Fuel-Based Flight Inefficiency Quantification: A Multi-Level Post-Operational Analysis
L. Madi (TU Delft - Aerospace Engineering)
Junzi Sun – Mentor (TU Delft - Operations & Environment)
J.L.C. Derks – Mentor (Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland)
A. Tassanbi – Mentor (TU Delft - Operations & Environment)
A. Bombelli – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Operations & Environment)
M.J. Ribeiro – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Operations & Environment)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Improvements in air traffic management (ATM) operations offer a faster pathway to reducing aviation emissions compared to long-term technological solutions. Existing ATM performance frameworks rely on proxy indicators that fail to account for wind effects and vertical profile optimization. This research developed a fuel-based flight inefficiency quantification framework utilizing the open-source OpenAP aircraft performance model and OpenAP.top trajectory optimizer, incorporating wind effects and individual initial mass estimation. The methodology was applied to over 200,000 commercial operations at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in 2024, comparing executed trajectories against wind-optimal references at city-pair and Flight Information Region (FIR) levels. Results show that strategic inefficiency consistently represents the larger component (7-25% for most routes), while tactical inefficiency is predominantly negative, indicating execution improvements through ATC interventions and wind exploitation. FIR analysis reveals distinct phase characteristics: horizontal inefficiency accounts for approximately 90% of climb inefficiency, while descent operations show vertical inefficiency contributing the larger share with greater seasonal variation in horizontal components. Total relative inefficiencies differ between phases (climb: 9-14%; descent: 24-30%), with the magnitude difference amplified by lower baseline fuel consumption during descent. Wind integration proved essential; for an example flight, omitting wind nearly doubled city-pair inefficiency while underestimating descent inefficiency. Initial mass estimation uncertainty propagates through the analysis and reported values represent conservative upper bounds with actual relative total inefficiencies potentially 15-30% lower. The framework provides researchers and air navigation service providers with tools for environmental performance monitoring and quantitative baselines for evaluating ATM initiatives.