Analysis of Departure and Arrival Profiles Using Real-Time Aircraft Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantity and rate of fuel burned during aircraft operations forms the basis of all emission inventories at airports. The international standard for calculating fuel burn and emissions produced is the landing and takeoff cycle of the International Civil Aviation Organization and forms the basis for many emission inventory models and emission charging schemes at airports. The acquisition of real-time aircraft flight data recorder information provided a unique opportunity to compare actual operational fuel flows and times in mode to the International Civil Aviation Organization standard. For departures, there is tremendous variety in fuel flow patterns, rates of fuel flow, and times in mode. Only 67% of the flights analyzed show a classic transition from takeoff to climbout. Most of the remaining flights showed essentially flat-line fuel flow profiles. All aircraft showed some fuel flow rates indicative of reduced-thrust departures. The certificated values for departure fuel burn matched favorably to the real-time totals for four-engine aircraft. However, for the twin-engine aircraft in this study, total departure fuel burn was grossly overpredicted, due to shorter observed departure times in mode. The average approach times in mode were slightly higher than the International Civil Aviation Organization norm, but approach fuel flow rates were significantly lower, yielding lower total fuel burn values. In general, total fuel burn for both departures and arrivals is overestimated by the International Civil Aviation Organization method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it