What kind of fuel do airlines use?
Modern jet aircraft flown by passenger and cargo airlines use a petroleum-based fuel generally referred to as “Jet A” or “Jet A-1.” To ensure safety, commercial jet fuel must meet precise technical and operational specifications, and jet engines are designed to work with jet fuel having these specific characteristics.
Can airlines use fuel other than Jet A or Jet A-1?
Not today, but possibly in the future. In the United States, all aircraft and engines must be approved (technically, “certificated”) for use by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA approval is specific to the fuel that is used and the particular aircraft and/or engine type. Any deviation from the FAA approval certificate requires extensive FAA re-evaluation and approval. In light of this regulatory arrangement and the fact that the specification for Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel is identified in the FAA approval certificate, no other type of fuel can be utilized at this time in the United States. Much work needs to be done before alternative fuels can safely be used in commercial aircraft operations with approval from the FAA.
Does the FAA certify jet fuel?
No. To clarify the discussion, above, the FAA certifies aircraft and engines. An element of this certification is a listing of the operational requirements and limitations for the specific equipment that is being certified, which includes identification of the type of jet fuel approved for use in that equipment. Therefore, the FAA specifies what type of fuel is to be used but does not certify the jet fuel itself. Separately, airline fueling manuals, with which airlines must comply by law, are based upon the jet fuel recognized by the FAA. Before FAA identifies the fuel appropriate for specific equipment, and before airlines can include the fuel requirements in fueling manuals, the fuel already has been determined to meet the specifications necessary to be safely used in the relevant equipment.
In the case of jet fuel, the applicable standard (also referred to as a “specification”) is controlled by ASTM International, an organization devoted to the development and management of standards for a wide range of industrial products and processes. It is this specification that is included in FAA product approvals and required air carrier manuals. Periodically, through ASTM’s established procedures, the specification is updated and revised by a specialized committee of experts. Proposed changes to the specification are carefully considered, and a formal balloting process is conducted to secure consensus before any revision is accepted. Fuels produced from alternative sources must complete this rigorous vetting process to establish that they meet the specification requirements to be safely used as jet fuel,
Yes, principally to enhance the security of our energy supply, but also as a potential additional means of reducing emissions typically associated with fossil fuels, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is hoped that alternative fuels will assist in both of these regards. For these reasons, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) actively supports efforts by the U.S. Air Force, NASA, the FAA, airframe and engine manufacturers, and various academic institutions – through the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) – to develop and bring alternative aviation fuels to the marketplace. CAAFI is moving forward on action items identified at its November 2007 workshop. Further, ATA has issued a “principles” document, entitled “Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels: The ATA Commitment,” which spells out for would-be fuel providers our rigorous safety, environmental, supply reliability and economic feasibility requirements.
What are the environmental implications of alternative aviation fuels?
U.S. airlines and ATA recognize the importance of environmental responsibility. At this time, it is not clear if alternative aviation fuels will prove to be environmentally beneficial, though this is a fundamental objective in our efforts. Further research is needed to better understand the environmental effects of alternative fuels and to bring more environmentally friendly alternative fuels to fruition. In this regard, ATA has actively supported legislation to provide dedicated federal funding for research of alternative aviation fuels.
What is the U.S. airline industry’s track record on emissions?
Since GHG emissions are directly related to fuel consumption, our tremendous progress in fuel efficiency – a 110 percent improvement between 1978 and today in revenue ton miles per gallon – has significantly reduced our emissions output. In addition, the ATA Board of Directors has adopted the aggressive goal of an additional 30 percent improvement in fuel efficiency between 2005 and 2025. While we continue to acquire the most efficient available equipment and seek additional measures to improve upon present operational efficiencies, we are keen on the development of game-changing advancements such as cleaner fuels and a modernized U.S. air traffic management system.
What is the ATA position on climate change and aviation?
Although commercial aviation contributes only about 2-3 percent of man-made GHGs, ATA member airlines are committed to continuing to reduce their GHGs. Since airlines have achieved tremendous fuel efficiency improvements already, the potential for revolutionary improvements is limited. Thus, we are actively supporting the development of game-changing advancements, such as cleaner alternative fuels. Even more beneficial would be the implementation of a modernized air traffic management (ATM) system in the United States. The operational efficiencies from a modern, satellite-based ATM system would result in significant savings in GHGs. On the regulatory front, ATA supports the ongoing efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is the United Nations body charged with establishing standards and recommended practices for international aviation, to further address aviation’s contribution to climate change.
From a strictly technical standpoint, it appears that coal-to-liquid (CTL) jet fuel produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process is most promising in the near term. This type of alternative aviation fuel is presently used in some parts of the world, and extensive operational and environmental impact studies are underway to determine its potential for use in the United States, possibly with a biomass blend and other steps to make it more environmentally friendly. While experience and advanced research in CTL fuels look promising, we support the development of any viable alternative to traditional petroleum-based jet fuel that can meet the rigorous requirements set forth in ATA's alternative fuels principles document. For instance, we applaud efforts to use various forms of biomass, natural gas, or combinations of biomass and other material as a source of fuel, as long as the biomass does not compete with food supplies.
Even if alternative fuels do not prove feasible for near-term use in commercial aircraft, ATA supports their development for other uses. Recent studies show that jet fuels made with a CTL product mixed with biomass may result in major reductions in GHG emissions below levels seen in petroleum-based jet fuel.
Are there any regulatory hurdles to using alternative fuels?
Several regulatory requirements must be satisfied before alternative fuels can be used in commercial jet aircraft. If alternative fuels are not able to meet applicable FAA specifications, then a considerable effort will be necessary to obtain FAA certification for each particular aircraft and engine type to use the new fuel.
What’s happening on the legislative front?
In recent years, Congress has not provided adequate funding for researching alternative aviation fuels even though recent studies show that significant reductions in GHG emissions could be achieved. Insufficient legislative support for this new technology hinders its development due to the extreme cost of alternative fuels research and the construction and maintenance of production facilities. In light of the clear national benefits of such fuels, principally enhanced national security and the potential for reduced GHG emissions, the advancement of this technology is worthy of significant public investment.
Significant infrastructure hurdles exist. Because the production of alternative fuels will likely require new facilities located away from the existing distribution network, new handling and distribution capacity will be necessary if it is to be commercialized. For instance, additional road and rail networks may need to be constructed to deliver raw materials required for production, and new pipelines would have to be developed that could transport the finished product. The vast majority of jet fuel consumed in the United States is distributed by pipeline. New storage facilities at airports also might have to be developed. Having said that, the ATA airlines have called for alternative jet fuels that can be commingled with existing fuels (referred to as “drop-in fuels”), which could greatly reduce the need for duplicative infrastructure.
How long will it be before planes can fly with alternative fuel?
Although it is uncertain when alternative fuels will be available as a feasible substitute for traditional petroleum-derived jet fuel, many exciting advancements, such as recent cooperative efforts by Boeing/Virgin Atlantic and Boeing/Air New Zealand will help draw attention to alternative fuels and sustain momentum in bringing a viable product to market. Additionally, Boeing, Continental Airlines and GE Aviation plan to conduct a biofuels demonstration flight in the first half of 2009 and Airbus, Honeywell and JetBlue Airways have announced their own biofuels initiative.