft, EUROCONTROL has implemented a methodology that lies somewhere between a Tier 3A and a Tier 3B methodology.

Fuel burn and emissions above 3000ft (climb/cruise/descent) are based on real 4D trajectories extracted from a CFMU database that contains all aircraft movements for which the trajectory is wholly within the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage. For those aircraft movements for which the trajectory is partly within the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage best fit trajectories are created (based on the experience gained in the project AERO2K) and used for calculating fuel burn and emissions.

Above 3,000 ft, the fuel burn calculation is based on EUROCONTROL’s Base of Aircraft Data (BADA). This database provides altitude- and attitude-dependent performance and fuel burn data for more than 150 aircraft types.


89

1845184618471848184918501851185218531854185518561857185818591860186118621863

186418651866

1867186818691870

1871187218731874187518761877

187818791880

188118821883188418851886

188718881889


For aircraft movements for which the trajectory is completely outside of the EUROCONTROL zone of coverage, trajectories are created from the Official Airline Guide (OAG) data on the same principles used in the previous case.

Table D--2627: AEM fuel burnt and corresponding emissions calculation method

Figure D1.1 AEM fuel burnt and corresponding emissions calculation method.

As such the Fuel burn and emissions inventory system developed by EUROCONTROL implement a methodology that lies somewhere between a Tier 3A and a Tier 3B methodology.

From the fuel burn and emissions calculated from each flight movements in the system EUROCONTROL generates reports for the two following conventions:

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and

the Convention on Long-range Trans-boundary Air pollution (CLRTAP) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

The FEIS is updated on an annual basis with previous year flight movement data and fuel and emissions’ estimations; the historical year data starting from 2005 are maintained and, in the case


90

189018911892

1893

1894

1895

1896

1897

18981899

19001901

1902

19031904

19051906


of significant methodology changes which would result in more than 5% emissions change from the previous year’s estimation, recalculated.

A very detailed description of EUROCONTROL Fuel burn and emissions inventory system is available on the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) extranet.


91

19071908

190919101911

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/


Appendix E A further description of emission species

On chapter 2.1 of this Guidebook the different emission species produced by aviation were listed. This appendix describes the main emissions further. These emissions are not unique to aviation, and some of them are fairly well-known.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) CO2, being the most significant element of aviation’s contribution to climate change, is also the best documented greenhouse gas (GHG) and most often accounted for. As a GHG it alters the balance of incoming and outgoing sun radiation from the earth’s surface and contributes to warming of the atmosphere. Different sources estimate that the emissions of CO2 from aircraft account for 2% of all such anthropogenic emissions [IPCC, 1999; ICAO, 2010; ATAG, 2014]. This represents about 12-13% of CO2 emissions from all transportation sources. Emissions of CO2

have the same effect on climate regardless of altitude (i.e. same impact from aviation as terrestrial emissions) because CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of up to 200 years, which is much greater than the timeframe over which it mixes up in the lower atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide (N2O)Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also a major greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollutant. N 2O gives rise to nitric oxide (NO) on reaction with oxygen atoms, and this NO in turn reacts with ozone. As a result, it is the main naturally occurring regulator of stratospheric ozone. Considered over a 100-year period, it is calculated to have between 265 and 310 times more impact per unit mass (global-warming potential) than CO2: i.e. more ability per molecule of gas to trap heat in the atmosphere, and therefore considered the most important ozone-depleting substance emission [US EPA].

Methane (CH4) Methane is another potent greenhouse gas (GHG), with an atmospheric lifetime of 14 years. During the flight of an aircraft methane is both burnt and produced. The amount of methane produced by a modern engine is considered to be lower than the amount of methane in the atmosphere that is burnt by the engine. It is important to note that the burning of methane by the aircraft does produce other gases, namely nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Water vapour (H2O)Water vapour is another important GHG. It is produced by the burning of hydrocarbons (HC) in oxygen. Water vapour has a short lifetime in the atmosphere. Under certain atmospheric conditions (i.e. cold, humid atmospheres), water vapour produced by aircraft engines at high altitude condenses into droplets to form condensation trails, or contrails, which are visible line clouds behind the aircraft. Contrails are thought to have a global warming effect. Contrails are extremely rare from lower-altitude aircraft, or from propeller-driven aircraft or rotorcraft.

Sulphur oxides The emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) have small temperature effects on the atmosphere. SOx are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel, and form aerosols of sulphate compounds. These reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and so have a small cooling effect. Conversely, small particulates produced from combustion (soot) trap outgoing infra-red radiation within the atmosphere and so have a small warming effect. These are both poorly quantified but are believed


92

1912

1913

191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958


to be small effects that roughly cancel each other out. The majority of SOx is sulphur dioxide (SO2) although small proportions of sulphur trioxide (SO3) can arise.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)At the high altitudes flown by large jet airliners around the tropopause, emissions of NOx are particularly effective in forming ozone (O3) in the upper troposphere. High altitude (8-13km) NOx emissions result in greater concentrations of O3 than surface NOx emissions, and these in turn have a greater global warming effect. The effects of O3 concentrations are regional and local (as opposed to CO2 emissions, which are global). NOx emissions also reduce ambient levels of methane, another greenhouse gas, resulting in a climate cooling effect. But this effect does not offset the O3 forming effect of NOx emissions. It is now believed that aircraft sulphur and water emissions in the stratosphere tend to deplete O3, partially offsetting the NOx-induced O3 increases. These effects have not been quantified. This problem does not apply to aircraft that fly lower in the troposphere, such as light aircraft or many commuter aircraft.

Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) include benzene, olefins, ketones, aldehydes, etc. They are both human-made and naturally occurring chemical compounds.

Carbon monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless, odourless, and tasteless gas that is slightly less dense than air. It is toxic to hemoglobic animals (including humans) when encountered in dense concentrations. Carbon monoxide is both short-lived in the atmosphere (on average about two months) and spatially variable in concentration.

Particulate matter (PM)

Particulate matter (PM) is microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere. Sources of particulate matter can be man-made or natural. They have impacts on climate and precipitation that adversely affect human health. The term aerosol commonly refers to the particulate/air mixture, as opposed to the particulate matter alone. Atmospheric aerosols affect the climate of the earth by changing the amount of incoming solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial long wave radiation retained in the earth's system.


93

19591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984

198519861987198819891990

1991

category - tfeip secretariattfeip-secretariat.org/assets/guidebook-updates/may2016... · web viewa...

Documents