De grootste kennisbank van het HBO

Inspiratie op jouw vakgebied

Vrij toegankelijk

Terug naar zoekresultatenDeel deze publicatie

LELYSTAD AIRPORT : Impact on CO2 emissions when using the Noise Abatement Departure Procedure

Rechten:

LELYSTAD AIRPORT : Impact on CO2 emissions when using the Noise Abatement Departure Procedure

Rechten:

Samenvatting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Because of the enormous growth of the aviation industry, Schiphol requires to expand its operations. The limitation of 500,000 aircraft movements led to an agreement about the expansion of a regional airport to accommodate the overcapacity of Schiphol Airport. Lelystad Airport was chosen as the local airport, which will expand. By using Lelystad Airport in the future, the Dutch aviation industry can handle up to 45.000 additional aircraft movements annually. However, the strong growth in the aviation industry has its consequences on the environment. Worldwide, the aviation sector is responsible for 2 per cent of all emissions. By stating that Lelystad Airport will make use of lower flying routes, it assures the air traffic of Lelystad will not interfere with the air traffic of Schiphol Airport. Expected is that these low flying routes will increase the fuel consumption of the aircraft, resulting in higher CO2 emissions produced. It is useful to figure out if using a relatively new departure procedure would decrease the emissions and noise nuisance to prevent more use of fuel and more noise nuisance over the flying routes. This research only focusses on the departure procedures to get a better view of the emissions produced when having a low flying departure with a manoeuvre promised to produce less noise and emissions. This lead to the following research question: "To which extent can Lelystad Airport reduce the impact on noise and CO2 emissions when creating the new air space routes by using a Noise Abatement Departure Procedure?" The following steps were taken to answer these questions: 1. Analysis of the route structure at Lelystad Airport at the current moment: an important point to look at, as the route structures qualify if it is possible to use the Noise Abatement Departure Procedures as it is right now. Also, the type of aircraft is determined, which will probably be used the most at Lelystad Airport. An assumption had to be made, due to lack of information about the future operations at Lelystad Airport. 2. Explanation of the Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 1 and 2: taking a closer look at both procedures and their differences. 3. Both procedures set side by side regarding fuel use and noise nuisance. 4. Calculation of the total amount of CO2 produced at Lelystad Airport annually. 5. Determination of the best-suited procedure for Lelystad Airport at this moment to use as a standard departure procedure. The settlement of the route structure found place in 2014. There were four route sets possible at Lelystad Airport. Nonetheless, one elected as the preferred route set. In 2014 the departure and arrival routes of Lelystad Airport regarding Flevoland and the surroundings of Flevoland were determined. The finding was: route-set B+ is the best possible at the moment before the revision of the airspace. The types of aircraft to proceed with are the B738 and the Airbus A320 and A319. The A320 and A319. Now the focus was on the possibility to use a Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP), which should result in a decrease of CO2 emissions and less noise disturbance further away from the airport. The finding that this NADP procedure is possible and aligned with the regulations made at this moment for the B+ route. The NADP procedure split up in two profiles, NADP 1 and NADP 2. Considering the pros and cons of the NADP profiles, analysing both procedures is of great importance, as both profiles have their advantages and disadvantages. Procedure NADP 1 creates a noise decrease near the airport. While procedure NADP 2 results in a reduction of fuel burn and noise further away from the airport. NADP 1 is a climb with acceleration and flap retraction beginning at 3,000 feet (914 meters) AGL, which is the noise climb-out procedure for close-in noise monitors. A reduction in fuel burn and noise is both definite in the perspective of an airline, as their fuel costs decrease and in the aspect of sustainability, as fuel burn is parallel with CO2 emissions produced during a departure. Determination of the CO2 reduction and the best departure procedure is possible, after step three. Per take-off, the fuel burn is reduced from 2 to 4 per cent, when using the NADP 2 procedure instead of the NADP 1. From here, calculation of the total CO2 emissions can start, as the fuel burn is parallel with the CO2 emissions produced during take-off. The possibility occurs to determine the best departure procedure according to the results of the research. The goal was to reduce CO2 and gain a reduction in noise nuisance accordingly. As the areas further away from the airport experience more noise disturbance, it was clear the second departure procedure was the best option regarding noise. However, the most crucial goal was to reduce CO2 emissions when having a take-off. Also, the second departure procedure had better results with both types of aircraft regarding noise reduction and CO2 reduction. At last, there are two types of NADP 2 profiles, named NADP 2.1 and NADP 2.2. The difference between these procedures is the moment of cut back to Maximum Climb Thrust setting and flap retraction. NADP 2.1 accelerates and retract flaps at first, when the aircraft reaches the zero flap setting, the thrust is cut back to the Maximum Climb Thrust setting. On the contrary, the NADP 2.2 procedure first cuts back its thrust, and after the cutback, the aircraft accelerates and retracts the flaps. NADP 2 is a climb with acceleration to flap retraction speed beginning at 1,000 feet (305 meters) AGL, which is the noise climb-out procedure for far-out noise monitors. As a general rule, an aircraft departing with the NADP 2.1 procedure, which has the best overall performance, uses 3 to 4 per cent less fuel compared to a departure with the NADP 1 profile. Therefore it is advised to make use of the NADP 2.1 procedure at Lelystad Airport, as this procedure has the best overall performance. Each take-off using the NADP 2.1 procedure reduces the CO2 production with 2 to 4 per cent and creates less noise disturbance for the areas further away. The theoretical maximum reduction of CO2 is 1133,29 tonnes annually. With the assumption that 100 per cent of the Boeing 738's and A320's will use the NADP 2 procedure, which will cover 95 per cent of the total aircraft using Lelystad Airport will make use of the NADP 2 procedure. The amount of CO2 reduction is the same as 340 cars produce over a year or 64 round trips to Paris Charles de Gaulle from Schiphol Airport. All in all, it is recommended to create the possibility to make use of the NADP 2 departure, regarding the constraints of the air routes, after the airspace is revised in 2023. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make this procedure mandatory due to safety regulations. Yet, it is possible and advised to encourage to use the appropriate NADP when an airport requests its use to decrease noise and emissions for either a close-in or remote community.

Toon meer
OrganisatieHogeschool van Amsterdam
OpleidingAviation Studies
AfdelingTechniek
Jaar2019
TypeBachelor
TaalEngels

Op de HBO Kennisbank vind je publicaties van 26 hogescholen

De grootste kennisbank van het HBO

Inspiratie op jouw vakgebied

Vrij toegankelijk