– or –
Please login or register to participate.
Discussion
.
saucerful Nov 07, 2013 05:53 AM
There appears to be erroneous data in the Aviation Annex to EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2013, 1.A.3 found here:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/1-a-3-a-aviation-annex

For example the B752 numbers have burn at 2500 and 3000 nautical miles to be 40632.981 and 23650.982 kg respectively. There are similar issues with the figures for JS32 and SW4 aircraft.
Replies (9)
EEA Nov 15, 2013 03:02 PM
Hello,
Thank you for sharing your findings on fuel consumption of particular aircraft types as included in the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. The numbers in the guidebook have been kindly provided by EUROCONTROL and we will inform them about these findings. Quality checking of data within the EMEP/EEA guidebook is an important and continuing process.
pswiftct May 07, 2015 01:49 PM
Hello, I'm working for an environmental consultancy in the UK, and we have some questions on data in the 2013 aviation annexe. For the distance categories above 5500NM (6000 and 6500) the fuel and carbon emissions sharply increase for all aircraft which fly these distances. We would expect a slow increase as the distance increases, which we see in the 2009 data, but this is much sharper. We are very keen to understand why fuel/emissions at these distances should have such a sudden jump. Would there be anyone at EEA or Eurocontrol who could discuss this on the phone?
EEA May 19, 2015 12:09 PM
Hello again, it turns out that there is an error in the spread sheet. The expert is awaiting final confirmation of what the correct value should be. We will come back to you as soon as possible.
EEA Jul 27, 2015 08:51 AM
Hello pswiftct,
Our apologies at the delay in replying. Following discussions with the Eurocontrol experts who prepared the data spreadsheet it is clear there was an error made in the original column headings. The column originally labelled 6000 nm should in fact be 6500 nm, and that originally labelled 6500 nm should in fact be 8180 nm. A corrected version of the spreadsheet has been uploaded on the EMEP/EEA guidebook webpage. Thank you for bringing this error to our attention.
pswiftct Jul 27, 2015 12:28 PM
Many thanks for clarifying this, and glad to be of assistance.
CJUNIOR Jul 06, 2016 01:30 AM
Dear EEA,
First of all, thank you very much for sharing spreadsheet 1.A.3.a. It adds great value to your inventory guide once it allows understanding of fuel consumption differences by aircraft type. While analyzing it, one point caught my attention: table indicates that DH8 aircraft uses more fuel than some regional jet like E170 and CRJ900. Is this really correct? I am used to hear that turboprops are more economical than jets at least on short routes.
Since now, I appreciate you support.
Carlos.
CJUNIOR Jul 10, 2016 03:26 PM
EEA,

While waiting your answer to my previous post, I have continued looking for information and would like to share with you what I found so far:

- EMEP/EEA emission inventory guidebook (2013/2014) indicates that Q400 Bombardier aircraft uses around 1170 kg for a LTO cycle;
- EMEP/EEA guidebook published in 2009 found around 244 kg per LTO cyce;
- Flybe (UK airline) indicates in their eco lables that Q400 uses only 259 kg; and
- did not find any information in Bombardier and Pratt&Whitney websites.

Once more, thank your for supporting me understanding which should be the correct value for Q400 LTO fuel consumption.

Carlos
EEA Jul 13, 2016 08:19 AM
Hello,
Many of our experts are on holidays at the moment. We will come back to you as soon as possible, but it may take a while.
EEA Jul 21, 2016 10:08 AM
Hello again,
Thanks a lot for your comments! Our experts will flag the apparent discrepancy to Eurocontrol who calculated the numbers.
Please be informed that an updated version of the EMEP/EEA guidebook and aviation files will be published in the autumn (most likely around September), in which more up to date numbers on fuel consumption and emissions will be published.
Kind regards.
 
Loading