Paper presented at 24th Digital Avionics System Conference, Washington D.C.

October 30 November 3, 2005

ADVANCED AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE MODELING FOR ATM:

ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BADA MODEL
Angela Nuic, Chantal Poinsot, Mihai-George Iagaru
Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, Brtigny sur Orge, France
Eduardo Gallo, Francisco A. Navarro, Carlos Querejeta
Boeing Research & Technology Europe Madrid, Spain

Abstract
An efficient Air Traffic Management (ATM)
system requires planning of traffic flows that rely
on accurate estimation of aircraft performances.
New operational concepts, that will ensure seamless
management of the forecasted growth of air traffic
and provide increased capacity, are based on
aircraft trajectory prediction. An aircraft
performance model is the core of trajectory
computation and therefore plays a central role in the
development and evaluation of the future ATM
systems.
The Eurocontrol Experimental Centre conducts
a number of activities in the domain of aircraft
performance modeling, which are performed within
the scope of Base of Aircraft Data (BADA).
This paper briefly introduces BADA, its
purpose, application and users. Then it focuses on
the BADA model structure and addresses various
aspects of aircraft performance modeling for ATM
applications.
Details on ongoing research effort that looks
into enhancements of the BADA model are
provided. The work is undertaken in cooperation
with Boeing Research & Technology Europe
(BR&TE). The advanced approach to aircraft
performance modeling is based on exploiting
todays aircraft performance resources, data and
software, that were not available in the past when
BADA was initially developed.
Encouraging results that demonstrate
significant improvement in BADA aircraft
performance model capabilities are presented in the
paper.

on accurate estimation of aircraft performances.

New operational concepts, that will ensure seamless
management of the forecasted growth of air traffic
and provide increased capacity, are based on
aircraft trajectory computation. An aircraft
performance model is the core of trajectory
prediction and therefore plays a central role in the
development and evaluation of the future ATM
systems (see e.g. [1], [2] and [3]).
There are several existing approaches to
aircraft performance modeling to support various
needs for aircraft trajectory prediction and
simulation. Kinetic approaches model aircraft
forces, while kinematic approaches directly model
the path characteristics of the aircraft without
attempting to model the underlying physics.
Depending on the approach and techniques used in
modeling there are different forms of Aircraft
Performance Models (APM). Typical examples that
are used today are introduced and described in [2].
Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) is an aircraft
performance database based on the kinetic approach
to aircraft performance modeling that has been
developed and maintained by the Eurocontrol
Experimental Centre (EEC). The information
provided in BADA is designed for use in trajectory
simulation and prediction in ATM research as well
as for modeling and strategic planning in ground
ATM operations.
Historically, within the EEC, the accuracy of
aircraft performance modeling was of significant
importance to achieve realistic aircraft
performances in a simulation environment.

Introduction

This paper focuses on research effort and the

latest achievements in the domain of aircraft
performance modeling undertaken by the EEC
within the scope of BADA.

An efficient Air Traffic Management (ATM)

system requires planning of traffic flows that rely

The paper is structured in three parts. In the

first part, an overview of the BADA model

2005 - The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). All rights reserved.
The content represents the Authors own views which do not necessarily reflect EUROCONTROL official
position

structure and aspects of the model identification

process are given, followed by information on the
state-of-the-art of the current BADA version. The
second part is dedicated to the research work on the
model enhancements. It describes approach and
methodology and provides results of the BADA
model improvement. Conclusions are summarized
in the third part.

Motion
Total Energy Model or TEM relates the
geometrical, kinematic and kinetic aspects of the
aircraft motion, allowing the aircraft performances
and trajectory to be calculated. TEM equates the
rate of work done by forces acting on the aircraft to
the rate of increase in potential and kinetic energy,
that is:
.

BADA Model overview

The APM adopted by BADA is based on a
mass-varying, kinetic approach. This approach
models an aircraft as a point and requires modeling
of underlying forces that cause aircraft motion.
The structure of BADA APM is represented in
figure 1.
Figure 1 Structure of BADA APM

APM

.
T D
v ESF
h =
mg

(2)

v dv
where g is the gravity and ESF = 1 +

g dh

(3)

is the energy share factor.

m = F

<<model>>
Aircraft Characteristics

<<model>>
Operations

where h is altitude, h is vertical speed, v is true

airspeed (TAS) and m is aircraft mass.
To facilitate calculations, equation (1) can be
rearranged and vertical speed expressed as

The variation of mass is accounted for through

the fuel consumption model:

<<model>>

<<model>>
Actions

(1)

Model Structure and Main Features

<<model>>
Motion

(T D )v = W h + mv v

<<model>>
Limitations

As depicted in figure 1, the BADA APM is

structured in 5 models, namely Actions, Motion,
Operations, Limitations and Aircraft
Characteristics. The dependencies among the
models are represented with dashed arrows (which
point towards the models that the one at the origin
of the arrow depends upon).
Actions
This model allows computing the forces acting
on the aircraft which cause its motion. There are
three categories of actions: aerodynamic (namely
drag D and lift L), propulsive (thrust T) and
gravitational (weight W). Since BADA accounts
for mass variation, the propulsive model provides
an associated model to compute fuel consumption F.

(4)

Equations (2) and (4) together form an

Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE) system
which can be posed with the respective initial or
boundary conditions at each flight segment to
compute the aircraft motion in that interval. The
computed aircraft trajectory is, then, the result of
concatenating the solutions of a sequence of such
motion problems.
Operations
Although the ODE system above governs any
possible aircraft motion, different ways of operating
the aircraft result in different trajectories. For
instance, flying constant Mach number leads to the
following specific form [4] of equation (3):
1

R T
(5)
ESF = 1 +
M 2
2
g

where is the air adiabatic index, R is the specific

gas constant, T is the temperature gradient of the
particular atmosphere layer considered, M is Mach
number.
Analogously, flying constant calibrated airspeed
(CAS) leads to a different form of equation (3) and

so on for other flight regimes other than constant

CAS/Mach.
The Operations model is responsible for
capturing those aspects (such as the ESF), which
are neither directly related to actions nor motion
laws, but which are necessary to incorporate into
the problem of computing aircraft motion, the
knowledge about the way in which the aircraft is
operated.
The Operations model is conceived to fill the
gap between the Actions and Motion models. Thus,
provided that the way of operating the aircraft is
known (e.g. constant CAS), the Operations model
provides the features that are needed to bring
actions and motion together thereby closing the
mathematical problem to compute the resulting
aircraft trajectory e.g. the model expressed in (5).
Limitations
Limitations restrict the aircraft behavior in
order to keep it between certain limits to safeguard
the safe operation of the aircraft, or limit the
equipment degradation. The applicable limitations
have been classified into four categories, namely
geometrical, kinematic, dynamic and
environmental. Geometrical limitations include the
maximum certified altitude, maneuver limited
altitude etc. Kinematic limitations refer to speed
limitations such as maximum operating
airspeed/Mach (VMO/MMO), low and high speed
buffet, landing gear and flaps speed limits and the
speeds that serve to define maneuver envelope.
Dynamic limitations include throttle limits for
standard ratings and aircraft weights such as the
maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), maximum
payload (MPL) etc. Finally, environmental
limitations include stand for the environmental
envelope.
Aircraft Characteristics
Each aircraft is described with a set of
coefficients which represent characteristics used by
the previous models, but that are intrinsic to the
aircraft, such as the aerodynamic reference area,
wing span, etc.

Model Instances for Specific Aircraft

Once aircraft model components, structure and
algorithms are defined, identification of a model
instance for a specific aircraft type can take place.

This process specifies corresponding aircraft model

parameters and coefficients aiming to achieve the
best fit between calculated and reference aircraft
performance data.
Aircraft Performance Reference Data
Aircraft type identification depends and
heavily relies on availability, type and quality of
aircraft performance reference data.

In the past, the main sources of aircraft

performance reference data were Aircraft Operation
Manuals (AOMs), published by aircraft
manufacturers or operating airlines. From aircraft
performance modeling perspective, AOMs provide
valuable information on aircraft limitations,
performances and operating procedures for all
aircraft types that have ever been put in operation.
Aircraft performances are given in form of
integrated flight profiles that specify time, distance
and fuel to climb/descent to/from specific flight
level. Data is given for number of flight levels, with
variable altitude step that sometimes results in low
number of data points. Depending on source AOM,
time to climb or decent is rounded to minute which
inevitably reduces precision of the data. Due to the
intended purpose of AOM, aircraft performance
data for nominal aircraft operating speeds in climb,
cruise and descent is only provided.
Nowadays, aircraft manufacturers develop
aircraft performance engineering programs that can
provide a high quality aircraft performance
reference data. These programs allow generation of
reference data for complete range of aircraft
operating conditions in terms of weight, speeds,
ISA and associated operating regimes with high
level of data granularity (number of data points) and
data precision. Currently, such programs exist for
limited number of aircraft types (e.g.
INFLT/REPORT Boeing Performance Software,
PEP Airbus Performance Engineering Program.
However, it is to expect that, in the future, similar
capabilities will be provided for all aircraft types.
Existence of this type of data opens new
horizons in the domain of aircraft performance
modeling which is demonstrated in this paper.
Aircraft Model Instance Identification
BADA represents an aircraft as a point and
requires modeling of the resulting longitudinal

forces affecting this point thrust and drag, while

fuel flow is modeled as a function of thrust.
As the original aircraft data for thrust, drag and
thrust specific fuel consumption was, and still is not
easily available, a choice was made to use aircraft
profile data for BADA aircraft model identification.
The ODE system formed by equations (2) and
(4), together with equation (6) below provides the
way to compute flight profiles based on BADA,
once the model coefficients for thrust, drag and fuel
consumption are known.
.

r = v cos

(6)

where r is the horizontal speed and is the flight

path angle.
The objective of model identification process
is to obtain the optimum coefficients from a set of
known flight data points. Since the ODE system is
the law that governs trajectory generation according
to BADA model, it can be used for coefficient
identification purposes (left side values of
expressions (2), (4) & (6) are the observed values
while right side values are the predicted values by
means of the BADA model).
The better the expressions above predict the
.

observed derivatives h and r , the more accurately

the trajectory resulting from integration of such
derivatives will fit the observed ones.
Adopted optimization solution is least squares
(LS) solution that minimizes the sum of square
.

errors (SSE) of vertical speed h as defined in

expression:
i

v
SSE . = hi (Ti Di ) i ESFi
h
mi g
i =1

(7)

where the referred errors are the differences

.

between the observed (reference) values of h and

the predicted ones. n is the total number of data
samples through all the trajectories considered for
the given aircraft type.
To measure goodness of a specific model, the

RMS metric defined as RMS=(SSE/n) is used.

This metric provides a measure of how well a
specific model fits the reference data used to derive
the model in terms of vertical speed.

A similar approach is taken for optimization

of the fuel flow. In that case, the SSE is computed
as
n

SSE . = m i + Fi
m

i =1

(8)

Current BADA model

The current BADA model was first developed
in the early 1990s taking into consideration
existing aircraft reference data availability,
computing resources and target applications
requirements. The main requirement at the time was
to realistically simulate en-route aircraft behavior
under nominal operating conditions. From users
perspective ensuring large coverage of aircraft types
was another important objective for BADA to meet.
Aircraft types coverage
The latest version of BADA provides 99.14%
coverage of the European fleet mix [4]. 88 aircraft
types are developed from original aircraft data and
are referred to as original models. Additional 204
aircraft types may be simulated as being equivalent
to an original model.
Model structure
Current BADA defines models for aircraft
forces (aerodynamic and propulsive), limitations
and operations for en-route and Terminal
Maneuvering Area (TMA) operations.

Drag for aircraft clean and non-clean

configurations, thrust and fuel flow models for
maximum climb, maximum cruise and descent
thrust levels for three engine types (jet, turboprop
and piston) are provided.
Governed by TEM, operations model supports
simulation of flight regimes where any two of three
variables of thrust, speed or vertical speed can be
controlled, while third one is calculated.
Standard airline procedure models for climb,
cruise and descent, parameterized by BADA, are
also provided.
Limitations model defines maximum speeds
and altitudes, minimum speeds at different aircraft
configurations including low speed buffeting.
Further details on the current BADA model are
provided in reference document [4].

Model identification and accuracy levels

Aircraft profile data used for identification of
the current BADA aircraft models (3.x family)
come from AOMs or aircraft performance software
data sources that are available at Eurocontrol. The
type and quality of the available reference data vary
in function of aircraft type. In principle, available
data with the best quality is used to identify the
aircraft model coefficients. The existing aircraft
models are regularly updated, provided that the
better quality data becomes available.

The latest version of BADA (3.6) provides

native model instances for 88 aircraft types. 56 of
them are generated using AOM type of reference
data and represent 27% of the European air traffic.
Remaining 32 aircraft models are based on the
aircraft performance engineering programs data and
account for 55% of the European traffic.
The coefficient optimization tools, appropriate
fitting schemes and modeling techniques have been
developed to identify the aircraft model coefficients
from different types of the reference data. The
objective of the model identification is to obtain as
small as possible value of RMS error for vertical
speed and fuel consumption.
To ensure that obtained coefficients robustly
represent aircraft behavior over normal operation
conditions, a variety of flight profiles that cover
operations of aircraft for different speeds, aircraft
masses and ISA conditions are required. These can
be specified as:

descent profiles at ISA for nominal

aircraft weight at low, nominal and high
speed
climb profiles at ISA and off ISA
conditions (up to ISA +20) for min,
nominal and max aircraft weight at low,
nominal and high speed
cruise fuel flow data at ISA conditions
for min, nominal and max aircraft
weight at nominal speed

The available aircraft performance reference

data does not always cater for this requirement of
aircraft flight envelope coverage. In this case an
aircraft model can be identified, but its fidelity can
only be assessed and guaranteed for the range of
reference data conditions.

Most of the aircraft types currently modeled in

BADA demonstrate mean RMS error in vertical
speed lower than 100 feet per minute [fpm], over
previously specified normal operation conditions.
This corresponds to mean error of vertical speed
lower then 5% for operational range of flight
envelope under assumption that 2000 fpm is an
average vertical speed value. Fuel consumption is
modeled with mean error lower than 5% for the
same conditions. An example of vertical speed
RMS error in fpm for 13 climb (CL) profiles of a
wide body aircraft in BADA 3.6 is given in table 1.
Table 1. Mean RMS Errors in ROC over 13
Climb Profiles
CL
RMS
[fpm]

10

11

12

13

74

52

29

98

69

47

72

63

77

94

86

71

83

Model limitations
The advanced model optimization tools and
newly available high quality reference data have
been used to study ability of the current BADA
model to capture aircraft performances over the
whole flight envelope and to identify levels of
accuracy that are achievable.

For this reason, two model instances (two sets

of coefficients) based on the current BADA model
structure and algorithms were developed for a
number of aircraft models using same type and
source of the reference data, but covering different
range of operating conditions.
First model instance was obtained from the
reference data covering the normal operations range
as specified before (in total 25 climb and descent
flight profiles). The second model instance was
developed by using 324 flight profiles covering
complete aircraft speed and weight flight envelope
from ISA+0 up to ISA+30 conditions. The accuracy
of the model was analyzed in terms of mean RMS
and absolute error in vertical speed.
In the first case, current BADA model have
demonstrated its ability to ensure good level of
accuracy for range of aircraft normal operating
conditions with RMS vertical speed error less then
100 fpm.
In the latter case, when model tried to capture
aircraft behavior over the whole flight envelope,

overall RMS vertical speed error increased to 300

fpm or more depending on aircraft type.
A graphical example of absolute error in
vertical speed under ISA+0 conditions for the two
model instances is depicted in Figure 2 and 3 for
B744 aircraft.
Figure 2 shows absolute error over 18 profiles
in climb and descent, covering aircraft normal
operation envelope for the first model instance.
.

Figure 2. Absolute Error of h [fpm] for 18 climb

and descent profiles, ISA+0, Mach 0.48-0.88

As it can be seen from the central part of the

graph, representing normal operating conditions,
the absolute error is still around 100 fpm. However,
the absolute error increases towards the edges of the
flight envelope and becomes greater then 300 fpm.
These results demonstrate the current BADA
models ability to accurately model aircraft
performances for normal operation conditions.
Accuracy decrease at the marginal parts of the flight
envelope indicates that similar level of accuracy can
not be provided for a complete flight envelope, with
current model structure and algorithms.
This has been identified as one of the areas of
the future model improvement and will be further
discussed in the continuation of the paper.

Towards BADA 4.0

M

Time for Enhancement

Since the time BADA was first developed,
applications relying on APM have broadened
significantly with new requirements to provide
more and better features to support the increasing
analysis and operational needs in ATM.

Hp

The absolute error in vertical speed for

majority of the data points remains below 100 fpm.
Figure 3 shows absolute error over 81 profiles
in climb and descent, covering complete aircraft
envelope for the second model instance.
.

Figure 3. Absolute Error of h [fpm] for 195

Climb &Descent Profiles, ISA+0, Mach 0.26-0.9

The new requirements relate to accuracy of the

modeled aircraft performances, the coverage of the
complete aircraft operation envelope, the flight
phases that can be represented, and the type of
operations that an APM can support.
To satisfy those requirements, todays
availability of aircraft manufacturers performance
software facilitates the automated use of better
quality reference data.
On top of that, computing technology has
evolved in such a way that currently available
computing capabilities have outdated the previous
need to over-rationalize the necessary computing
resources.

Finally, Object Oriented Programming (OOP)

and adoption of the Unified Modeling Language
(UML) as the industry-wide modeling standard,
now make easier to develop well-defined models
and manage complexity.
Hp

All the above circumstances now enable a

different approach to aircraft performance modeling

and will be used to support enhancement of the

BADA model.

model performance with respect to non-functional

requirements (e.g. realism, accuracy, complexity,
completeness, maintainability, etc).

Advanced Model Engineering for BADA

With the aim to achieve the best possible

compromise among all the requirements that the
future BADA model should satisfy, the following
premises have been considered, based on state-ofthe-art knowledge and techniques:

Advanced Model Engineering for BADA

(AMEBA) is an on-going research effort that
supports definition of the next-generation BADA
APM (referred to as BADA 4.0). The work is
performed in cooperation with Boeing Research &
Technology Europe by taking advantages of todays
aircraft performance reference data, computing
capabilities and modeling techniques.
Main objectives are to provide a realistic,
accurate, and complete aircraft performance model:

capable of supporting accurate computation

of the geometric, kinematic and kinetic
aspects of the aircraft behavior
applicable to a wide set of aircraft types,
over the entire operation envelope, and in
all phases of flight
with reasonable complexity, maintainability
and computing requirements
susceptible of being identified from profile
data
The execution of AMEBA is divided in two
phases. Phase 1, Improvement, has already been
executed. Phase 2, Extension, is under its way.
This paper presents details of the Phase 1,
which focuses on improvement of model accuracy
for en-route operations. For this purpose, new
models for thrust, drag and fuel consumption have
been developed and validated using aircraft
manufacturer raw data.

Modeling Premises
AMEBA focuses on modeling activities in
two senses: physical and systemic. Physical
modeling involves the analysis of the underlying
physical laws governing aircraft behavior and
identification of the physical variables upon which
aircraft performance is to be represented together
with the selection of appropriate mathematical
models to relate them. Systemic modeling refers to
the way of organizing the APM architecture
(structure and functions) as a system so functional
requirements are met (e.g. provision of drag, thrust
and fuel flow), together with an adequate balance of

i) An in-depth review of Flight Dynamics

fundamentals underlying aircraft behavior has been
conducted, under no simplifying assumptions other
than those reasonable in the ATM context (e.g. no
sideslip). This allows the model development to
remain as generic as possible until further
simplifications are introduced by applications for
specific purposes.
ii) Dimensional Analysis (DA) techniques [8]
were applied to identify the right physical
dependencies for the mathematical models created
to represent the required aircraft performances
(drag, thrust, fuel consumption, etc). Use of proper
physical dependencies allows the elaboration of
mathematical models that obtain higher accuracy
with a smaller number of coefficients.
Additionally, DA techniques allow isolating
the model interfaces (which are based on the right
physical dependencies) from the particular
modeling and implementation decisions adopted
(i.e. the specific mathematical models chosen to
relate physical variables). This helps to discover the
natural architecture of the APM and minimizes
the impact of future changes.
Finally, through the application of DA
techniques, the physical relationships are obtained
in terms of dimensionless variables. This facilitates
analysis and comparisons, prevents mistakes and,
provided an adequate selection of dimensionless
terms, allows discovering physical similarity
relationships.
iii) Use of Object Oriented Modeling (OOM)
principles to identify the right roles and
responsibilities of the different components
encompassing the APM architecture.
OOM principles effectively allow managing
complexity and prevent taking inappropriate design
decisions, thus leading to a more robust model
organization.

T=f(M,T)

Methodology

for TISA TBP

(14)

The methodology followed during the

AMEBA modeling effort using above described
premises is now explained.

where T= [1+M ( -1)/2] is the total temperature

ratio; =T/T0 being the temperature ratio, T the
local temperature and T0 the standard one at MSL.

Starting point
After the review of aircraft performance
fundamentals new dependencies for drag, thrust and
fuel consumption models have been obtained
through DA techniques.

iii) Fuel consumption is calculated through the

new dimensionless fuel coefficient CF as:

i) Drag is calculated through the drag coefficient

CD, expressed as a function of lift coefficient CL
and Mach number1 M as
D=p0SM2CD

CD=f(CL,M)

(9)

where =p/p0 is the pressure ratio, p being the local

pressure and p0 the standard pressure at mean sea
level (MSL).
ii) Thrust is calculated through the new
dimensionless thrust coefficient CT as
T/=WMTOW CT

(10)

where WMTOW is the maximum takeoff weight and,

for idle thrust (IDLE) CT has the form
CT=f(M,)

(11)

while for maximum takeoff (MTKOF), maximum

climb (MCMB) and maximum cruise (MCRZ)
engine ratings2, CT represents the so-called
generalized thrust model, which depends on the
Mach number and the throttle parameter T
CT=f(M,T)

(12)

In those cases, separate laws for T are

provided for the off-ISA atmosphere conditions
characterized by TISA below and above the socalled blink point3 TBP:
T=f(M,)
1

for TISA <TBP

(13)

Compressibility effects have been taken into account by

means of the Prandtl-Glauert compressibility correction factor
PG=(1-M2) to enhance the accuracy of the aerodynamic
model.
2
For the sake of simplicity, only the thrust coefficient for jet,
turbofan and turboprop engines is presented. In all those cases,
the physical dependencies are the same and the concept of
engine rating is applicable. This concept is introduced to
enhance the accuracy and realism of the propulsion model.
3
Blink point is the design temperature at which the engine
throttle starts to be limited by temperature. In almost all
modern jet engines, it is ISA+10.

F=LHV-1WMTOW a0CF

CF=f(M,CT) (15)

where a0 is the sound speed at MSL and LHV is the

lower heating value.
Step 1 Model Selection
Once the true physical dependencies where
determined in terms of physical (dimensionless)
variables, as shown in the previous section, step 1
of the methodology focused on selecting
appropriate mathematical model specifications for
those dependencies.

The use of polynomial functions was preferred

to keep complexity under manageable limits.
Several candidate model specifications, of different
number and combination of terms, were fitted by
least square techniques. The data used to fit these
models was raw drag, thrust, and fuel consumption
from a selection of six different Boeing airplanes of
different size and technology. This data is
composed of a fine grid of experimental numbers
covering the whole operational envelope.
Standard statistical metrics, such as the RMS
and the maximum signed difference (SMAX)4,
were used to assess the fitting accuracy of the
different model specifications for each individual
aircraft. Aggregate metrics, namely the mean of the
RMS and maximum unsigned difference (UMAX)
for the six aircraft considered, remove the
particularities of individual aircrafts.
These aggregated metrics were used to
evaluate the accuracy of the different proposed
model specifications. The needed accuracy was a
subjective decision (variable for each model), and
the selected models obtain that accuracy with the
minimum possible number of coefficients. At the
begging of the process, it was not possible to set the
exact target value for the model accuracy and
number of coefficients. The new models were tested
4
As the fitting errors obtained by least squares are randomly
positive or negative, their mean is always very close to zero.
This is the reason why only RMS and SMAX were used.

and analyzed in an attempt to obtain the best

compromise between the model accuracy and
number of coefficients. Multiple trials were
performed to find the specific terms that provided
the necessary level of accuracy with the minimum
number of terms.

observed variable, and drag and thrust as the

modeled ones. Fuel coefficients are obtained later
on in a decoupled way. For the sake of
maintainability, it is worth it to notice that the
identification process is fully automated and no
human intervention is required.

The selected polynomials for generalized

thrust CT resulted in 6 terms with maximum powers
of two.

Step 3 Sensitivity Analysis

When building physical models, an essential
issue is to determine up to which point the model
ability to capture the underlying phenomenon
depends on the reference data used to fit its
coefficients. Assessing this influence is important in
order to avoid overfitting5 as well as to determine
the minimum set of reference data needed to obtain
an acceptable model instance.

The flat rating model for throttle parameter T

has 7 terms and power of two while temperaturelimited rating model has 9 terms and power of two.
Fuel flow model results in 7 terms and power of 3.
For the drag polar model, a slightly higher
number of terms (15 coefficients, and powers of 7)
has been necessary to account for the big increases
in drag caused by compressibility and buffeting
effects that occur at high M and CL values,
respectively.
A careful and throughout analysis of results led
to the decision to keep these models as the ones that
provide a good compromise between accuracy and
complexity.
Step 2 Model Identification Scheme
In this step a model identification scheme was
developed, based on the model specifications
obtained in step 1. Reference performance data
considered this time was trajectory data generated
with Boeing performance software, instead of raw
data for thrust, drag and fuel flow.

The reference trajectories were selected as the

combinations of:

different aircraft masses (ranging from

OEW to MTOW)
ISA conditions (ranging from ISA-20 to
ISA+30)
constant CAS/Mach speed schedules from
45% to 100% of maximum operating speed
(VMO) and Mach (MMO)
IDLE, MCMB and MCRZ engine ratings

Bearing that in mind, a sensitivity analysis was

conducted, starting with the reference set of Step 2,
which remained as the validation set through the
entire exercise. Then, selected trajectories where
progressively discarded, paying attention to the fact
that the remaining ones kept distributed over the
whole operation envelope. As the number of
trajectories decreased, they continued to cover the
complete flight envelope, but in an ever coarser
way when compared with the fine grid represented
by the initial set of trajectories.
Each time that a number of trajectories were
removed, the model identification scheme of Step 2
was applied again with the remaining ones as the
reference trajectory data set. The resulting models
where assessed against the validation set using
analogous metrics as in Step 1 applied to several
performance aspects, namely vertical speed, drag,
thrust and fuel consumption.
The results showed that no significant
accuracy degradation occurred until the number of
trajectories fall bellow 324. A noticeable fact is
that, as expected from the analytical review, only
one ISA condition was needed to cope with the
model identification of thrust engine rating models
below the blink point.

Up to a total of 1690 trajectories were

considered for each aircraft so as to represent the
whole operation envelope.
Used fitting scheme optimizes at the same time
drag and thrust coefficients through the application
of the TEM equation with vertical speed as the

A model is said to exhibit overfitting if the accuracy of model

predictions is very good when reproducing the reference data
used to fit its coefficients but degrades significantly when
reproducing other data different than the reference one.

Step 4 Comparison vs. Current Model

Finally, a comparison was carried out between
the new drag, thrust and fuel models and the ones
specified in current BADA with the aim to, first,
assess how the new and current models perform
over the whole aircraft operation envelope and,
second, determine an upper limit of the
improvement achievable with the new models
versus the current ones.

To that end, the all current and new models

were fitted using the model identification scheme of
Step 2 with the same reference data set, which was
the minimum one determined over the Step 3. The
validation dataset of Step 3 for each aircraft type
was considered as the true data. A total of 18
Boeing plus 4 McDonnell Douglas aircraft where
considered in the analysis. In parallel, 3 additional
aircraft types of a different aircraft manufacturer
were analyzed.

Model Improvement Results

The results obtained from all the 25 aircraft
used in the comparison performed in Step 4 are
presented in terms of vertical speed, drag, MCMB
thrust and fuel consumption. Sample graphics
below are provided for the B773 aircraft model.
Vertical Speed Error
Over the complete operations envelope, the average
error in vertical speed is reduced by a margin of
451%, from 314 fpm in current 3.x to 70 fpm in
BADA 4.0. As average values of vertical speed are
around 2000 fpm, the average error is well below
5%.

Figure 5. Absolute Error of h [fpm] BADA 4.0

Hp

Drag Coefficient Error

The average error is reduced by a margin of 577%,
from a drag coefficient CD error of 0.0116 to
0.00201. As average values of the drag coefficient
are around 0.02, the average error is below 10%.
Thrust Error
The average error for MCMB is reduced by of
375%, from a thrust coefficient CT error of 0.0208
to 0.00556. Average CT values are between 0.1 and
0.35, so the mean error is well below 10%. Similar
numbers are obtained for MCRZ rating.

Color maps represent the B773 MCMB thrust

coefficient error at ISA+15, as a function of the
Mach number and the pressure altitude.
Figure 6. Absolute Error CT BADA 3.x

Color maps for both BADA 3.x and 4.0

models represent the B773 vertical speed error in
function of Mach and pressure altitude, for ISA+15.

Hp

Figure 4. Absolute Error of h [fpm] BADA 3.x

Figure 7. Absolute Error CT BADA 4.0

Hp

Hp

Fuel Consumption Error

The average error is reduced by a margin of
489%, from a fuel consumption coefficient CF error
of 0.0188 to 0.00385. As the average value of CF
over the considered trajectories is around 0.15, the
average error is also well below 5%.

Color maps for B773, show the fuel

consumption error at ISA+15 as a function of Mach
number and pressure altitude.
Figure 8. Absolute Error CF BADA 3.x

Hp

Figure 9. Absolute Error CF [fpm] BADA 4.0

Hp

Further Work: Model Extension

As shown, AMEBA phase 1 succeeded in
improving the BADA model of Actions, namely the
models for aerodynamic forces in clean
configuration and propulsive forces. Now, to cope
with the new requirements being imposed by
applications, the ongoing AMEBA phase 2 is
undertaking the extension of the BADA model. To
complete this overview of the activities driving the
development of the future BADA 4.0 it is worth to
provide an insight on the intended extensions being
tackled:
i)

Actions Model. Extensions are programmed to

allow the aerodynamic drag accounting for the
drag increase due to deployment of high-lift

devices and landing gear. Additional

extensions of the Actions model are to enable
computation of lateral dynamics such as rollin/out maneuvers.
ii)

Motion Model. Extensions will target the

ability of the motion model to represent flight
regimes other than holding speed (CAS or
Mach), such as holding path angle or rate of
descent (required to analyze Continuous
Descent Approaches); climb at maximum
climb capability or with the maximum path
angle.

iii) Operations Model. Extensions will enlarge the

flexibility of BADA in supporting different
ways of operating the aircraft. The extended
Operations model will capture the intrinsic
aircraft behavioral characteristics needed to
compute maneuvers such as takeoff, landing,
roll-in/out, configuration changes like the
deployment/retraction of high-lift devices, and
flight objectives such as minimum fuel or
minimum time.
iv) Limitations Model. Extensions to the limitation
model are intended to provide BADA with an
enhanced mean to assess feasibility of aircraft
operations. This model will also support the
Operations model in providing the extreme
speeds (minimum and maximum) needed for
some of the modeled operations.

Conclusions
This paper gives an overview of the BADA
aircraft performance model capabilities and focuses
on research effort and the latest achievements in the
domain of aircraft performance modeling
undertaken by the Eurocontrol Experimental
Centre.
At the current version, BADA provides 99%
coverage of all aircraft operating in Europe, and the
majority of aircraft types operating across the rest
of the World.
The current BADA model demonstrates the
ability to predict aircraft performances with a mean
RMS error in vertical speed lower than 100 fpm and
a fuel flow error less then 5%, for the range of
aircraft normal operation. This considers climb and
descent aircraft operations from low to high

operating speeds (as operated by airlines) at weights

ranging from minimum to maximum weight and
ISA+0 to ISA+20 conditions.
The research work was performed in
cooperation with BR&TE to investigate how and to
what extend enhancements of the BADA aircraft
performance model are possible by exploiting
todays aircraft performance resources, data and
software that were not available in the past, when
the BADA was initially developed.
Encouraging results are obtained which
demonstrate that substantial room for improvement
exists in terms of model accuracy over the complete
aircraft operation envelope.
New developed models for drag, thrust and
fuel ensured significant improvement in modeling
the vertical speed. For a validation set of 25 aircraft
types the mean error in vertical speed is less then 70
fpm and the fuel flow error well below 5% for the
complete aircraft operations envelope. This
considers climb and descent aircraft operations
from minimum to maximum operating speeds
(VMO/MMO), aircraft weights ranging from
Operational Empty Weight to Maximum Take off
weight and ISA-20 to ISA+30 conditions.
The modeling of underlying aircraft forces has
been improved and ensuring accurate estimation of
drag, thrust and fuel consumption. The more
realistic and accurate modeling of forces and fuel
will enable the computation of new flight regimes
such as climb at maximum climb capability or
minimum fuel, that where untreatable with the
current model.
The work on the BADA model enhancement is
continuing. The aim is to supply BADA with the
necessary capabilities to support TMA (Terminal
Maneuvering Area) operations involving non-clean
aerodynamic configurations, as well as the airport
related operations, such as take-off, landing and
taxiing.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to
all BADA users, who for many years, provided
their feedback on BADA as well as constructive
input for the definition of the BADA development
strategy.

References
[1] Eurocontrol ATM Strategy for the Years 2000+,
2003, Brussels, Belgium.
[2] Suckhov, Alexander et al., 2003, Aircraft
Performance Modeling for Air Traffic Management
Applications, 5th USA/Europe Seminar
on ATM R&D Budapest, Hungary.
[3] Swierstra, S., S. Green, 2003, Common
Trajectory Prediction Capability for Decision
Support Tools, 5th USA/Eurocontrol ATM R&D
Seminar, Budapest, Hungary.
[4] Eurocontrol, 2004, Coverage of European Air
Traffic with BADA 3.6, EEC Note No. 13/04.
[5] Eurocontrol, 2004, User Manual for the Base of
Aircraft Data (BADA) Revision 3.6, EEC Note No.
10/04.
[6] ICAO DOC-7488/3. International Standard
Atmosphere. 2000.
[7] Hoffman, Eric, 1993, Contribution to Aircraft
Performance Modeling for ATC use, EEC Report
No.258.
[8] Thomas Szirtes. Applied Dimensional Analysis
and Modeling. McGraw-Hill. 1997.

Contact information
angela.nuic@eurocontrol.int
chantal.poinsot@eurocontrol.int
mihai-george.iagaru@eurocontrol.int
eduardo.gallo@boeing.com
francisco.a.navarro2@boeing.com
carlos.querejeta@boeing.com
http://www.eurocontrol.fr/projects/bada

24th Digital Avionics Systems Conference

October 30, 2005