COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

航空论坛 发表于 2011-8-11 17:57:25

**** Hidden Message *****

航空论坛 发表于 2011-8-11 17:59:21

CAEP/7-WP/25 International Civil Aviation Organization 13/10/06 WORKING PAPER 
 COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP) SEVENTH MEETING Montréal, 5 to 16 February 2007 Agenda Item 1: Review of proposals relating to aircraft engine emissions, including the amendment 
of Annex 16, Volume II Agenda Item 3: Review of proposals relating to aircraft noise, including the amendment of Annex 16, Volume I ICAO CIRCULAR ON NADP NOISE AND EMISSIONS EFFECTS (Presented by WG2 Rapporteurs) SUMMARY This working paper provides material for an ICAO Circular on noise and emissions effects of PANS-OPS Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP). The material has been developed by WG2/TG3 to address CAEP/7 item N6b with regard to assessment of environmental effects of noise abatement departures procedures. Action by the CAEP is in paragraph 4.1.  REFERENCES CAEP6-IP20 -Noise abatement operating procedures -comparative analysis CAEP-SG/20051-IP/7 -Data format for Circular on noise and emissions effects of PANS-OPS NADP CAEP-SG/20063-WP/13 -ICAO Circular on NADP noise and emissions effects Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Aircraft Operations, Volume I — Flight Procedures (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168) Part V, Chapter 3 and the Appendix to Chapter 3  
(88 pages) CAEP.7.WP.025.1and3.en.doc CAEP/7-WP/25 -2 - 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 CAEP7 Work Item N6.b requests the review of prospects for the optimization of procedures and the development of advanced procedures in relation to ground and airborne system improvements, assessing the corresponding effects for takeoff. WG2 Task Group 3 addressed this work item through two separate deliverables. The first deliverable contains a survey on research and development on noise abatement procedures and the second deliverable, presented in this working paper, provides the results of an assessment of noise and emissions effects of noise abatement departure procedures. 1.2 At CAEP/6, WG2 presented a comparative analysis of noise effects of noise abatement operating procedures (CAEP6-IP20). At the beginning of the CAEP/7 cycle it was agreed to expand the work initiated under CAEP/6 in terms of both number of aircraft types and in terms of environmental effects. WG2/TG3 defined the objective of the task as developing quantitative information in terms of noise and emissions effects of noise abatement departure procedures (NADP) designed according to the guidance in PANS-OPS, Part V, Chapter 3. The material is to provide information to airports and air carriers with regard to selection and development. 1.3 This working paper describes the assessment work carried out by WG2/TG3 and provides the resulting report. The Appendix of this working paper contains the material that is proposed by WG2 for distribution by ICAO. 
2. NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES 
 2.1 ICAO PANS-OPS, Part V, Chapter 3 provides guidance with respect to operation of noise abatement departure procedures. It provides recommendations regarding the conditions in which noise abatement procedures can be safely used and the envelope within which main flight parameters defining the procedure can be safely adapted for airport noise mitigation. Examples of such flight parameters are height at which engine thrust is reduced and height at which acceleration and flap/slat retraction are initiated. 2.2 The guidance includes two examples of procedures. One procedure called NADP1 is to mitigate noise at relatively shorter distances and another procedure called NADP2 is to reduce noise at relatively greater distances from the brake release point. The procedures are described in more detail in the Appendix of this working paper. 2.3 The guidance furthermore states that the number of departure procedures developed and used by the operator for a given aircraft should be limited to two, one identified as the normal procedure and the other to be used for noise abatement. Within these constraints, the operator has the latitude to determine which procedure and parameters to select. 2.4 The PANS-OPS guidance does not provide quantitative information regarding the zones where the aforementioned procedures provide noise reduction or the magnitude of the noise reduction under the takeoff flight path. The selection of an appropriate procedure with regard to airport-specific environmental constraints requires the quantification and analysis of the available operational solutions for each runway and departure corridor in terms of noise and/or gaseous emissions. -3 - CAEP/7-WP/25 
 2.5 The goal of the task accomplished by the WG2/TG3 was to provide quantitative information for a number of jet aircraft on noise and emissions differences between several variants of the procedures mentioned above. 
3.   ASSESSMENT OF NADP NOISE AND EMISSIONS EFFECTS 
 3.1 Prior to the assessment of NADP noise and emissions effects the Task Group had to define the type of noise and emissions effects to be included, the type of comparison and the graphical representation. The types of departure procedures to be included in the analysis as well as operational assumptions had to be defined. During the first WG2 meetings of this CAEP cycle, the Task Group defined the study based on worked examples of NADP noise and emissions studies provided by the manufacturers. 3.2 At the 2005 Steering Group meeting WG2 presented a proposal concerning the type of data and the method of representation, which was approved (CAEP-SG/20051-IP/7). For a number of NADP variants, noise and emissions effects were to be assessed and included as follows: a)  noise profiles, providing maximum A-weighted noise levels below flight path as a function of distance from brake release and the difference between the two noise profiles; and b)  gaseous emissions, in terms of relative NOx emitted up to 1000ft AGL and 3000ft AGL and relative CO2 emitted up to adjusted top of climb. Results are presented in terms of percentages relative to one of two procedures. 3.3 Four NADP variants were defined for inclusion in the assessment. Two NADP1 variants were defined, one featuring a cutback at 800ft and the second with a cutback at 1500ft. Two NADP2 variants were defined of which one features a cutback at the end of the acceleration and flap retraction phase and the second features a cutback at the beginning. The comparison of the four procedures allowed determination of the effect of cutback height and/or timing, as well as the difference between NADP1 and NADP2. 3.4 It was agreed to include two cases with different takeoff thrust settings and takeoff weights, in order for the circular material to better reflect daily operational practice. The first case assumes full takeoff thrust and maximum takeoff weight. The second case assumes a reduced takeoff thrust and performance limited takeoff weight. It was agreed not to make cross comparisons between procedures belonging to different cases. Apart from the fact that results for different takeoffs cannot be compared, an additional reason is that cross comparisons between takeoff thrust cases were considered outside the scope of this task, takeoff thrust not being considered as a noise abatement variable in PANS-OPS guidance. 3.5 At the June 2006 Steering Group meeting an advanced draft version of the material was presented, including datasets for narrow-and wide-body jet aircraft provided by Airbus and Boeing (CAEP-SG/20063-WP/13). In the following months, additional datasets were included for business jets and regional jets, provided by respectively Dassault and Bombardier. Based on the four datasets, including in total eight aircraft types, a synthesis was made of the main noise and emissions effects. CAEP/7-WP/25 -4 - 3.6 Based on the synthesis of results, basic conclusions could be drawn concerning trends observed for the eight aircraft included in the study. The noise reduction characteristics of NADP1 and NADP2 in zones respectively close-in and distant from the brake release point were demonstrated, as well as the existence of a crossover point between these zones, located between 5.5 nautical miles and 11 nautical miles from brake release depending on aircraft type. The report also demonstrates the influence of cutback height on both the location of noise reduction areas and amount of noise reduction in those areas. In terms of NOx and CO2 emissions, some trends were observed in favour of NADP1 or NADP2 depending on type of emissions. No single departure procedure appeared to minimize overall noise and emissions simultaneously. The report concludes therefore that depending on local airport requirements, tradeoffs must be made between close-in versus distant noise, NOx versus CO2 emissions and finally noise versus gaseous emissions. 3.7 The Appendix of this working paper contains the complete report, which is proposed as material for a Circular on NAPD noise and emissions effects. The introduction of the report provides basic guidelines with regard to how the information should be used. 
4. ACTION BY THE CAEP 
 4.1 The CAEP is invited to: a) endorse the contents of this paper and the report in the Appendix of this paper; and b) recommend that ICAO make the information in the Appendix available as a Circular. ———————— CAEP/7-WP/25 Appendix English only 
APPENDIX ICAO CIRCULAR ON NADP NOISE AND EMISSIONS EFFECTS Proposal for a Circular on Noise and Emission Effects from PANS-OPS Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 
SUMMARY This appendix contains the proposed material for an ICAO Circular on noise and emissions effects from PANS-OPS Noise Abatement Departure Procedures. The material has been developed by WG2/TG3 to address CAEP/7 item N6b with regard to assessment of environmental effects of noise abatement departures procedures.  REFERENCES – Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations, Volume I – Flight Procedures (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168) Part V, Chapter 3 and the Appendix to Chapter 3. – Society of Automotive Engineers, Procedure for the Calculation of Airplane Noise in the Vicinity of Airports. SAE AIR-1845 (1986) (currently under revision).  
 
 CONTENTS Glossary........................................................................................................................................4 
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................6 
 1.1 Purpose ..........................................................................................................................6 
1.2 Guidelines for use of this document..................................................................................6 
1.3 Document structure.........................................................................................................7 
 2. Noise abatement departure procedures.....................................................................................7 
 2.1 Guidance ........................................................................................................................7 
2.2 PANS-OPS examples of noise abatement procedures ........................................................8 
2.3 Procedure development and appraisal of environmental effects..........................................9 
 3. Noise and gaseous emissions effects .......................................................................................9 
 3.1 Noise effects and metrics.................................................................................................9 
3.2 Emissions effects and metrics ........................................................................................10 
3.3 Graphic representation of noise and emissions effects......................................................10 
 4. Description of procedures used in the analysis .......................................................................12 
 4.1 Procedure descriptions...................................................................................................12 
4.2 Comparisons.................................................................................................................14 
4.3 Takeoff thrust settings ...................................................................................................15 
 5. Synthesis of noise and emissions effects................................................................................15 
 5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................15 
5.2 Procedures 1 versus 2....................................................................................................16 
5.3 Procedures 1 versus 3....................................................................................................17 
5.4 Procedures 1 versus 4....................................................................................................18 
5.5 Procedures 3 versus 4....................................................................................................19 
 6. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................21 Appendix A: Results Airbus .........................................................................................................22 Appendix B: Results Boeing .........................................................................................................47 Appendix C: Results Bombardier..................................................................................................72 Appendix D: Results Dassault.......................................................................................................81 
 
 
 GLOSSARY  Adjusted top of  Common mission point after top of climb beyond which the remaining part of  climb  flight is common for a set of compared procedures and a given aircraft  AGL  Above Ground Level  A-weighted sound  Basic sound/noise level scale used for measuring environmental noise  level, LA  including that from aircraft  Brake release  The point on the runway from which a departing aircraft commences its  takeoff  Close-in zone  Zone underneath the flight path, typically extending from the point of initiation  of the noise abatement departure procedure up to the crossover point  CO2  Carbon Dioxyde, component of gaseous emissions comprised of one carbon  and two oxygen atoms  Crossover point  Point underneath the flight path at which the sign of the difference between  noise profiles for two compared departure procedure changes  Cutback  The reduction of engine power from takeoff thrust to a lower thrust setting,  usually Climb thrust  dBA  Decibel A-weighted sound level  Distant zone  Zone underneath the flight path, typically extending from the crossover point  FT  Feet  ICAO  International Civil Aviation Organization  ISA  International Standard Atmosphere  KIAS  Knots indicated airspeed  LAmax  Maximum A-weighted sound level  LB  Pound  MCLT  Maximum Climb Thrust, engine setting usually selected for climb-out phase  MTOW  Maximum Takeoff Weight  NADP  Noise Abatement Departure Procedure  NM  Nautical mile  Noise  Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Metrics such as A-weighted sound level  used in this document convert a sound level into a noise level.  Noise level  A decibel measure of sound on a scale which indicates its loudness or  noisiness  Noise profile  Profile obtained by computing noise levels at regular intervals along the flight  track from start of initial climb-out until the point where the aircraft has  reached a given altitude  
 
 NOx  Nitrogen Oxyde, component of gaseous emissions. Mixture of nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide PANS-OPS  Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Operations Point X  Adjusted top of climb SAE  Society of Automotive Engineers SL  Sea level STD  Standard TOGA  Takeoff Go-around, maximum takeoff thrust setting TOW  Takeoff weight V2  Takeoff safety speed 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.1.1 The purpose of this document is to provide information to airports and operators with regard to selection and development of noise abatement departure procedures designed according to the guidance in PANS-OPS, Part V, Chapter 3. Quantitative information regarding effects of noise abatement departure procedures on noise and gaseous emissions are provided below for a limited number of today’s commercial transport jet aircraft. 1.1.2 The scope of this document is limited to noise abatement departure procedures that can be operated with aircraft currently in service. 1.1.3 The collection of aircraft for which information is provided in this document includes the main jet aircraft categories, such as business, regional, narrow-body and wide-body aircraft, but is nevertheless limited in number. The data provided for these aircraft is based on common assumptions concerning operational parameters (e.g. takeoff weights, thrust settings, atmospheric conditions) for the different aircraft categories. The usage of this material should be limited to acquiring general insight. For selection of appropriate procedures for a given aircraft type and/or airport situation, further dedicated study is required. 1.2 Guidelines for use of this document 1.2.1 The results of this study should be considered as information to airports and operators with regard to selection and development of noise abatement departure procedures. The usage of this material should be limited to acquiring general insight into noise and emissions effects of departure procedures. 1.2.2 Quantitative results and conclusions mentioned in this study are valid for the aircraft and conditions included in this study and should not be generalized nor extrapolated. 1.2.3 In applying this guidance, users of the data should seek expert noise and emissions advice. 1.2.4 For selection of appropriate procedures for a given airport and/or fleet mix, further dedicated study is required, taking into account particularities such as geographical location and atmospheric conditions. 
 
1.3 Document structure 1.3.1 Section 2 provides a short summary of the PANS-OPS noise abatement departure procedures that can be selected by the operator. It highlights the main parameters relevant for the selection of procedures with regard to environmental criteria due to their supposed influence on noise and gaseous emissions effects. 1.3.2 The environmental effects of departure procedures can be measured in various ways. A description of the predicted noise and emissions effects and their graphical representation is provided in Section 3. 1.3.3 Section 4 provides a description of the noise abatement departure procedures for which noise and emissions effects have been quantified. This section also provides the basis of comparison of the procedures as well as the common assumptions regarding operational flight parameters. 1.3.4 Section 5 provides a synthesis of the noise and emissions effects predicted for the aircraft that are included in this study. The results per aircraft type are available in the appendices to this document. 1.3.5 Section 6 provides the conclusions. 
2. NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES 
 2.1 Guidance 2.1.1 ICAO PANS-OPS, Part V, Chapter 3 provides guidance with respect to operation of noise abatement departure procedures. The guidance contains recommendations regarding the conditions in which noise abatement procedures can be safely used and the envelope within which main flight parameters defining the procedure can be safely adapted for airport noise mitigation. 2.1.2 The guidance includes two examples of procedures, one to mitigate noise at relatively shorter distances and another at relatively greater distances from the brake release point. These examples are described in the following subsection. 2.1.3 The guidance furthermore states that the number of departure procedures developed and used by the operator for a given aircraft should be limited to two, one identified as the normal procedure and the other to be used for noise abatement. Within these constraints, the operator has to determine which procedures to select. 
 
 
 2.2 PANS-OPS examples of noise abatement procedures 2.2.1 Figure 1 and Figure 2, taken from PANS-OPS, Part V, Chapter 3, provide a schematic description of NADP 1 & 2 procedures. The zones where these procedures are expected to provide noise abatement, respectively close-in and distant relative to the brake release point, are mentioned below the figures. Figure 1: ICAO NADP1 Figure 2: ICAO NADP2 
 
2.2.2 As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the procedures take place between a minimum of 800ft and a maximum of 3000ft AGL, allowing operators to develop specific procedures to suite their local situations. The term used previously in PANS-OPS, ICAO Procedure A, would constitute a specific procedure within the NADP 1 family; similarly ICAO Procedure B constitutes a specific procedure within the NADP 2 family. The flexibility provided in the PANS-OPS guidance remains limited to two procedures. 2.3 Procedure development and appraisal of environmental effects 2.3.1 The PANS-OPS guidance, the main goal of which is to provide recommendations for safe aircraft operations, does not provide quantitative information regarding the zones where the aforementioned procedures provide noise abatement and the size of the noise differences in those zones. 2.3.2 The selection of an appropriate procedure with regard to airport-specific environmental constraints requires the quantification and analysis of the available operational solutions in terms of noise and/or gaseous emissions. The environmental effects of the procedures depend on type of aircraft and operating conditions. The assessment of noise effects as part of procedure development should therefore be based on actual information regarding the airport fleet mix and geographical position of the airport and its runway(s) with regard to noise sensitive areas. 
3. NOISE AND GASEOUS EMISSIONS EFFECTS 
 3.1 Noise effects and metrics 3.1.1 This section explains the main noise effects of operational departure procedures and the method and metrics for quantification of these effects. 3.1.2 For departure operations the main noise source are the aircraft engines. For a given aircraft and a given atmospheric condition, the noise perceived by an observer position on the ground depends mainly on the thrust setting, the height of the aircraft and its speed. The speed of the aircraft affects the duration of the noise event. 3.1.3 The noise perceived on the ground for a single event can be expressed in terms of maximum-level metrics and in terms of total noise exposure metrics. The maximum-level metrics only consider the peak noise level registered during a noise event. Exposure metrics quantify the total amount of noise during the relevant part of the noise event. Whereas the maximum level corresponds to a certain time and position of the aircraft, the exposure level corresponds to noise emitted during a part of the aircraft’s departure. 3.1.4 The noise underneath the flight path is critical for the assessment of noise produced by the different departure procedures. For this study, noise levels are computed at regular intervals 
 
along the track from start of initial climb-out until the point where the aircraft has reached 10000 ft AGL, resulting in so-called “noise profiles”.  3.1.5 Establishing a relationship between the development of maximum noise levels below the flight path to events along the flight path (e.g. thrust cutback or transition from climb to acceleration) is relatively straightforward. For exposure-based metrics, this is more difficult due to the integration of noise over a time interval during which several changes in aircraft state and climb performance can occur. For the analysis of procedures in this document, the maximum A-weighted noise level is considered. 3.1.6 Flight profiles have been computed with manufacturer in-house performance engineering software. Noise levels have been computed for these profiles using in-house noise calculation tools, compliant with SAE AIR-1845. 3.2 Emissions effects and metrics 3.2.1 This section explains the main emissions effects considered in this document for operational departure procedures and the method for quantification of these effects. 3.2.2 For departure operations considered in this report, the emissions source is the aircraft main engines. For a given aircraft the operational emissions will depend on the airplane and engine types, engine thrust setting, and operating time to study evaluation altitudes of 1000 ft, 3000 ft, and adjusted top of climb. 3.2.3 The aircraft total NOx emissions produced for each takeoff procedure is presented at 1000 feet, the typical limiting altitude for NO2 concerns, and 3000 feet AGL, the typical boundary layer mixing altitude and ICAO LTO altitude limit. Aircraft total CO2 emissions produced for each takeoff procedure is presented at a common mission point after top of climb (adjusted top of climb, see section 4.1.4). 3.2.4 Emissions calculations were completed by individual airplane manufacturer propriety airplane performance methods (see section 3.1.6) that provided airplane flight path and fuel burn. Aircraft CO2 production is calculated directly from fuel burn. Aircraft NOx production is determined via fuel flow methods and certified engine emissions data. 3.3 Graphic representation of noise and emissions effects 3.3.1 In this section the method for graphic representation of noise and emissions effects of operational departure procedures is explained. 3.3.2 Figure 3 provides an example of the graphical representation of noise and emission effects applied in the Appendices. The graphs show noise and emissions effects per aircraft and per pair of procedures. For this example procedures are named Procedure Y and Procedure Z. 
 
3.3.3 The title of each graph specifies the aircraft type and the assumed takeoff weight. 3.3.4 The noise effects are demonstrated per procedure by means of noise profiles, showing noise underneath the flight path as a function of distance from brake release. These curves provide insight on the decrease of noise levels with increasing distance from brake release. The applied noise metric is the maximum A-weighted noise level (LAmax). A relative scale is used for these curves. 3.3.5 In addition to the noise levels of the two procedures, a third curve providing the difference between these noise levels is included. This curve allows rapid assessment of the amount and sign of difference as function of distance from brake release. The third curve has three distinct characteristics, all of which are important in the selection of noise abatement departure procedures: .   A “Close-in” noise difference zone, typically extending from the point of initiation of the procedure up to the crossover point; 
.   A “crossover point”, which is generally the point at which the sign of the difference changes, 
.   A “Distant” noise difference zone, extending from the crossover point. 
 3.3.6 The maximum close-in noise difference and maximum distant noise difference designated in Figure 3 are included as indicators in the procedure comparisons in Section 5. 3.3.7 The emissions effects are represented by means of bar charts. The charts provide the total amounts of NOx emitted between brake release and altitudes of 1000ft or 3000ft AGL, respectively “1000ft NOx” and “3000ft NOx” in the example. A third quantity provided in the bar chart is the total amount of CO2 emitted between brake release and the adjusted start of cruise, referred to as “Point ’X‘ CO2” in the bar chart. All results are given as a percentage relative to the first of the two procedures in the chart. The percentages are printed on the bar charts to facilitate appraisal of the differences. 3.3.8 The appendices also include flight path. 
 
 Figure 3: Graphical representation of the noise and emissions effects for two procedures 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES USED IN THE ANALYSIS 4.1 Procedure descriptions 4.1.1 This section describes the four variants of departure procedure designed in accordance with PANS-OPS that are evaluated in the document. 4.1.2 Table 1 provides descriptions of these procedures, including two NADP1 variants, Procedures 1 and 2, and two NADP2 variants, Procedures 3 and 4. These descriptions include the takeoff and departure climb up to 10000ft AGL, relevant for the noise assessment. A schematic description of the succeeding climb-out to adjusted top of climb is given after. 4.1.3 Procedures 1 and 2 were selected to illustrate the effect of cutback height. Procedures 3 and 4 were selected to illustrate the effect of thrust cutback at the beginning and end of the acceleration and flap retraction phase. The selected procedures also allow comparison between NADP1 and NADP2. This is described in more detail in Section 4.2. 
 
Procedure 1  Procedure 2  Procedure 3  Procedure 4  Takeoff thrust, lowest flap setting 1  Takeoff thrust, lowest flap setting 1  Takeoff thrust, lowest flap setting 1  Takeoff thrust, lowest flap setting 1  Climb at V2+15 KIAS 2 to 800 ft AGL  Climb at V2+15 KIAS 2 to 1500 ft AGL  Climb at V2+15 KIAS 2 to 800ft AGL  Climb at V2+15 KIAS 2 to 800ft AGL  Cutback to MCLT  Cutback to MCLT  Accelerate and retract flaps 4  Cutback to MCLT 3  At zero flap cutback to MCLT  Accelerate and retract flaps 4  Constant speed climb to 3,000 ft AGL  Constant speed climb to 3,000 ft AGL  Constant speed climb to 3000 ft AGL  Constant speed climb to 3,000 ft AGL  Accelerate to 250 KIAS while retracting flaps 4  Accelerate to 250 KIAS while retracting flaps 4  Accelerate to 250 KIAS 4  Accelerate to 250 KIAS 4  Climb at Constant speed to 10,000ft AGL  Climb at Constant speed to 10,000ft AGL  Climb at Constant speed to 10,000ft AGL  Climb at Constant speed to 10,000ft AGL  End profile at 10,000ft 5  End profile at 10,000ft 5  End profile at 10,000ft 5  End profile at 10,000ft 5  
Table 1: Variants of departure procedures 4.1.4 Following common assumptions have been applied in the development of the vertical profiles corresponding to these procedures: 1) Slat/flap setting according to most commonly used flap/slat setting for a given aircraft type; 2) V2+15kt considered as default, unless a/c operations manual recommends another takeoff speed; 3) The moment at which the cutback is made is compatible with performance of specific aircraft in the study and in line with manufacturer standard operating procedures; 4) During the acceleration phases the energy share between acceleration and climb performance is as applied by the manufacturer for given aircraft; 5) For noise predictions the profile end is assumed at 10000ft. For the CO2 analysis the profile continues until adapted start of cruise point. 
 
Figure 4 provides a schematic representation of the vertical procedures from brake release until the adjusted top of climb (“Point X”). Takeoff to the adjusted top of climb represents the portion of the flight profile that is dependent on the choice of departure procedure. Flight profiles after the adjusted top of climb are assumed to be common for each airplane type and therefore not modeled in this study. 
Cruise alt. 
Altitude 
10000ft 10000ft 
 Point X ( Adjusted top of climb ) 
 Distance from brake release 
 Figure 4: Adjusted top of climb (Point X) 4.2 Comparisons 4.2.1 The procedures described in the preceding subsection are evaluated on a two-by-two basis. For each aircraft type, the four comparisons are made in order to demonstrate effects of type of procedure and the influence of the timing and altitude at which the thrust cutback occurs. 4.2.2 The comparisons and their objectives are as follows: .   Procedure 1 versus 2: demonstrate influence of cutback height for NADP1 
.   Procedure 1 versus 3: compare NADP1 against NADP2 (NADP2 featuring a late cutback) 
.   Procedure 1 versus 4: compare NADP1 against NADP2 (NADP2 featuring an early cutback) 
.   Procedure 3 versus 4: demonstrate influence of cutback moment for NADP2 
 4.2.3 The comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 assesses the influence of cutback height on noise for a close-in noise abatement departure procedure. Cutback height is varied from 800ft AGL, 
 
the minimum height according to the guidance, to 1500ft AGL, the maximum cutback height observed in most of currently applied departure procedures. 4.2.4 The comparisons of Procedure 1 to Procedures 3 and 4 are meant to demonstrate the difference between NADP1 and NADP2 procedures. Two variants of NADP2 procedures are used because these procedures are believed to be quite sensitive to the timing of thrust cutback. 4.2.5 The fourth comparison, between Procedures 3 and 4, is performed to demonstrate the impact on noise and emissions of the timing of thrust cutback in an NADP2 procedure. 4.3 Takeoff thrust settings 4.3.1 The entire study is being performed in parallel for two cases, using different assumptions for takeoff thrust setting and takeoff weight. The objective is to expand the study to real-life operational conditions. 4.3.2 The first case assumes a full thrust takeoff and a maximum takeoff weight. 4.3.3 The second case assumes a reduced takeoff thrust setting and a performance (climb) limited takeoff weight. For this case, the thrust used has to correspond to a level between full takeoff thrust and maximum thrust reduction allowed. In this analysis, the percentage of thrust reduction has been assumed to correspond to either 10% or 12%, and the actual level chosen was believed to be close to the average thrust settings used in daily practice. This portion of the study is restricted to those aircraft for which Max Climb thrust is less than 90% of full takeoff thrust. 4.3.4 Because they are at different weights, comparisons between the two cases are not valid. In practice, takeoff weight is a constraint and takeoff thrust setting is adjusted by the pilot to meet departure performance safety limits in compliance with operator policy. 
5. SYNTHESIS OF NOISE AND EMISSIONS EFFECTS 
 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This section provides a synthesis of the NADP noise and emissions data provided in the appendices of this report. 5.1.2 The aircraft aircraft/engine combinations that have been included in the noise and emissions study are presented in Table 2. The dataset includes a range of narrow-body, wide-body, regional and business jet aircraft. 
 
Aircraft category  Aircraft  Engine  MTOW (lbs / tonnes)  Appendix  Narrow body  Airbus A320-214  CFM56-5B4/P  169800 / 77  A  Boeing 737-700  CFM56-7B24  154500 / 70  B  Airbus A330-223  PW4168A  513700 / 233  A  Wide body  Airbus A340-642  TRENT 556  811300 / 368  A  Boeing 767-400  CF6-80C2B8F  450000 / 204  B  Boeing 777-300  TRENT 892  660000 / 300  B  Regional jet  Bombardier CRJ900ER  CF34-8C5  82500 / 37  C  Business jet  Dassault FALCON 2000EX  PW308C  42200 / 19  D  
Table 2: Aircraft types included in the study 5.1.3 In the following four sections the results are summarised per pair of compared procedures. The quantitative results are summarised in tables containing indicators of characteristic noise and emissions differences, as explained in section 4. A qualitative interpretation is given as well. 5.2 Procedures 1 versus 2 5.2.1 The comparison of procedures 1 and 2 allows determining the effect of a change in cutback height (respectively 800 and 1500ft AGL) for two NADP1 type procedures. The height profiles in the appendices show the steeper climb profiles for procedure 2 for all cases, due to the delayed cutback. 5.2.2 Table 3 provides the noise and emissions differences per aircraft type for both full and reduced takeoff thrust cases. For the Falcon 2000EX only full takeoff thrust data is available. 5.2.3 The results in the table indicate similar trends for the different aircraft types. The results indicate that performing the cutback at 800ft AGL rather than at 1500ft AGL leads to a noise reduction close-in, which can be attributed to the reduction in engine source noise. The magnitude of this noise reduction varies for the aircraft in this dataset from 0.6 dBA to 5.3 dBA. 5.2.4 For distant zones, the 800ft AGL cutback leads to more noise than the 1500ft cutback, due to the steeper climb-out of the latter. The “distant” noise differences are considerably smaller than the “close-in” differences. After peak differences ranging from –0.2 dBA to –2.0 dBA the noise differences gradually reduce throughout the remainder of the climb-out phase. 5.2.5 The crossover point between the noise profiles varies roughly with aircraft size, ranging from 1.9 NM for the business aircraft to 4.1 NM for the large twinjet at reduced thrust. 
 
The emissions data in Table 2 show that, compared to Procedure 1, Procedure 2 produces differences in NOx of –0.7 to +1.8% through 1000ft and –0.3 to 3.2% through 3000ft AGL. Procedure 2 reduces CO2 by as much as 0.3% through the adjusted top of climb. Comparison  Aircraft  Takeoff thrust  Max. close-in* noise difference (dBA)  Cross-over* point (NM)  Max. distant* noise difference (dBA)  NOX difference 1000 ft (%)  NOX difference 3000 ft (%)  CO2 difference point X (%)  Procedure 2-1  A320-200  FULL  +5.0  2.5  -1.8  +1.4  +1.4  -0.2  Procedure 2-1  A330-200  FULL  +5.3  3.0  -2.0  +1.8  +3.2  -0.2  Procedure 2-1  A340-600  FULL  +2.4  3.6  -2.0  +1.5  +2.1  -0.3  Procedure 2-1  B737-700  FULL  +0.8  2.6  -0.2  -0.1  +0.5  0.0  Procedure 2-1  B767-400  FULL  +5.0  3.5  -1.8  +1.2  +3.2  -0.1  Procedure 2-1  B777-300  FULL  +3.5  3.9  -2.0  +0.7  +2.8  -0.1  Procedure 2-1  CRJ900ER  FULL  +1.5  2.6  -1.1  +0.3  +0.7  0.0  Procedure 2-1  F2000EX  FULL  +2.0  1.9  -0.9  -0.7  -0.3  -0.3  Procedure 2-1  A320-200  REDUCED  +2.6  2.4  -1.6  +1.2  +0.7  -0.1  Procedure 2-1  A330-200  REDUCED  +4.0  2.6  -1.4  +1.1  +1.8  -0.2  Procedure 2-1  A340-600  REDUCED  +1.5  3.7  -1.2  +0.2  +0.7  -0.2  Procedure 2-1  B737-700  REDUCED  +1.2  3.0  -0.6  +0.3  +1.2  0.0  Procedure 2-1  B767-400  REDUCED  +4.0  3.8  -1.8  +0.9  +1.9  -0.1  Procedure 2-1  B777-300  REDUCED  +2.8  4.1  -2.0  0.0  +1.0  -0.2  Procedure 2-1  CRJ900ER  REDUCED  +0.6  2.3  -0.5  +0.1  +0.2  -0.1  
*) Explained in section 3. Table 3: Noise and emissions differences between procedures 1 and 2 5.3 Procedures 1 versus 3 5.3.1 With the comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 the difference between a NADP1 and NADP2 procedures is determined in terms of noise and emissions effects. Procedure 3 features a cutback at the end of the acceleration and flap retraction phase. The height profiles in the appendices indicate better climb performance for Procedure 1 up to about 3000ft AGL, but better overall climb performance up to 10000ft for Procedure 3. 5.3.2 The results in the following table indicate the “close-in” noise reduction obtained with Procedure 1 compared to Procedure 3. The peak values of noise difference in the “close-in area” before the crossover point vary from 3.5 to 8.1dBA. 5.3.3 In the “distant” area beyond the cross over point noise differences are smaller, with peak differences between –0.2 and –3.7 dBA, and spread out over a larger area. 
 
5.3.4 The crossover point ranges from 5.5 to 8.1NM from brake release for all except the business aircraft, which has its crossover point at 3.3NM. 5.3.5 The emissions data in Table 4 show that Procedure 3 produces up to 17.2% more NOx through 1000ft and up to 19.8% more NOx through 3000ft AGL.  Procedure 3 however leads to a reduction of CO2 of as much as 2.7% through the adjusted top of climb. Comparison  Aircraft  Takeoff thrust  Max. close-in noise difference (dBA)  Cross-over point (NM)  Max. distant noise difference (dBA)  NOX difference 1000 ft (%)  NOX difference 3000 ft (%)  CO2 difference point X (%)  Procedure 3-1  A320-200  FULL  +7.7  7.2  -2.7  +16.6  +13.3  -2.3  Procedure 3-1  A330-200  FULL  +8.1  6.5  -3.0  +16.9  +8.0  -2.2  Procedure 3-1  A340-600  FULL  +5.6  7.7  -3.7  +14.6  +10.2  -2.6  Procedure 3-1  B737-700  FULL  +3.5  7.6  -0.3  +11.2  +7.2  -1.7  Procedure 3-1  B767-400  FULL  +7.0  5.8  -2.0  +9.5  +19.8  -1.8  Procedure 3-1  B777-300  FULL  +4.8  6.5  -2.0  +10.5  +11.7  -1.5  Procedure 3-1  CRJ900ER  FULL  +3.7  7.3  -0.5  +13.5  +0.8  -1.1  Procedure 3-1  F2000EX  FULL  +6.0  3.3  -2.9  +14.8  +4.2  -2.4  Procedure 3-1  A320-200  REDUCED  +6.2  7.0  -2.1  +16.9  +11.2  -2.2  Procedure 3-1  A330-200  REDUCED  +7.2  6.2  -2.2  +17.2  +6.0  -2.5  Procedure 3-1  A340-600  REDUCED  +5.5  7.9  -2.8  +13.9  +8.9  -2.7  Procedure 3-1  B737-700  REDUCED  +3.6  8.1  -0.5  +10.7  +7.7  -1.9  Procedure 3-1  B767-400  REDUCED  +5.0  5.5  -2.0  +9.1  +14.4  -2.0  Procedure 3-1  B777-300  REDUCED  +3.9  8.0  -2.0  +9.9  +8.7  -1.7  Procedure 3-1  CRJ900ER  REDUCED  +3.6  6.5  -0.2  +14.6  +0.3  -1.2  
Table 4: Noise and emissions differences between procedures 1 and 3 5.4 Procedures 1 versus 4 5.4.1 As the preceding comparison the comparison between procedure 1 and 4 enables determining noise and emissions differences between a NADP1 and a NADP2 procedure. The NADP2 procedure 4 features a cutback at the beginning of the acceleration and flap retraction phase. Although climbing out less steeper than Procedure 1 in the initial phase, Procedure 4 provides a steeper overall profile up to 10000ft AGL. 5.4.2 The noise effects summarized in the Table 5 indicate similar trends as the effects in the preceding comparison. Procedure 1 provides noise reduction compared to Procedure 4 in the “close-in” area, with peak differences ranging from 3.0 to 7.0 dBA. 5.4.3 In the “distant” area, overall Procedure 4 produces less noise, with peak noise differences reaching –2.6 dBA. For several aircraft, distant noise reduction was marginal and less well developed compared to the case of Procedure 1 versus 3.  In the case of the regional jet with reduced thrust, full crossover was not obtained; however, this particular result is only valid for this example and no general conclusion can be drawn. Hence, in this instance a crossover point was chosen by comparing the noise difference plot to those of full thrust and the Procedures 1 versus 3 comparison with both thrust settings -these plots all show strong similarity and the resulting crossover points show similar trends. 
 
The crossover point ranges from 7.8 to 11.0 NM for the wide-body aircraft, is slightly smaller for the regional aircraft and occurs around 3.3NM for the business aircraft. Overall the crossover occurs later than for the comparison between Procedure 3 and 1. Max. Max. NOX NOX CO2 Cross-over 
Comparison Procedure 4-1  Aircraft A320-200  Takeoff thrust FULL  close-in noise difference (dBA) +7.0  point (NM) 8.1  distant noise difference (dBA) -1.6  difference 1000 ft (%) +14.6  difference 3000 ft (%) +9.9  difference point X (%) -2.0  Procedure 4-1  A330-200  FULL  +4.3  9.7  -1.7  +12.3  +2.1  -2.0  Procedure 4-1  A340-600  FULL  +5.9  9.2  -2.2  +11.0  +4.3  -2.3  Procedure 4-1  B737-700  FULL  +3.1  8.0  -0.1  +10.2  +5.7  -1.7  Procedure 4-1  B767-400  FULL  +4.0  9.5  -0.5  +6.0  +8.5  -1.7  Procedure 4-1  B777-300  FULL  +4.0  9.0  -0.8  +6.1  +5.7  -1.3  Procedure 4-1  CRJ900ER  FULL  +3.0  7.7  -0.2  +9.6  +0.5  -0.6  Procedure 4-1  F2000EX  FULL  +3.5  3.3  -2.6  +8.1  +1.9  -1.8  Procedure 4-1  A320-200  REDUCED  +6.6  7.8  -1.3  +15.5  +9.7  -2.0  Procedure 4-1  A330-200  REDUCED  +6.0  8.3  -1.4  +14.4  +2.8  -2.3  Procedure 4-1  A340-600  REDUCED  +6.1  9.1  -2.0  +12.5  +6.3  -2.4  Procedure 4-1  B737-700  REDUCED  +3.0  9.0  -0.2  +9.7  +5.3  -1.9  Procedure 4-1  B767-400  REDUCED  +4.0  10.0  -0.5  +6.7  +7.8  -1.8  Procedure 4-1  B777-300  REDUCED  +4.0  11.0  -0.8  +7.0  +5.7  -1.5  Procedure 4-1  CRJ900ER  REDUCED  +3.3  6.6  0.0  +12.8  -0.1  -0.8  
 Table 5: Noise and emissions differences between procedures 1 and 4 5.4.5 The emissions data in Table 5 show that Procedure 4 produces up to 15.5% more NOx through 1000ft and up to 9.9% more NOx through 3000ft AGL.  Procedure 4 however leads to a reduction of CO2 of as much as 2.4% through the adjusted top of climb. 5.5 Procedures 3 versus 4 5.5.1 The comparison of Procedures 3 versus 4 enables determining the effect of the timing of cutback during the acceleration and flap retraction phase for a NADP2 procedure. Procedure 3 features a cutback to climb thrust at the end of the acceleration and flap retraction phase whereas procedure 4 has a cutback at the beginning. This results overall in a steeper climb-out profile for Procedure 3. 
 
5.5.2 The results in the Table 6 show that performing the cutback to climb thrust at the beginning of the acceleration phase is always better for close-in noise reduction but always worse for distant noise reduction. The noise reduction obtained “close-in” with Procedure 4 ranges from –0.8 to –5.5 dBA and can be attributed to a reduced engines noise level. 5.5.3 The maximum noise differences in the “distant” zone vary between 0.4 and 4.2 dBA and can be attributed to differences in height profile. Unlike the trade-off in close-in and distant noise reductions when comparing Procedures 1 to 2, 3 or 4, here the magnitude of peak of close-in and distant noise differences are very similar. Comparison  Aircraft  Takeoff thrust  Max. close-in noise difference (dBA)  Cross-over point (NM)  Max. distant noise difference (dBA)  NOX difference 1000 ft (%)  NOX difference 3000 ft (%)  CO2 difference point X (%)  Procedure 4-3  A320-200  FULL  -5.4  3.7  +4.2  -1.7  -2.9  +0.3  Procedure 4-3  A330-200  FULL  -5.5  3.6  +4.1  -4.0  -5.4  +0.2  Procedure 4-3  A340-600  FULL  -2.5  4.9  +4.2  -3.1  -5.3  +0.3  Procedure 4-3  B737-700  FULL  -0.8  3.5  +0.6  -0.9  -1.4.  0.0  Procedure 4-3  B767-400  FULL  -4.8  5.5  +3.8  -3.3  -9.5  +0.1  Procedure 4-3  B777-300  FULL  -3.8  5.0  +3.5  -3.9  -5.4  +0.2  Procedure 4-3  CRJ900ER  FULL  -1.6  2.7  +1.2  -3.4  -0.3  +0.5  Procedure 4-3  F2000EX  FULL  -4.4  2.4  +0.6  -5.8  -2.2  +0.7  Procedure 4-3  A320-200  REDUCED  -2.9  3.5  +2.6  -1.2  -1.3  +0.2  Procedure 4-3  A330-200  REDUCED  -3.9  3.1  +2.8  -2.4  -3.0  +0.2  Procedure 4-3  A340-600  REDUCED  -1.3  5.4  +2.7  -1.2  -2.4  +0.2  Procedure 4-3  B737-700  REDUCED  -1.3  3.6  +1.3  -0.9  -2.3  0.0  Procedure 4-3  B767-400  REDUCED  -4.0  5.5  +3.5  -2.1  -5.8  +0.2  Procedure 4-3  B777-300  REDUCED  -3.0  5.0  +3.8  -2.6  -2.8  +0.3  Procedure 4-3  CRJ900ER  REDUCED  -0.6  2.5  +0.4  -1.6  -0.4  +0.4  
Table 6: Noise and emissions differences between procedures 3 and 4 5.5.4 The crossover point ranges from 2.4 to 5.5 NM and is in fact located close to the point where cutback for Procedure 3 takes place. 5.5.5 The emissions data in Table 6 show that Procedure 4 produces up to 5.8% less NOx through 1000ft and up to 9.5% less NOx through 3000ft AGL. Procedure 4 however leads to an increase of CO2 of as much as 0.7% through the adjusted top of climb. 
 
6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Noise and emissions effects of noise abatement departure procedures designed according to PANS-OPS guidance have been analyzed for eight commercial jet aircraft. The following conclusions are valid for these eight aircraft. 6.2 The procedures evaluated included two NADP1 and two NADP2 variants. The analysis confirmed that NADP1 procedures minimize noise in a zone relatively close to the brake release point, whereas NADP2 minimizes noise in the zone further away from brake release. 6.3 Close-in noise differences between NADP1 and NADP2 are generally bigger than distant noise differences. 6.4 The point where the noise difference changes sign is called the crossover point and was shown to occur between 5.5 to 11NM distance from brake release for regional and wide-body aircraft. 6.5 The cutback height has a significant influence on noise, for both NADP1 and NADP2 procedures. It determines both the location of noise reduction areas and amount of noise reduction in those areas. 6.6 The magnitudes of the noise differences for the procedures using full thrust are larger than those with reduced thrust. However, the use of full thrust and maximum takeoff weight will not be encountered frequently in operation. 6.7 NADP2 tends to produce less CO2 and more NOx compared to NADP1. 6.8 In terms of accumulated NOx up to 3000ft above ground level, NADP2 appears to produce between 5 to 20% more NOX than NADP1 for wide-body aircraft. For regional and business aircraft differences were smaller. 6.9 In terms of accumulated CO2 up to adjusted top of climb, NADP2 variants appear to produce 0.6 to 2.7% less CO2 than NADP1. 6.10 The results presented indicate that of the procedures included in this study no single departure procedure minimizes overall noise and emissions simultaneously. Depending on local airport requirements tradeoffs must be made between close-in versus distant noise, NOx versus CO2 emissions and finally noise versus gaseous emissions. 
 
APPENDIX A: RESULTS AIRBUS Aircraft studied: A320-214, CFM56-5B4/P . Take-Off in CONF 2 
. Climb at V2+10 kt IAS 
. Takeoff thrust / weight cases: 
o Full thrust (TOGA) / MTOW = 77t 
o 12% Reduced Thrust / TOW = 71t 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A . Take-Off in CONF 2 
. Climb at V2+15 kt IAS 
. Takeoff thrust / weight cases: 
o Full thrust (TOGA) / MTOW = 233t 
o 12% Reduced Thrust / TOW = 200t 
 
 
A340-642, RR Trent 556 . Take-Off in CONF 3 
. Climb at V2+10 kt IAS 
. Takeoff thrust / weight cases: 
o Full thrust (TOGA) / MTOW = 368t 
o 12% Reduced Thrust / TOW = 348t 
 
 
Atmospheric conditions: Temperature: ISA Relative Humidity: 70% Wind: No wind Runway elevation: Sea Level 
 
A320-214, CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 169,800lbs 120 110 100 90 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 80 
100 101.4  100 101.4  100 99.8  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A320-214 / 77t -Lamax below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 A320-214 / 77t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A320-214, CFM56-5B4/P . Full thrust (TOGA) Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1 Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 169,800 lbs 110 
100  100  100 97.7  
 1000ft NOx  3000ft NOx  Point "X" CO2  
 100 90 80 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 A320-214 / 77t -Lamax below flight path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Distance from Brake Release A320-214 / 77t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 
 
 A320-214, CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 169,800lbs 120 110 100 90 80 114.6  109.9  100  100  98.0100  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 A320-214 / 77t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 A320-214 / 77t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A320-214, CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 3
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 169,800lbs 120 110 
98.3100  100  100 100.3  97.1 
 
 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A320-214 / 77t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 A320-214 / 77t -Flight Path Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A320-214 / CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 156,600lbs 120 
 110 100 90 80 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 100 101.2  100 100.7  100 99.9  
 1000ft NOx  3000ft NOx  Point "X" CO2  
 
LAmax difference A320-214 / 71t -Lamax below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 4 Distance from Brake Release 
LAmax 
-4 -6 A320-214 / 71t  - Flight Path  Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust)  Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust)  10000  
9000 8000 7000 6000 Height AGL 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
Distance from Brake Release 
 
A320-214 / CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 156,600lbs 120 110 100 90 116.9  111.2  100  100  100 97.8  
 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A320-214 / 71t -Lamax below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 A320-214 / 71t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 100  100  98.0100  
 1000ft NOx  3000ft NOx  Point "X" CO2  
 
 A320-214 / CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 156,600lbs 120 
 109.7
110 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 80 LAmax difference A320-214 / 71t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 4 Distance from Brake Release 
LAmax 
-4 -6 A320-214 / 71t  - Flight Path  Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust)  Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)  10000  
9000 8000 7000 6000 Height AGL 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
Distance from Brake Release 
 
A320-214 / CFM56-5B4/P Emissions, % relative to Procedure 3
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 156,600lbs 120 110 
100 98.8  98.7100  100 100.2 
 
 
100 90 Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A320-214 / 71t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 A320-214 / 71t -Flight Path Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 513,700lbs 120 110 100 90 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 80 
100 101.8  103.2 100  100 99.8  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A330-223 / 233t -Lamax below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
Height AGL LAmax difference A330-223 / 233t -Flight path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A . Full thrust (TOGA) Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 513,700lbs 120 110 100 90 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A330-223 / 233t -Lamax below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 116.9  108.0  100  100  100 97.8  
 
 
Height AGL LAmax difference 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
A330-223 / 233t -Flight path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 513,700lbs 120 110 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 80 112.3  100  102.1 100  98.0100  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A330-223 / 233t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) Height AGL LAmax difference 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
A330-223 / 233t -Flight path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 3
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 
. MTOW = 513,700lbs 120 110 
100 96.0  100 94.6  100 100.2 
 
 
100 90 Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 A330-223 / 233t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 
Height AGL LAmax difference A330-223 / 233t -Flight path Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 441,000lbs 120 110 100 90 80 
100 101.1  100 101.8  100 99.8  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 A330-223 / 200t -Lamax below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust) Height AGL LAmax difference 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
A330-223 / 200t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 441,000lbs 120 110 100 90 117.2  106.0  100  100  100 97.5  
 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A330-223 / 200t -Lamax below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Height AGL LAmax difference 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
A330-223 / 200t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 
A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)
.  TOW = 441,000lbs  120  110  100  90  Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4  80  
114.4  100  102.8 100  100 97.7  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A330-223 / 200t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) Height AGL LAmax difference 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
A330-223 / 200t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A330-223, PW4168A Emissions, % relative to Procedure 3
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 441,000lbs 120 110 
97.6100  100  100 100.2  97.0 
 
 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A330-223 / 200t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 
Height AGL LAmax difference A330-223 / 200t -Flight Path Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 811,300lbs 120 110 100 90 80
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 
100 101.5  100 102.1  100 99.7  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 368t -Lamax below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 A340-642 / 368t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 
A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 811,300lbs 120 110 100 90 80 Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 114.6  110.2  100  100  100  97.4  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 368t -Lamax below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 8 6 Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 
A340-642 / 368t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 811,300lbs 120 110 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 80 111.0  100  100 104.3  100 97.7  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 368t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 8 6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 A340-642 / 368t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 3
. Full thrust (TOGA) 
Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust)
. MTOW = 811,300lbs 120 110 
100  96.9  100  100 100.3  94.7 
 
 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 368t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 8 6 
LAmax difference Height AGL 4 2 0 -2 -4 A340-642 / 368t -Flight Path Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 
A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 769,500lbs 120 
100 100.2  100 100.7  100 99.8  
 
 110 100 90 80
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 348t -Lamax below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 
LAmax difference LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 A340-642 / 348t -Lamax below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 
4 2 0 -2 -4 
 
A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 769,500lbs 120 110 100 90 113.9  108.9  100  100  100 97.3  
 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 348t -Lamax below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 
LAmax difference Height AGL 4 2 0 -2 -4 A340-642 / 348t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 
A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 1
. 12% Reduced thrust 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 769,500lbs 120 110 100 90 Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 80 112.5  106.3  100  100  100 97.6  
 
 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 348t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 8 6 Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 
A340-642 / 348t -Flight Path Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 
A340-642, RR Trent 556 Emissions, % relative to Procedure 3
. 12% Reduced Thrust 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust)
. TOW = 769,500lbs 120 110 
98.8100  100  97.6  100 100.2  
 
 
100 90 Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 80 1000ft NOx 3000ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
A340-642 / 348t -Lamax below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 8 
6 
Height AGL LAmax difference 4 2 0 -2 -4 A340-642 / 348t -Flight Path Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced thrust) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 
 
 APPENDIX B: RESULTS BOEING Aircraft Studied . 737-700/CFM56-7B24 
 o Climb Limit Weight with Flap5, SL/STD Day 
o Max T/O Rating = 154,500 LB 
o 10% Reduced Thrust = 152,100 LB 
 
. 767-400ER/CF6 -80C2B8F 
 o Climb Limit Weight with Flap5, SL/STD Day 
o Max T/O Thrust = 450,000 LB 
o 10% Reduced Thrust = 440,000 LB 
 
. 777-300/Trent892 
 o Climb Limit Weight with Flap5, SL/STD Day 
o Max T/O Thrust = 660,000 LB 
o 10% Reduced Thrust = 629,100 LB 
 
 
 
737-700/CFM56-7B24 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 154,500lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to procedure 2 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 154,500lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 3 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 154,500lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 4 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 154,500lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 3 to Procedure 4 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 152,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 2 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 152,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 3 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 152,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 4 
 
 737-700/CFM56-7B24 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 152,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 3 to Procedure 4 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 450,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 2 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 450,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 3 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 450,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 4 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 450,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 3 to Procedure 4 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 440,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 2 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 440,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 3 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 440,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 4 
 
 767-400ER/CF6-80C2B8F . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 440,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 3 to Procedure 4 
 
777-300/Trent 892 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 660,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 2 
 
 777-300/Trent 892 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 660,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 3 
 
 777-300/Trent 892 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 660,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 4 
 
 777-300/Trent 892 . Full Power Thrust 
. MTOW = 660,000lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 3 to Procedure 4 
 
777-300/Trent 892 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 629,100lbs 
 
 
Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 2 
 
 777-300/Trent 892 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 629,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 3 
 
 777-300/Trent 892 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 629,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 1 to Procedure 4 
 
 777-300/Trent 892 . 10% Reduced Thrust 
. MTOW = 629,100lbs 
 
 Comparison of Procedure 3 to Procedure 4 
 
 APPENDIX C: RESULTS BOMBARDIER Aircraft Studied: CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Take-off in Flaps 8 configuration 
. Initial climb at V2+10 KIAS 
. Common climb schedule from 10,000 ft AGL to Adjusted Top of Climb 
. Adjusted Top of Climb: 35,000 ft AGL cruise altitude 
. Thrust/weight cases: 
o  Full thrust: . TOGA . MTOW=82,500 lbs 
 o  Reduced thrust: . 10% reduced thrust . TOW=74,034 lbs 
 
 
Atmospheric Conditions: Temperature: ISA Relative Humidity: 70% Wind: zero Elevation: sea level 
 
CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5  Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1) . Full Thrust 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Full thrust) 
o TOGA 
 o  MTOW = 82,500 lbs 120 110 
 
100 90 Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 80 100.0 100.3  100.0 100.7  100.0 100.0  
1000 ft NOx 3000 ft NOx  Point "X" CO2 
-2 0 2 4 0 Lamax difference CRJ900 (CF34-8C5)/ 82500lbs - LAmax below Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Full Thrust) Procedure 2 (Full Thrust)  18 LAmax   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Height AGL (1000 ft)  Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release Procedure 1 (Full Thrust) Procedure 2 (Full Thrust)  18  
 
Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1) 
Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Full thrust) 
CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Full Thrust o TOGA 
o MTOW = 82,500 lbs 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 120110 100 90 80 100.0 113.5  100.0 100.8  100.0 98.9  
1000 ft NOx 3000 ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
-2 0 2 4 0 Lamax difference CRJ900 (CF34-8C5)/ 82500lbs - LAmax below Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 (Full Thrust) Procedure 3 (Full Thrust)  18 LAmax   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Height AGL (1000 ft)  Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release Procedure 1 (Full Thrust) Procedure 3 (Full Thrust)  18  
 
 CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Full Thrust o TOGA 
o MTOW = 82,500 lbs 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 
Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1) Procedure 1 (Full thrust) 
Procedure 4 (Full thrust) 120110 100 90 80 
100.0 109.6  100.0 100.5  100.0  99.4  
1000 ft NOx 3000 ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
 
 
CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5  Emissions (% relative to Procedure 3)  . Full Thrust  Procedure 3 (Full thrust) Procedure 4 (Full thrust)  o TOGA  o MTOW = 82,500 lbs  120 110  100.0 100.0 100.099.7 100.5  96.6100  90  80  Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4  1000 ft NOx 3000 ft NOx Point "X" CO2  CRJ900 (CF34-8C5)/ 82500lbs - LAmax below Flight Path -2 0 2 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Distance from Brake Release Lamax difference LAmax Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Full Thrust) Procedure 4 (Full Thrust)  Flight Path 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Distance from Brake Release Height AGL (1000 ft) Procedure 3 (Full Thrust) Procedure 4 (Full Thrust)  
 
Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1) 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 2 (Reduced thrust) 
CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Reduced Thrust o 10% Reduced Thrust 
o TOW = 74034 lbs 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 120110 100 90 80 100.0 100.1  100.0 100.2  100.0 99.9  
1000 ft NOx 3000 ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
-2 0 2 4 0 Lamax difference CRJ900 (CF34-8C5)/ 74034lbs - LAmax below Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release LAmax Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 (Reduced Thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced Thrust)  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Height AGL (1000 ft)  Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release Procedure 1 (Reduced Thrust) Procedure 2 (Reduced Thrust)  
 
 CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Reduced Thrust o 10% Reduced Thrust 
o TOW = 74034 lbs 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1) 
Procedure 1 (Reduced thrust) 
Procedure 3 (Reduced thrust) 
120110 100 90 80 100.0 114.6  100.0 100.3  100.0 98.8  
1000 ft NOx 3000 ft NOx Point "X" CO2 
 
 
CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Reduced Thrust o 10% Reduced Thrust 
o TOW = 74034 lbs 
 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 
 
 CRJ900ER, CF34-8C5 . Reduced Thrust o 10% Reduced Thrust 
o TOW = 74034 lbs 
 
Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 
-2 0 2 4 0 Lamax difference CRJ900 (CF34-8C5)/ 74034lbs - LAmax below Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release LAmax Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 (Reduced Thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced Thrust)  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Height AGL (1000 ft)  --Flight Path 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Brake Release Procedure 3 (Reduced Thrust) Procedure 4 (Reduced Thrust)  
 
 APPENDIX D: RESULTS DASSAULT Aircraft Studied FALCON 2000EX, PW308C . Takeoff in SF2 . Climb at V2 + 15 kt IAS . Full thrust (MTO) . MTOW (42200lb) . Cutback to MTO - 13% 
 Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1) 
Procedure 1 
Procedure 2 
FALCON 2000EX, PW308C 120% . Full thrust (MTO) o TOW = 42200lb 110% 100% 90% 80% 
100  99,3  100  99,7  100 99,7  
 
 1 000ft NOx 3 000ft NOx Point 'X' CO2 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 2 Comparison of Procedures 1 and F2000EX (42200lb) - LAMAX below flight path Difference (2-1) Procedure 1 Procedure 2 8,0 6,0 
 LAMAX difference (dBA) 4,0 2,0 0,0 -2,0 -4,0 
FALCON 2000EX (42200lb) - Flight path Procedure 1 Procedure 2 
0 2 4 6 8101214 Distance from brake release 
 
FALCON 2000EX, PW308C Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1)
. Full thrust (MTO) 
Procedure 1 
Procedure 3 
o TOW = 42200lb 120% 110% 100% 90% 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 3 80% 100  114,8  100 104,2  100  97,6  
1 000ft NOx 3 000ft NOx Point 'X' CO2 
F2000EX (42200lb) - LAMAX below flight path Difference (3-1) Procedure 1 Procedure 3 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 -2,0 -4,0 
FALCON 2000EX (42200lb) - Flight path Procedure 1 Procedure 3 
LAMAX difference (dBA) 
0 2 4 6 8101214 Distance from brake release 
 
FALCON 2000EX, PW308C Emissions (% relative to Procedure 1)
. Full thrust (MTO) 
Procedure 1 
Procedure 4 o TOW = 42200lb 120% 110% 100% 90% 
Comparison of Procedures 1 and 4 80% 
 F2000EX (42200lb) - LAMAX below flight path Difference (4-1) Procedure 1 Procedure 4 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 -2,0 -4,0 
FALCON 2000EX (42200lb) - Flight path Procedure 1 Procedure 4 
LAMAX difference (dBA) 
0 2 4 6 8101214 Distance from brake release FALCON 2000EX, PW308C Emissions (% relative to Procedure 3) 
 
 Procedure 3 
Procedure 4
. Full thrust (MTO) o TOW = 42200lb 120% 110% 
100  94,2  100  97,8  100 100,7  
 
 100% 90% 80%
Comparison of Procedures 3 and 4 1 000ft NOx 3 000ft NOx Point 'X' CO2 
F2000EX (42200lb) - LAMAX below flight path Difference (4-3) Procedure 3 Procedure 4 6,0 4,0 
 LAMAX difference (dBA) 2,0 0,0 -2,0 -4,0 -6,0 
FALCON 2000EX (42200lb) - Flight path Procedure 3 Procedure 4 
0 2 4 6 8101214 Distance from brake release - END -

页: [1]

航空论坛_航空翻译_民航英语翻译_飞行翻译's Archiver

COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION