DOCSLIB.ORG

Information to Users

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information to Users INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell information Company 300 North Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313 761-4700 800 521-0600 Order Number 9326580 Performance of traffic-alert collision avoidance (TCAS) antennas in the presence of scatterers Sampath, Krishna Sampath, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1993 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PERFORMANCE OF TRAFFIC-ALERT COLLISION AVOIDANCE (TCAS) ANTENNAS IN THE PRESENCE OF SCATTERERS A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University by Krishna S. Sampath, B.Tech., M.Tech., M.S. * * + * * The Ohio State University 1993 Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Professor Walter D. Burnside Professor Benedikt A. Munk Advisor Department of Electrical Professor Robert Lee Engineering DEDICATION to my grandparents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It has been a long and arduous journey through the graduate school, and a number of people have assisted my passage. I would like to express gratitude to my adviser, Professor Walter D. Burnside, for his patience and insight. I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Roberto G. Rojas for his help and training during the formative years. I will always be indebted to Professor Edward H. Newman and Dr. Harry T. Shamansky, whose support and encouragement during the latter years enabled me complete this work. I am grateful to our sponsors, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA, and MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Cambridge MA, for funding the TCAS and HARP programs. Thanks are due to Professors Benedikt A. Munk and Robert Lee for their suggestions. I would also like to thank Dr. Vandana Mohan Raj for helping me stay focussed. Last but not least, my sincere thanks to my parents for their love and understanding. VITA Septem ber 18, 1963 ................................... Born in Chittoor, India. June, 1984 ....................................................B.Tech., Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Anantapur, India. June, 1985 - December 1986 ................. M.Tech., Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. January 1987 - July 1987 ....................... Scientist, Society for Applied Microwave and Electronics Engineering and Research, Center for Electromagnetics, Madras, India. August 1987 - December 1987 ............. Teaching Assistant, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. January, 1988 - Present ........................... Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. PUBLICATIONS Analysis of Airframe Effects on the Performance of TCAS Antennas , co-author R. G. Rojas, Report 724737-1, The Ohio State University ElectroScience Laboratory, August 1992. Analysis and Simulation of Collision Avoidance TCAS Antennas Mounted on Air- cra/fc, co-authors R. G. Rojas and W. D. Burnside, Applied Computational Electro­ magnetics Society Journal , vol. 6(1), pp. 112-139, Summer 1991. Analysis and Simulation of Collision Avoidance TCAS Antennas Mounted on Air­ craft, co-authors R, G. Rojas and W. D. Burnside, Oral Presentation, North Ameri­ can Radio Science Meeting and International IEEE/AP-S Symposium, London On­ tario, June 1991. Modelling and Performance Analysis of Four and Eight Element TCAS, Report 716199-15, The Ohio State University ElectroScience Laboratory, April 1990. Radar Cross Section of a Cylindrically Curved Plate , M. Tech. Thesis, Indian Insti­ tute of Technology, Kharagpur, India, December 1986. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Electrical Engineering Electromagnetic Theory Communication Theory Mathematics TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION............................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................... iii VITA .............................................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIG URES.................................................................................... x CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and M otivation ................................................................. 1 1.2 S y n o p s is ..................................................................................................... 3 II. OPERATION OF T C A S ................................................................. 7 2.1 In tro d u c tio n ............................................................................................... 7 2.2 Comparison of Relative Amplitude System ...................................... 7 2.3 Spiral Phase Antenna System ............................................................. 16 2.4 Results ......................................................................................................... 19 III. OPTIMAL LOCATION OF TCAS ............................................. 34 3.1 In tro d u c tio n ............................................................................................... 34 3.2 Boeing 737-300 ........................................................................................ 35 3.3 Boeing 747-200 ....................................................................................... 40 3.4 Boeing 727-200 ....................................................................................... 43 3.5 Discussion ................................................................................................. 52 IV. EFFECT OF OTHER ANTENNAS .................................................... 55 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 55 4.2 Modeling a Nearby Antenna ............................................................... 56 4.3 L-band AT-741 Blade ............................................................................. 59 4.4 VHF DMC60-1 Blade ............................................................................. 63 4.5 Simulation and Results ......................................................................... 70 V. EFFECT OF ENGINES ........................................................................... 86 5.1 In tro d u c tio n ............................................................................................. 86 5.2 Scattering by a Waveguide ................................................................... 88 5.3 Engine M odel .......................................................................................... 89 5.4 TCAS Performance ................................................................................ 92 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 103 6.1 In tro d u c tio n ............................................................................................. 103 6.2 Elevation Effects ................................................................................... 104 6.3 Nearby Antenna Effects ......................................................................... 105 6.4 Engine Effects .......................................................................................... 106 6.5 Other Factors .......................................................................................... 106 6.6 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................ 107 6.6.1 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 ....................................................... 108 6.6.2 Boeing 757-200 ........................................................................... 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 110 vii APPENDICES A. STATISTICS OF TCAS ANTENNAS.......................................... 113 B. HELICOPTER ANTENNA RADIATION PREDICTION (HARP)............................................................................................. 124 B.l Introduction .............................................................................................. 124 B.2
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aircraft Design Was Modeled More Closely After It
    Aircraft Final Project GD3-200 Prepared by: Group 3 Tian Chen. Quoc Tran . Oge Onuoha. Tony Haughton. Jean-Etienne Dongmo. Introduction The GD3-200 is a twin engine, new technology jet airplane designed for low fuel burn and short-to-medium range operations. This airplane uses new aerodynamics, advanced composite materials, structures, and systems to fill market requirement that cannot be efficiently provided by existing equipment or derivatives. The GD3-200 will provide airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency. The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than any other airplane in its class. The key to this exceptional performance lies in the use of advanced composite materials for the majority of the airplane’s fuselage and wing structure. GD3 has also enlisted General Electric to develop engines for the new airplane. The GD3-200 is a highly fuel efficient low-noise airplane powered by General Electric new GEnx CF6-6 engines. These 9.5 to 1 high-bypass-ratio engines are reliable and easy to maintain. Using GEnx derived technology means these engines bring an average 15 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption over all other engines in its class. In the passenger configuration, the GD3-200 can typically carry 186 passengers (200 including crew) in a six-abreast, mixed class configuration over a 3000 mile range with full load. The GD3-200 can be equipped for Extended Range Operations (EROPS) to allow extended over-water operations. Changes include a backup hydraulic motor-generator set and an auxiliary fan for equipment cooling. Mission Requirement Payload: -200 passengers/crew at 200 lb each (includes baggage) 40000lb -5000 lb Cruise: 0.8 Mach at 33000 ft Cruise Range: 3000 miles Cruise Altitude: 33,000 ft Loiter: 30 minutes at 0.8 m Mach at 33000 ft Climb: Initial climb to cruise altitude starting at maximum takeoff weight Take-off distance: 5000 to 6000 ft with 50 ft clearance at sea level and standard conditions at maximum takeoff weight Power plant: more than 1; high-by-pass turbofan; choose from existing ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757; Douglas DC-8, DC-9
    No.: 2009-20080703001 Date: September 4, 2009 http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn AFFECTED PRODUCTS: Aircraft: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757; Douglas DC-8, DC-9 and MD-11 aircraft Part Number: Half Hinge Assembly, P/N 3953095U504 Notes: Additional parts may be affected (see parts list below). PURPOSE: The notification advises all aircraft owners, operators, manufacturers, maintenance organizations, parts suppliers and distributors regarding the unapproved parts produced by Watson’s Profiling Corporation, located in Ontario, CA 91761. BACKGROUND: Information received during a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP) investigation revealed that between August 2005 and November 2007, Watson’s Profiling Corp., 1460 Balboa Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761, produced and sold parts (SEE ATTACHED PARTS LIST) without Direct Ship or Drop Ship authority from The Boeing Company. Furthermore, Watson’s Profiling Corp. is not an FAA Production Approval Holder. The parts produced by Watson’s Profiling Corporation have the following characteristics. • Their accompanying documentation indicates that the parts were manufactured by Watson’s, Profiling; however, they did not have FAA approval to manufacture and sell the parts as FAA-approved replacement parts. In addition, the investigation determined that some parts passed through various distributors. The majority, which were sold by Fossco Inc., 1211 Rainbow Avenue, Suite A, Pensacola, FL 32505. Documentation with the parts incorrectly indicated Watson’s Profiling, had
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Engining a Boeing 727-200 (Advanced) Versus Buying a New Boeing 757-200
    Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research Volume 4 Number 1 JAAER Fall 1993 Article 1 Fall 1993 A Cost Analysis: Re-Engining a Boeing 727-200 (Advanced) Versus Buying a New Boeing 757-200 Peter B. Coddington Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/jaaer Scholarly Commons Citation Coddington, P. B. (1993). A Cost Analysis: Re-Engining a Boeing 727-200 (Advanced) Versus Buying a New Boeing 757-200. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.15394/ jaaer.1993.1110 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Coddington: A Cost Analysis: Re-Engining a Boeing 727-200 (Advanced) Versus B A COSTANALYSIS: RE-ENGINlNG A BOEING 727-200 (ADVANCED) VERSUS BUYING A NEWBOEING 757-200 Peter B. Coddington The Boeing 727-200 and 757-200 are both narrowbody aircraft designed for short- to medium-range flights carrying 164 to 214 passengers. Until recently, when overtaken by the Boeing 737, the 727-200 program was the most successful aircraft program in history. The 727 airplane has carried 2.3 billion passengers, equivalent to half the world's population (Sterling, 1992). More than half of all 727s sold were advanced 200s and as late as 1990 an incredible 50% of all U.S. passenger traffic had flown on 727-200s since the advanced model was launched in 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Transatlantic Airline Fuel Efficiency Ranking, 2017
    WHITE PAPER SEPTEMBER 2018 TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017 Brandon Graver, Ph.D., and Daniel Rutherford, Ph.D. www.theicct.org [email protected] BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Tim Johnson, Andrew Murphy, Anastasia Kharina, and Amy Smorodin for their review and support. We also acknowledge Airline Data Inc. for providing processed BTS data, and FlightGlobal for Ascend Fleet data. International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 USA [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2018 International Council on Clean Transportation TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ iii 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Airline selection .................................................................................................................................3 2.2 Fuel burn modeling..........................................................................................................................5 2.3 Fuel efficiency calculation ............................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Issue (PDF)
    03 Jeppesen Expands Products and Markets 05 Preparing Ramp Operations for the 787-8 15 Fuel Filter Contamination 21 Preventing Engine Ingestion Injuries QTR_03 08 A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION BOEING.COM/COMMERCIAL/ AEROMAGAZINE Cover photo: Next-Generation 737 wing spar. contents 03 Jeppesen Expands Products and Markets Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen is transforming its support to customers with a broad array of technology-driven solutions that go beyond the paper navigational charts for which Jeppesen 03 is so well known. 05 Preparing Ramp Operations for the 787-8 Airlines can ensure a smooth transition to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner by understanding what it has in common with existing airplanes in their fleets, as well as what is unique. 15 Fuel Filter Contamination 05 Dirty fuel is the main cause of engine fuel filter contamination. Although it’s a difficult problem to isolate, airlines can take steps to deal with it. 21 Preventing Engine Ingestion Injuries 15 Observing proper safety precautions, such as good communication and awareness of the hazard areas in the vicinity of an operating jet engine, can prevent serious injury or death. 21 01 WWW.BOEING.COM/COMMERCIAL/AEROMAGAZINE Issue 31_Quarter 03 | 2008 Publisher Design Cover photography Shannon Frew Methodologie Jeff Corwin Editorial director Writer Printer Jill Langer Jeff Fraga ColorGraphics Editor-in-chief Distribution manager Web site design Jim Lombardo Nanci Moultrie Methodologie Editorial Board Gary Bartz, Frank Billand, Richard Breuhaus, Darrell Hokuf, Al John, Doug Lane, Jill Langer,
    [Show full text]
  • List of Avionics Design and Modification
    List of Avionics Design and Modification - Aerovation’s Past Performance 15-Oct-2017, Rev IR Aerovation, Inc. 7005 S. Plumer Ave Tucson, AZ 85756 - USA Tel. (520) 308-6409 Fax (520) 844-8785 www.AerovationInc.com This document may contain commercial or financial information, or trade secrets, of Aerovation, Inc., which are confidential and exempt from disclosure to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), and unlawful disclosure thereof is a violation of the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905 Public disclosure of any such information or trade secrets shall not be made without the prior written permission of Aerovation, Inc List of Avionics Project Company Project Year Aircraft Basic Description AAC 707-18740 1990 Boeing 707 FLt Dir, FMS, Airdata, Satphone 727-23-20095 1989 Boeing 727 EFIS 727-76OXY 1989 Boeing 727 EFIS 727-22362 1994 Boeing 727 EFIS 727-SN18998 1999 Boeing 727 Nav/Comm, FMS 727-SN19394 1998 Boeing 727 Airdata system 727-SN22362 2000 Boeing 727 TCAS 737-UJL 1992 Boeing 737 DMEs, Transponders, INS, No. 1&2 HF ALATHER 1997 Boeing 727-100 EFIS AMC727 1995 Boeing 727 EFIS B727-100-EGPWS 2001 Boeing 727 EGPWS B727-200_SN21474 2003 Boeing 727 ELT, ECS, IFE B737-200 2001 Boeing 737 EFIS, FMS B757 2003 Boeing 757 EGPWS B757 2005 Boeing 757 EGPWS B767 2002 Boeing 767 Interior, Emer Lts, PA B757 1992 Boeing 757 IFE FORBES727 1993 Boeing 727 EFIS LIMITED 1997 Undisclosed Autopilot Interface NASA-P3BN426NA 1991 Lockheed-Martin P3-B EFIS SPECIALCB 1990 Boeing 707 EFIS SPECIALEFIS 1990 Boeing 727 EFIS (EDZ-805)
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing History Chronology Boeing Red Barn
    Boeing History Chronology Boeing Red Barn PRE-1910 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Boeing History Chronology PRE-1910 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 PRE -1910 1910 Los Angeles International Air Meet Museum of Flight Collection HOME PRE-1910 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1881 Oct. 1 William Edward Boeing is born in Detroit, Michigan. 1892 April 6 Donald Wills Douglas is born in Brooklyn, New York. 1895 May 8 James Howard “Dutch” Kindelberger is born in Wheeling, West Virginia. 1898 Oct. 26 Lloyd Carlton Stearman is born in Wellsford, Kansas. 1899 April 9 James Smith McDonnell is born in Denver, Colorado. 1903 Dec. 17 Wilbur and Orville Wright make the first successful powered, manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. 1905 Dec. 24 Howard Robard Hughes Jr. is born in Houston, Texas. 1907 Jan. 28 Elrey Borge Jeppesen is born in Lake Charles, Louisiana. HOME PRE-1910 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1910 s Boeing Model 1 B & W seaplane HOME PRE-1910 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1910 January Timber baron William E. Boeing attends the first Los Angeles International Air Meet and develops a passion for aviation. March 10 William Boeing buys yacht customer Edward Heath’s shipyard on the Duwamish River in Seattle. The facility will later become his first airplane factory. 1914 May Donald W. Douglas obtains his Bachelor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), finishing the four-year course in only two years.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    July 2008 | Volume VII, Issue III www.boeing.com/frontiers July 2008 Volume VII, Issue III BOEING FRONTIERS ON THE COVER: The London landmark Big Ben. SHUTTERSTOCK.COM PHOTO; COVER DESIGN BY BRANDON LUONG COVER STORY SHUTTERSTOCK.COM PHOTO BRILLIANT! | 12 Boeing has a wide-ranging presence in the United Kingdom. The company operates The Portal, a decision-support center in Farnborough, with partner QinetiQ. Many British entities contribute to the 787 Dreamliner airplane. And Boeing’s partners are helping develop technologies that support Boeing products. Here’s a look at why the UK matters to Boeing—and vice versa. FEATURE STORY | 42 A clean shave Welcome to the Boeing Portland facility in Oregon, where huge hunks of metal are machined into airplane parts. The rate at which this site strips away metal to form a new part is the baseline on which Boeing measures its performance against the machining industry—and Port- land has one of the best metal-removal rates in the world. BOEING FRONTIERS JULY 2008 3 Contents BOEING FRONTIERS Proud bird | 25 With a flawless combat deployment in Iraq that included 1,500 successful sorties and 3,600 flight hours, the Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotor is proving itself to be what the U.S. Marines have said all along it would be: an aircraft that will transform military operations. Looking 30 years ahead | 26 Maintaining its technological edge is a matter the Super Hornet program at Boeing takes seriously. The program is following a strategy—the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet “Fight Plan”—that charts the course for improving this aircraft’s combat capability over the next three decades.
    [Show full text]
  • How Airbus Surpassed Boeing: a Tale of Two Competitors
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2007 How Airbus Surpassed Boeing: A Tale of Two Competitors William Alexander Burns University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Burns, William Alexander, "How Airbus Surpassed Boeing: A Tale of Two Competitors. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2007. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/252 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by William Alexander Burns entitled "How Airbus Surpassed Boeing: A Tale of Two Competitors." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Aviation Systems. Robert B. Richards, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Richard Ranaudo, U. Peter Solies Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by William A. Burns entitled “How Airbus Surpassed Boeing: A Tale of Two Competitors” I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Aviation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing 757-3CQ, G-JMAB No & Type of Engines
    AAIB Bulletin: 8/2015 G-JMAB EW/C2014/10/03 SERIOUS INCIDENT Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 757-3CQ, G-JMAB No & Type of Engines: 2 Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4-B-37 turbofan engines Year of Manufacture: 2001 (Serial no: 32242) Date & Time (UTC): 31 October 2014 at 1130 hrs Location: During takeoff from London Gatwick Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger) Persons on Board: Crew - 10 Passengers - 239 Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - None Nature of Damage: Slide carrier, pivot forging and actuator deformed, slide loss and fuselage scuff marks Commander’s Licence: Airline transport pilot’s licence Commander’s Age: 50 years Commander’s Flying Experience: 15,300 hours (of which 8,765 were on type) Last 90 days - 196 hours Last 28 days - 57 hours Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation Synopsis A ‘wing slide’ advisory message activated on the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) during takeoff. The crew entered a hold to burn off fuel until the aircraft was at an appropriate landing weight and returned to Gatwick. Whilst positioning for final approach, the right over-wing slide unravelled from the slide carrier and subsequently detached from the aircraft. Although the crew experienced some uncommanded roll on final approach, the aircraft landed safely. The investigation determined that a series of technical issues with the slide panel and carrier locking devices caused the slide carrier to deploy and the slide to unravel. A Service Bulletin was already in existence to address some of these issues, but it had not been actioned on this aircraft at the time of the incident.
    [Show full text]
  • CO2 EMISSIONS from COMMERCIAL AVIATION: 2013, 2018, and 2019 Down from Nearly 19% in 2013
    OCTOBER 2020 CO2 EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL AVIATION 2013, 2018, AND 2019 BRANDON GRAVER, PH.D., DAN RUTHERFORD, PH.D., AND SOLA ZHENG ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Jennifer Callahan and Dale Hall (ICCT), Tim Johnson (Aviation Environment Federation), and Andrew Murphy (Transport & Environment) for their review. This work was conducted with generous support from the Aspen Global Change Institute. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA Additional country-specific operations and CO2 emissions data for 2013, 2018, and 2019 can be found on the ICCT website. International Council on Clean Transportation 1500 K Street NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2020 International Council on Clean Transportation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Last year, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) developed a bottom-up, global aviation inventory to better understand carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from commercial aviation in 2018. This report updates the operations and emissions analyses for calendar year 2018 based on improved source data, and includes new analyses for 2013 and 2019. In 2013, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requested its technical experts develop a global CO2 emissions standard for aircraft, and states began to submit voluntary action plans to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation. This paper details a global, transparent, and geographically allocated CO2 inventory for three years of commercial aviation, using operations data from OAG Aviation Worldwide Limited, ICAO, individual airlines, and the Piano aircraft emissions modeling software. Our Global Aviation Carbon Assessment (GACA) model estimated CO2 emissions from global passenger and cargo operations on par with totals reported by industry (Figure ES-1). In all three analyzed years, passenger flights were responsible for approximately 85% of commercial aviation CO2 emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • American Eagle Aircraft American Aircraft
    FINAL APPROACH ⁄ OUR FLEET AMERICAN AIRCRAFT BOEING 777-300ER F: 8 Flagship Suites AIRBUS A321 AIRBUS A321 on select aircraft B: 52 fully lie-flat seats F: 16 recline seats MCE: 45 seats MCE: 18-38 seats M: 205 seats M: 127–153 seats AIRBUS A330-300 BOEING 777-300ER B: 28 fully lie-flat seats BOEING 737-800 MCE: 16 seats BOEING 737-800 F: 16 recline seats M: 247 seats MCE: 30 seats M: 114 seats BOEING 777-200ER B: 37 angled lie-flat seats PE: 24 seats MCE: 66 seats AIRBUS A320 AIRBUS A330-300 M: 146 seats F: 12 recline seats AIRBUS A320 MCE: 18 seats BOEING 777-200ER version 2 M: 120 seats B: 45 fully lie-flat seats MCE: 55 seats M: 160 seats MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD-80 BOEING 777-200ER version 3 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD-80 F: 16 recline seats BOEING 777-200ER B: 37 fully lie-flat seats MCE: 35 seats MCE: 58 seats M: 89 seats M: 194 seats BOEING 787-9 DREAMLINER B: 30 fully lie-flat seats AIRBUS A319 on select aircraft PE: 21 seats AIRBUS A319 F: 8 recline seats BOEING 787-9 DREAMLINER MCE: 34 seats MCE: 24 seats M: 200 seats M: 96 seats AIRBUS A330-200 B: 20 fully lie-flat seats EMBRAER ERJ-190 F: 11 recline seats MCE: 16 seats EMBRAER ERJ-190 M: 222 seats MCE: 8 seats M: 80 seats AIRBUS A330-200 BOEING 787-8 DREAMLINER B: 28 fully lie-flat seats MCE: 55 seats M: 143 seats AMERICAN EAGLE AIRCRAFT BOEING 767-300ER B: 28 fully lie-flat seats EMBRAER ERJ-175 BOEING 787-8 DREAMLINER MCE: 21 seats F: 8-12 recline seats EMBRAER ERJ-175 M: 160 seats MCE: 4-20 seats M: 44-64 seats BOMBARDIER BOMBARDIER CRJ-200 BOEING 757-200 DOMESTIC on select aircraft
    [Show full text]