Calculation and Analysis of Aircraft Pollutant Emission Based on Time Wake Separation Mode under Coastal Airport and Headwind Conditions

Abstract

During the final approach, the headwind leads to a reduction of landing rate, which affects the achieved capacity and the predictability of operation, time, fuel efficiency, and environmental pollution. Under headwind conditions, ground speed decrease results in increased flight time. Time-based separation (TBS) changes the separation rule of the final approach, which changes the distance separation between two aircrafts into a time separation. This paper introduces the time-based separation (TBS) based on the distance-based separation (DBS). According to the aircraft landing schedule of each airport, the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) aircraft engine emission database, Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 (BFFM2), and meteorological data of Pu-dong airport, this study uses the modified P3-T3 aviation pollutant emission model to calculate, respectively, the fuel consumption and pollutant emissions based on distance separation mode and time separation mode. According to the calculation results, TBS operation mode can save 32.52%, 19.12%, and 30.41% fuel, reduce 28.93%, 17.9%, and 29.29% CO, 31.02%, 19.36%, and 33.78% HC, 30.85%, 16.42%, and 28.67% NOx, respectively, compared with the DBS operation mode at three stages of the day. It ends that TBS has an obvious optimization effect on fuel consumption and pollutant emission compared with DBS from data.

This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

1. Introduction

The aviation pollutants mainly include nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and unburned hydrocarbons (UHC) [1]. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) stipulated that the engine performance and fuel consumption rate need to be improved continuously in the industry, and aircraft should reduce the emission of pollutants to meet the increasingly stringent airworthiness requirements [2].

When the headwind speed increases, the reduction of the ground speed of the aircraft leads to an increase in flight time and a decrease in the arrival rate, which not only affects the current stable airport capacity but also affects the predictability of operation, time, fuel efficiency, and environmental pollution [3]. The TBS had been evolved into a concept by the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) and Leidos (formerly Lockheed-Martin) as a separate system to fully unlock the runway capacity irrespective of wind conditions [4]. In the frame of SESAR Time-Based Separation (TBS) concept was used to provide a consistent time spacing between aircraft in airports to increase runway throughput according to Morris [5]. The Time-Based Separation concept was proposed as a logical way to solve possible conflicts between an RPAS and a civil aircraft by assigning a controlled time to overfly (CTO) to RPAS. In 2015, the system was operational at London’s Heathrow Airport after over 150000 assessments on wake vortices of inbound flights. This system used time separation instead of distance separation to increase runway usage and ensure safety [6]. The Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) used the time-based separation for two consecutive aircraft in approach. Nishan published an article in 2020 and concluded: An average daily time lag of 79 minutes is observed between DBS and TBS. Hence, implementation of the ETBS system can save TIA almost 20 days of operation annually [7].

The ICAO stipulated the emission standards of CO, UHC, and NOx in the takeoff, climb, approach, and ground taxiing stages of the standard LTO (landing and takeoff) cycle. Xia estimated the pollutant emissions during the takeoff and landing cycle of Chinese civil aviation airports according to the engine emission data published by ICAO, which provides the emission data of different pollutants for this paper [8]. Huang studied the NOx emission distribution over China by using the fuel flow method, which provides a reference for the establishment of the fuel flow method in this paper [9]. According to the actual flight parameters, Wei estimated the pollutant emissions of each flight stage by using the fuel flow method, which provides the engine thrust setting and flight time of each flight stage for this paper [10]. According to the schedule, route setting of CAAC, and the characteristics of aircraft and engine, Huang evaluated the NOx stock of flight emissions in 2001 by using the emission database published by ICAO and NASA, which provides a reference for the final calculation of the total pollutant emission in each stage of for this paper [11]. However, there were few studies on the direct estimation method and P3-T3 method based on pollutant generation mechanism in China.

There are a direct method and relative method in the calculation of aviation pollutants. The direct method needs to be based on combustion chemical reaction dynamics. Since the calculation process involves the data of combustion chamber design parameters and fuel atomization characteristics, this method is difficult to model and calculate. The model is usually only applicable to specific working conditions, so the calculation error is significant under other working conditions [12]. In this study, the relative method uses the known emission indexes of the engine under various thrust conditions on the ground, then modifies the model according to the ratio of some key thermal parameters of the aircraft under high altitude and ground conditions, and finally calculates the emission indexes of the starting engine under various actual conditions. These key parameters mainly include the total temperature (T3) and total pressure (P3) at the inlet of the combustion chamber. The above key parameters are easy to obtain. Therefore, this method is also called the P3-T3 method [13]. According to the P3-T3 emission index and Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 (BFFM2) calculation model, this study calculates the reduced operation time based on TBS mode compared with the DBS mode under the same landing sorties and obtains the pollutant emissions under the two modes. It is further concluded that the TBS operation mode has an obvious effect on reducing pollutant emission compared with the DBS operation mode.

This paper theoretically studies the saved time by the TBS operation mode compared with the traditional DBS operation mode. Under the condition of the same number of approaching flights, the saved time by the TBS operation mode compared with the DBS operation mode is converted into fuel consumption reduction and pollutant emission. Finally, the paper evaluates the TBS mode's significant energy-saving and emission reduction effect compared with the DBS mode. The TBS operation mode will significantly contribute to the energy conservation and emission reduction of the airport. The TBS mode can reduce fuel consumption by at least 30% and pollutant emissions by 25%. The application of this method can reduce aircraft flight time, improve operational efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce pollutant emission for coastal airports under headwind conditions. The structure chart of the article is shown in Figure 1.

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

CO and UHC emission index estimation model. Both CO and UHC are generated by incomplete combustion of fuel. The CO is the hydrocarbon oxidation intermediate product. The UHC is mainly composed of incompletely burned fuel particles, fuel vapor and small molecular fuel cracked during combustion [20]. The calculation model of CO and UHC emission index (E2, E3) is as follows: $$\begin{array}{c}\text{(5)}& \frac{E_2}{E_3}=\frac{E_{2,r}}{E_{3,r}}{\frac{T_3}{T_{3,r}}\frac{P_{3,r}}{P_3}}^{0.4},\frac{E_{2,r}}{E_{3,r}}=a{\theta }^2+b\theta +c,\\ \theta =\frac{{\omega }_{\text{Air}}}{P_3^{1.8}{e}^{T_3/300}},\end{array}$$where ${\omega }_{\text{Air}}$ is the airflow; $a$, $b$, and $c$ are the emission parameter obtained by ICAO data fitting.

The CO and UHC variation trend with $\theta$ at a ground standstill is shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

According to the reference emission data of the engine ground test published by ICAO, with the help of the engine performance model, we obtain the relevant thermodynamic parameters under actual operational conditions and the estimation model of the above three engine pollutant emission indexes. The model can calculate the engine pollutant emission index under the actual operational conditions and then estimate the engine total pollutant emission under the actual flight conditions [21].

The pollutant emission index of taxing aircraft engines is also related to airport ambient pressure, ambient temperature, saturated vapor pressure, and atmospheric relative humidity. Therefore, the correction results of the pollutant emission index calculated by formulas (4) and (5) need to be further corrected as follows [22]:$$\begin{array}{c}\text{(6)}& {\text{NEI}}_{a,j,\mathrm{0,0}}=\begin{array}{c}{\text{NEI}}_{a,j,0}\times {\frac{{\theta }^{3.30}}{{\delta }^{1.02}}}^x,\hspace{1em}j=\text{UHC},\text{CO,}\\ {\text{NEI}}_{a,j,0}\times {\frac{{\delta }^{1.02}}{{\theta }^{3.30}}}^y\times e^H\text{,}\hspace{1em}j={\text{NO}}_x,\end{array}H=-19.0\times \frac{0.62197058\times \varphi \times P_V}{P-\varphi P_V}-0.0063.\end{array}$$

The humidity correction factor $P_V$ is derived from the Magnus Hedden equation:$$\begin{array}{}\text{(7)}& P_V=6.107\times {10}^{qT/b+T},\end{array}$$where ${\text{NEI}}_{a,j,\mathrm{0,0}}$ is the final modified value of ${\text{NEI}}_{a,j,0}$. Indices $x$ and $y$ are the corresponding engine values in the P3-T3 method. The default value is $x=1,y=0.5$. In this article, $x$ and $y$ are set as the default values.

In Engineering Data Management System (EDMS) version 5.0.1, the BFFM2 method uses the Goff-Gratch equation to calculate saturated vapor pressure; the EDMS version 5.0.2 is modified by the Magnus Hedden equation to calculate saturated vapor pressure [23]. The EDMS version 5.0.2 also changes the exponential equation of humidity correction coefficient to equation (7), where $P_V$ is the saturation pressure of water vapor (kPa), $T$ is the ambient temperature (°C), $a=7.5,b=237.3$, $\varphi$ is the relative humidity of the atmosphere, $p$ is the total ambient pressure (kPa), and $H$ is the humidity correction factor.

2.2. Time-Based Separations

2.2.1. Aircraft Classification and Wake Separation in China

China's current RECAT-CN (Re-categorization-CHINA, RECAT-CN) experimental standard has appropriately reduced the CAAC's (China Administrative Association of Cat) radar wake separation standard. According to the maximum takeoff weight and wingspan length, the RECAT-CN classification standard is shown in Table 5. Under the MTOW (maximum take-off weight) standard of CAAC, the B767 (Boeing-767) belongs to heavy-duty aircraft, and the wake separation standard between B767 and ARJ21 (Advanced Regional Jet for twenty-first century) is 9.3 km. Under the RECAT-CN standard, B767 belongs to type C, similar to the wake separation standard of ARJ21. The classification of domestic operational aircraft based on the RECAT-CN standard is shown in Table 6 [24].

Table 5

RECAT-CN classification standard.

RECAT-CN category	(MTOW) (t)	Wing span a/m
J	MTOW ≥ 136	a ≥ 75
B	MTOW ≥ 136	54 < a ≤ 75
C	MTOW ≥ 136	a ≤ 54
M	7 < MTOW ≤ 136
L	MTOW ≤ 7

Table 6

Classification of domestic operational aircraft based on RECAT-CN standard.

RECAT-CN category	AircraftModel
J	A380, AN225
B	A330, B778, B779, B74
C	A310, MD11, DC85, B703, B767
M	ARJ21, C919, A320, B757-200, B757-300, B737, CRJ, SSJ100, ER
L	Cessna 172, DA40, Y-5

At present, the domestic wake separation standard based on RECAT-CN is shown in Table 7 [25].

Table 7

Wake separation based on RECAT-CN (nautical miles).

Follower	Leader
	J	B	C	M	L
J
B	9.3
C	11.1	7.4
M	13.0	9.3	6.5
L	14.8	13.0	11.1	9.3

The TBS separation mode recovers the loss of landing rate caused by DBS separation mode under strong headwind, improves landing rate, and reduces approach landing time.

Some studies show that the headwind has little effect on landing efficiency when the headwind is below 15 kt. If the headwind is above 15 kt, it is recommended that the TBS separation mode replaces the DBS separation mode. The TBS is equivalent to the time required to fly the actual distance separation without wind [26]. The TBS separation mode is derived from the DBS separation mode, and the equivalent time separation standard is given by the following formula (8).

Suppose $D$ is a given distance separation, and $\text{GS}$ is the aircraft ground speed, and $T$ is the time required to fly this distance.$$\begin{array}{}\text{(8)}& D=\text{GS}\times T.\end{array}$$

Under headwind conditions:$$\begin{array}{}\text{(9)}& \text{GS}=\text{IAS}–\text{WS}\cos \alpha ,\end{array}$$where $\text{IAS}$ (Indicated Airspeed) represents the aircraft's indicated airspeed, $\text{WS}$ (Windspeed) is the wind speed (positive against the wind). $\alpha$ is the angle between wind direction and aircraft course. The time separation at different headwind speeds is as follows:$$\begin{array}{}\text{(10)}& T=\frac{D}{\text{IAS}–\text{WS}\cos \alpha }.\end{array}$$

During the final approach, the airspeed is set at 160 kt; the headwind speed of coastal airports often occurs between 15 kt and 25 kt in China [27]. Under low headwind conditions, the airport typical landing capacity is about 43 aircraft per hour. Increasing the 20 kt headwind speed will reduce by 4 landing aircraft per hour. Under the stable average airspeed of 160 kt, the influence of the headwind on the final approach is shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Effect of headwind on a distance separation.

Mean Headwind (kt)	Mean Ground Speed (kt)	90 s (Nm)	113 s (Nm)	135 s (Nm)
5	160	4.0	5.0	6.0
15	150	3.8	4.7	5.6
25	140	3.5	4.4	5.3

Table 9 shows the reduction of landing efficiency using DBS mode landing under 15 kt, 25 kt, and 35 kt headwind conditions compared to the reference landing rate at 160 kt without headwind conditions.

Table 9

Effect of headwind on land efficiency.

Mean Headwind (kt)	Time Spacing Impact (%)
15	6.7
25	14.3
35	23.1

It is found that the aircraft needs more time to fly at a given distance under strong headwind conditions so that airport will lose the stable runway capacity.

Under different headwind speed conditions, the same time separation will reduce the longitudinal distance separation. The details are shown in Figure 5, which help to maintain a constant runway capacity.

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

The wake distance stipulated by ICAO establishes the time separation standard. The detailed data are shown in Table 10. The minimum separation is 60 seconds to provide sufficient runway occupation time for aircraft ahead [28]. The detailed time separation standards of coastal airports in China are listed in Table 11.

Table 10

Time separation standard [29].

Leader	Follower
	A380 (560T) (s)	Heavy (more than 136T) (s)	Medium (7T to 136T) (s)	Light (7T or less) (s)
A380	60	145	167	189
Heavy	60	98	122	145
Medium	60	60	60	122
Light	60	60	60	60

Table 11

Time separation operation standard of coastal airports in China.

Leader	Follower
	A380 560T	Heavy More than 162T	Upper Medium 104T to 162T	Lower Medium 40T to 104T	Small 17T to 40T	Light 17T or less
A380 (JJ)	90 s${}^{\ast }$	135 s	158 s	158 s	158 s	180 s
Heavy (HH)	90 s${}^{\ast }$	90 s	113 s	113 s	135 s	158 s
Upper Medium (UM)	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	68 s	90 s	90 s	135 s
Lower Medium (LM)	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	68 s	113 s
Small (SS)	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	68 s	90 s
Light (LL)	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$	60 s${}^{\ast }$

${}^{\ast }$90 s is the runway occupation time of special landing aircraft; 60 s ${}^{\ast }$is the runway occupation time of landing aircraft.

Considering the constant distance separation, when the IAS is 136 kt, the time required to flight given distances is evaluated under constant headwind conditions of 0 kt, 15 kt, and 25 kt. The results are shown in Table 12. When the headwind is stronger, the flight time required for a given distance is longer, and the flight arrival rate will be reduced [30]. Figure 6 shows the change of runway theoretical capacity (TC) with the change of ground speed at constant distance separations of 3, 4, 5, and 6 nautical miles, where TC represents the maximum number of aircraft continuity landing per hour without other interference [31].

Table 12

Effect of headwind on time separation [29].

Separation in NM	3.0	4.0	5.0	6.0
No wind	79	106	132	159
GS = 136 kts
Separation time (s)
Headwind 15 kt	89	119	149	179
GS = 121 kts
Separation time (s)
Headwind 25 kt	97	130	162	195
GS = 111 kts
Separation time (s)

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

2.2.2. Runway Arrival Capacity Model Based on Time Separation Standard

Under TBS mode, the separation of two aircraft is measured by time [32]. Therefore, no matter how the ground speed of the aircraft changes, the relative speed of the two aircraft will not affect the time separation between the two aircrafts [33]. The runway arrival capacity model is established under TBS mode as follows:$$\begin{array}{c}\text{(11)}& \lambda a=\frac{1}{{\displaystyle \sum t_{ij}^a}{p}_{ij}},t_{ij}^a=\begin{array}{c}\max R_{ai},t_{ij},\hspace{1em}{v}_i\le v_j,\\ t_{ij}+\gamma \frac{1}{v_j}-\frac{1}{v_i}\text{,}\hspace{1em}vi>vj,\end{array}\\ t_{ij}=\frac{{\delta }_{ij}}{v_j-ws\cos \alpha },\end{array}$$where ${\lambda }_a$ is the airport landing capacity. $t_{ij}^a$ is the time separation of aircraft combination $i$ and $j$ (Leader is $i$ and Follower is $j$) passing through the runway entrance successively. $p_{ij}$ is the proportion of front and rear aircraft of type $i$ and $j$. $v_i$ and $v_j$ are the average speed of final approach and landing of type $i$ an $j$ aircraft. $R_{ai}$ is the average time of $i$ aircraft runway occupation. ${\delta }_{ij}$ is the wake separation of different types of aircraft. $ws$ is the headwind speed, and $\alpha$ is the angle between the wind direction and the aircraft heading.

3. Results and Discussion

The direction and speed of wind have a significant impact on the aircraft approach process. The data of Heathrow Airport confirmed that the aircraft's ground speed decreases under the condition of increasing headwind. Under the same approach distance, the aircraft needs more time to complete the given separation distance than the condition of calm wind, resulting in the reduction of runway capacity.

In this paper, Shanghai Pudong Airport is selected as an example to analyze the landing data of one hour during peak hours. The Pudong Airport is a coastal airport, and windy weather is common. In this paper, using the landing data of Pudong Airport analyze the impact of headwind weather on the approach. The headwind speed data of Pudong Airport are shown in Table 13.

Table 13

Pudong Airport wind speed change during the period from January 11, 2019 to February 13, 2019.

Date	Wind speed (m/s)	Date	Wind speed (m/s)	Date	Wind speed (m/s)	Date	Wind speed (m/s)
1.11	7.148505	1.19	8.105325	1.28	3.017721	2.06	7.204308
1.12	2.817172	1.20	4.579507	1.29	9.856585	2.07	12.498351
1.13	3.653269	1.21	0.628826	1.30	8.997928	2.08	3.753423
1.14	5.702091	1.22	8.574796	1.31	12.925386	2.09	3.894943
1.15	2.350936	1.23	1.389168	2.01	2.67304	2.10	4.837781
1.16	8.953539	1.24	6.970074	2.02	8.220679	2.11	3.548583
1.17	3.51852	1.25	5.238264	2.03	1.887818	1.17	3.885039
1.17	4.948712	1.26	4.255304	2.04	6.121343	2.12	2.925734
1.18	7.148505	1.27	8.105325	2.05	1.733612	2.13	6.223767

${}^{\ast }$In the date column, 1.11 means January 11, 1.12 means January 12, and so on.

The broken line diagram of the runway time-varying headwind component is shown in Table 14. The direction of the Pudong Airport runway is 167° and 347°, respectively. The velocity adopts the headwind component in the runway direction.

Table 14

Headwind component on runway.

Date	Wind speed (m/s)	Date	Wind speed (m/s)	Date	Wind speed (m/s)	Date	Wind speed (m/s)
1.11	6.583132	1.19	7.236123	1.28	1.583214	2.06	4.238523
1.12	1.968723	1.20	4.023426	1.29	8.112342	2.07	12.02152
1.13	3.463286	1.21	0.223456	1.30	7.246653	2.08	2.954362
1.14	4.259632	1.22	6.442562	1.31	11.98635	2.09	3.112596
1.15	1.968572	1.23	0.983423	2.01	2.012631	2.10	2.042561
1.16	8.265923	1.24	8.125328	2.02	7.013322	2.11	3.112853
1.17	3.027582	1.25	4.355212	2.03	1.003275	1.17	3.112563
1.17	4.023584	1.26	4.005687	2.04	4.565246	2.12	1.562895
1.18	6.836512	1.27	7.552163	2.05	0.925146	2.13	5.843215

${}^{\ast }$In the date column, 1.11 means January 11, 1.12 means January 12, and so on.

According to the average headwind speed from January 11 to February 13, the result shows a significant headwind speed on January 31 and February 7, and the average headwind speed is 8.0 m/s. So the data of January 31 was used for analysis.

The histogram of wind speed and runway headwind component on January 31 is shown in Figure 7. The relatively stable headwind speed periods are 10 : 30–11 : 30, 17 : 00–18 : 00, 20 : 00–21 : 00. The average wind speed is 10.3 m/s, 8.1 m/s, 5.9 m/s, about 20.02 kt, 15.75 kt, 11.47 kt, respectively.

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

According to the experimental data of laser radar at Heathrow airport, the TBS time is reduced by about 65 s when the wind speed reaches 20 kt. The relationship between headwind speed and time-saved is shown in Figure 8.

[figure omitted; refer to PDF]

Considering A320 and B737 series models, the radar separation between them is 6 km, their approach speed is 136 kt, and the time separation is 86 s under the static wind. Under headwind, the airspeed is constant, and the ground speed is reduced. According to the experimental data of Heathrow airport, the average time separation calculated is the 40 s. Under the strong headwind condition, the efficiency is increased by TBS mode. The minimum time separation is defined as the 60 s to provide enough runway occupancy time for the front aircraft.

The theoretical bearing capacity of the 35 L runway in those periods is calculated according to the measured landing aircraft data. Table 15 shows the runway capacity by using TBS mode in different periods. Table 16 contains the fuel consumption and pollutant emission reduction of landing aircraft in different periods.

Table 15

Theoretical capacity of different periods.

Time	10 : 30∼11 : 30	17 : 00∼18 : 00	20 : 00∼21 : 00
Mean headwind speed	10.3 m/s (20.02 kt)	8.1 m/s (15.75 kt)	5.9 m/s (11.47 kt)
Actual capacity of 35 L runway	36	38	32
Time taken to land actual capacity based on time separation	2427 s	2913 s	2505 s
Time saving based on time separation	1173 s	687 s	1095 s

Table 16

Emission reduction of various pollutants.

Time (kg)	10 : 30∼11 : 30	17 : 00∼18 : 00	20 : 00∼21 : 00
Fuel saved based on time separation for the same sortie	858.64	493.26	784.02
CO emission reduction	2.58	1.48	2.35
HC emission reduction	0.53	0.31	0.49
NOx emission reduction	7.91	4.54	7.22

The fuel consumption reduction in different periods is shown in Figure 9(a), and the pollutant emission reduction is shown in Figure 9(b).

[figures omitted; refer to PDF]

From the above tables, compared with the DBS operation mode in three different periods, it can be concluded that the fuel saving of TBS operation mode is 858.64 kg, 493.26 kg, and 784.02 kg; the emission reduction of CO is 2.58 kg, 1.48 kg, and 2.35 kg; the emission of HC is 0.53 kg, 0.31 kg, and 0.49 kg; and the emission reduction of NOx is 7.91 kg, 4.54 kg, and 7.22 k. The TBS operation mode can save many fuel costs for airlines and reduce many pollutant emissions for airports all over the country.

Combined with Table 17, the statistical analysis in the three periods shows that the fuel saving is 32.52%, 19.12%, and 30.41%; the reduction of CO pollutant emissions is 28.93%, 17.9%, and 29.29%; the reduction of HC pollutant emission is 31.02%, 19.36%, and 33.78%; the reduction of NOx pollutant emission reduction is 30.85%, 16.42%, and 28.67%. For large coastal airports, we should pay more attention to energy conservation and emission reduction.[24]

Table 17

Emission reduction percentage of fuel oil and various pollutants.

Time	10 : 30∼11 : 30	17 : 00∼18 : 00	20 : 00∼21 : 00 (%)
Fuel saving % based on time separation for the same sortie	32.52	19.12	30.41
CO emission reduction%	28.93	17.9	29.29
HC emission reduction%	31.02	19.36	33.78
NOx emission reduction%	30.85	16.42	28.67

4. Conclusion

(1) Compared with the DBS operation mode in the approach phase, the TBS operation mode will reduce fuel consumption by 10679.6 kg, CO emission by 32.05 kg, HC emission by 6.65 kg, and NOx emission by 98.35 kg.

(2) The TBS operation mode will make a significant contribution to the airport's energy conservation and emission reduction. They can reduce fuel consumption by at least 30% and pollutant emissions by 25%.

(3) Considering the stronger headwind weather conditions, some coastal airports have greater fuel consumption and pollutant emissions, such as Qingdao Liu-ting Airport, Shanghai Pu-dong Airport, Xiamen Gao-Qi Airport, Guangzhou Bai-Yun Airport, and Dalian Zhou-Shuizi Airport. The airport or airline may consider implementing the TBS approach operation mode to reduce fuel and pollutant emissions.

(4) The further research content of this paper will take into account the influence of the changes of humidity and temperature in the actual atmospheric environment on the fuel consumption and pollutant emissions of the aeroengine. At present, this paper is based on the average approach speed of the same type of aircraft in the approach, and the next step study introduces the actual speed of aircraft in the process of approach into the model for calculation, which will improve the accuracy and objectivity of calculation. Finally, the aircraft's actual engine thrust and time are used to calculate to improve the accuracy of the results.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. U1733203), Civil Aviation Safety Capacity Building Project (Grant No. (2020)170), Sichuan Science and technology project (Grant no. 2021YFS0319), and Central Government Guides Local Science and Technology Development Projects (Grant no. 2020ZYD094). The authors would like to thank the leaders and teachers of the Air Traffic Management School of Civil Aviation Flight College of China for their strong support and suggestions for this paper.

References

[1] D. Vechtel, "How future aircraft can benefit from a steerable main landing gear for crosswind operations," CEAS Aeronautical Journal, vol. 29 no. 328,DOI: 10.1007/s13272-019-00410-4, 2019.

[2] G. Eason, B. Noble, I. N. Sneddon, "On certain integrals of Lipschitz-Hankel type involving products of Bessel functions," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. A247 no. 1, pp. 529-551, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1955.0005, 1955.

[3] J. Milan, "Toward time-based separation rules for landing aircraft," Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 18 no. 2052, pp. 79-89, 2018.

[4] ICAO, "Redefinition of ICAO categories for wake turbulence," Proceedings of the Tenth USA/Europe Twelth Air Navigation Conference, .

[5] R. Fusaro, N. Viola, S. Cresto Aleina, "Innovative time-based separation procedures for civil RPAS integration," Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace Technology, vol. 91 no. 1,DOI: 10.1108/AEAT-08-2018-0235, 2018.

[6] C. Lunsford, D. Cynthia, "Enabling aircraft-based observation of winds in the US and Europe: progress and benefits," Proceedings of the Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36thconf.IEEE, .

[7] N. Khadka, S. Parajuli, A. Bhattarai, "A study of optimization of aircraft separation using the time-based separation at tribhuvan international airport," World Academics Journal of Engineering Sciences, vol. 7,DOI: 10.26438/wajes, 2020.

[8] Q. Xia, Study on the Impact of Aircraft Engine Emissions on Airport Atmospheric Environment, 2009.

[9] Y. Huang, G. Zhou, S. Wu, "A preliminary investigation on the inventory of NOx emitted from CAAC flights over China," Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, vol. 2, 2018.

[10] Z. Wei, C. Wang, "Estimation method of pollutant emission in different flight stages," Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 10 no. 06, pp. 48-52, 2018.

[11] Y. Huang, D. Wu, W. S. Wang, "Further study on NOx emission distribution of civil aviation aircraft over China," Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 289-292, 2015.

[12] M. Sherry, A. Nemes, D. L. Jacono, "The interaction of helical tip and root vortices in a wind turbine wake," Physics of Fluids, vol. 24 no. 25, pp. 115-121, 2018.

[13] D. S. Hicok, B. E. Barmore, "Concept of operations for separation management arrivals and approach," Physics of Fluids, vol. 28 no. 7, pp. 78-841, 2016.

[14] L. J. Zhong, J. Y. Zheng, G. Q. Lei, "Quantitative uncertainty analysis in air pollutant emission inventories: methodology and case study," Research of Environmental, vol. 24 no. 4, pp. 15-20, 2017.

[15] L. Chen, "Estimation and prediction of China's air transport emissions in LTO and cruise phases," Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University, vol. 12 no. 04, pp. 27-33, 2013.

[16] Q. H. Zuo, F. Yang, W. J. Pan, "Review on the development of civil aircraft wake reclassification," Henan science and technology, vol. 39 no. 26, pp. 65-70, 2020.

[17] W. J. Pan, B. Ran, Z. Y. Wu, X. P. Zhu, "Review of wake separation classification standards," Journal of Civil Aviation Flight College of China, vol. 30 no. 2, pp. 54-57, 2019.

[18] X. H. Tang, "Research on aircraft emission diffusion characteristics based on Gaussian puff model," Civil Aviation University of China, vol. 11 no. 2, pp. 22-28, 2020.

[19] Z. Y. Wu, "Research on aircraft wake vortex identification and prediction based on Doppler lidar," China Civil Aviation Flight College, vol. 18 no. 5, 2020.

[20] B. B. Li, R. T. Nie, "Analysis of the influence of time separation standard (TBS) on runway capacity," Aeronautical computing technology, vol. 45 no. 6, pp. 87-90, 2015.

[21] W. J. Pan, Y. A. Liang, H. J. Liang, W. X. Deng, S. R. Zheng, "Safety analysis of single runway takeoff separation based on numerical calculation model," Aviation computing technology, vol. 49 no. 4, 2019.

[22] T. G. Zhang, X. Y. Hou, "Research on airworthiness certification method of aeroengine exhaust pollutants," Science and technology guide, vol. 30 no. 4, pp. 67-70, 2012.

[23] W. J. Pan, Z. W. Zhang, X. L. Zhang, J. Y. Chen, "Improvement of Reich collision risk model under Re-cat wake separation standard," Aviation computing technology, vol. 49 no. 3, 2019.

[24] L. P. Jia, Q. Luo, "Experimental study on single head low pollution combustion chamber of aeroengine," Mechanical manufacturing and automation, vol. 49 no. 3, pp. 63-66, 2020.

[25] Z. Q. Zhao, J. Li, Y. Tian, X. Y. Li, "Review of the research on the impact of aviation emissions on atmospheric environment," Environmental science and technology, vol. 41 no. 3, pp. 186-192, 2020.

[26] K. J. Yu, D. W. Yu, M. Wang, "Research on Civil Aviation energy saving and emission reduction based on aircraft LTO cycle in airport area," Science and Technology, vol. 24 no. 12, pp. 27-32, 2015.

[27] H. L. Cao, J. Z. Gao, D. M. Liang, "United States," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, vol. 37 no. 1, pp. 444-447, DOI: 10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-80-en, 2014.

[28] J. Z. Gao, "Research on emission and diffusion model of civil aviation engine in whole flight," Environmental science and technology, vol. 55 no. 3, pp. 29-33, 2019.

[29] X. Y. Hou, T. G. Zhang, "Calculation method for airworthiness certification of NOx emission from aero engine based on LTO cycle," Science and technology guide, vol. A30 no. 21, pp. 61-65, 2012.

[30] C. Morris, J. Peters, "Validation of the time based separation concept at london heathrow Airport," vol. 10 no. 13, pp. 32-38, .

[31] J. Z. Sun, H. F. Zuo, P. P. Liu, Y. Fu, "Estimation method of air engine pollutant emission," Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 12 no. 2, pp. 53-61, 2012.

[32] W. J. Pan, J. J. Zuo, Y. A. Liang, W. X. Deng, H. J. Liang, "Dynamic response model and safety analysis of aircraft encountering wake," Journal of Ordnance Equipment Engineering, vol. 40 no. 6, pp. 211-214, 2019.

[33] Q. Xia, H. F. Zuo, J. L. Yang, "Estimation of aircraft takeoff and landing (LTO) cycle emissions at CAAC airport," Journal of environmental science, vol. 1 no. 7, pp. 1469-1474, 2008.

[34] S. Q. Li, W. Hu, "Estimation method of air pollutant emission during air transportation," Statistical research, vol. 37 no. 1, pp. 63-64, 2014.