- From 22 September–22 October 2026 (5 Weeks, 11 Classes, 22 Total Hours)
- Every Tuesday and Thursday at 1–3 p.m. ET USA (all sessions will be recorded and available for replay; course notes will be available for download)
- 11th class will take place right after the 10th class on the last Thursday
- In this new joint course from AIAA and HYSKY Society, the latest and greatest in Sustainable Aviation Fuels is presented, with a technical emphasis on Aircraft Design.
- All students will receive an AIAA Certificate of Completion at the end of the course.
OVERVIEW
Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and alternative energy carriers are moving from demonstration to deployment. For aircraft designers and propulsion engineers, this transition changes the boundary conditions for conceptual design, certification, operations, and long‑term fuel‑efficiency planning.
This course develops a technically rigorous understanding of:
- How SAF and other alternative fuels behave in combustors and engines, and what that implies for emissions, operability, and fuel efficiency at engine and mission level.
- How fuel choice drives aircraft and propulsion system architecture, especially for hybrid‑electric regional aircraft, and how the fuel‑efficiency performance of SAF compares to hydrogen and electric/hybrid options.
- How SAF affects materials, fuel systems, and safety, including compatibility and qualification of legacy fleets and potential transitions to hydrogen‑ready or hybrid architectures.
- How SAF is produced, transported, blended and delivered through airport infrastructure and cross‑border supply chains, and how well‑to‑wing energy efficiency differs for SAF, hydrogen and electricity.
- How to incorporate fuel and infrastructure constraints into multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) frameworks, including explicit fuel‑choice, hybridization level, and comparative fuel‑efficiency trade‑offs across SAF, hydrogen and electric concepts.
The emphasis is on North American regulatory and operational context (FAA, Transport Canada, ASTM, ICAO/CORSIA), with comparisons to European programs where useful. and eVTOL aircraft along with designing wings, tanks, and powertrain for using Hydrogen as a fuel.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
At the conclusion of the course, participants will be able to:
- Quantitatively relate SAF properties to combustor performance, engine operability, emissions and engine/mission fuel efficiency.
- Understand how alternative fuels (SAF, LH₂, LNG) reshape aircraft and propulsion system design options and compare their fuel efficiency characteristics.
- Assess materials compatibility and fuel system design choices for high SAF and 100% SAF operations.
- Recognize the constraints and opportunities introduced by SAF supply chains and airport infrastructure, especially in North American and cross border contexts.
- Formulate and interpret fuel aware MDO problems, integrating performance, economics, environmental metrics and comparative analyses of SAF, hydrogen and electric / hybrid powering concepts.
- Place detailed design work within the broader SAF ecosystem of pathways, policy, certification and markets, and understand where SAF, hydrogen and electric propulsion complement or compete with each other in hybrid powering models.
- [See below for detailed course outline]
AUDIENCE
- Aircraft designers and performance engineers (fixed‑wing, regional and single‑aisle).
- Propulsion and combustor engineers working on gas turbines or hybrid‑electric propulsion.
- Fuel system, materials, and safety engineers.
- Airport planners and operators with a technical background, interested in how aircraft design interacts with SAF infrastructure.
- Engineering, chemical, and/or aerospace engineering students. Helpful: basic aviation operations, refinery/chemical process literacy, or energy markets exposure.
COURSE FORMAT
- Total Duration: 22 hours, delivered as 11 classes (2 hours each)
- Structure: 5 technical modules with two classes each, plus 1 context module (single overview lecture)
- Delivery: Live online, interactive (polls, Q&A, case‑study discussions)
- Evaluation: Optional design mini‑project / worked example
HIGH-LEVEL MODULE MAP:
Each of Modules 1–5 consists of two 2‑hour classes. Module 6 is a single 2‑hour overview
lecture to ensure aircraft designers do not work in a policy or sustainability vacuum.
- Combustion, Engine Integration & Emissions with SAF
- Aircraft & Propulsion System Design with Alternative Fuels (incl. SAF)
- Materials Compatibility, Fuel Systems & Safety with SAF
- Airport Infrastructure, Logistics & Cross‑Border SAF Supply Chains
- MDO & Digital Frameworks for Fuel–Aircraft Co‑Design
- Context Module – Pathways, LCA, Policy, Certification & Deployment
COURSE
FEES (Sign-In To Register)
-
AIAA Member Price: $995 USD
-
AIAA Student Member Price: $545 USD
-
Non-Member Price: $1,195 USD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTLINE
Module 1 – Combustion, Engine Integration & Emissions with SAF
Class 1.1 – SAF Combustion Fundamentals, Fuel Efficiency and Experimental Evidence (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How SAF’s lower LHV and different density relative to Jet A‑1 influence engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) and mission fuel burn when hardware is unchanged.
● How these effects compare qualitatively to hydrogen combustion and to electric propulsion, setting the stage for later hybrid‑powering discussions.
Fuel property landscape for SAF
● Comparison of Jet A‑1 and certified SAF pathways (HEFA, FT‑SPK, ATJ, PtL).
● Key properties for combustion: volatility, LHV, density, viscosity, aromatics, H/C ratio, distillation curve.
● Implications of LHV and density for engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) and mission fuel burn when hardware is unchanged.
Fundamentals of spray and flame physics with SAF
● Atomization and primary/secondary breakup; influence of surface tension and viscosity.
● Ignition delay and lean blow‑out limits vs. fuel properties.
● Premixed vs. non‑premixed flames, partially premixed regimes typical for aero combustors.
Combustor test campaigns with SAF
● Canonical single‑sector and sector rig tests (flame stability, emissions).
● Representative results from NASA/FAA/ASCENT and OEM combustor trials with SAF blends and 100% SAF.
Gas‑phase emissions trends
● NOx, CO, UHC trends vs. fuel composition and combustor design.
● Trade‑offs between flame temperature reduction and NOx formation.
Soot, nvPM formation and efficiency with SAF
● Role of aromatics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
● Relationship between aromatic content, soot propensity, and nvPM number/mass emissions.
● How reduced soot formation with SAF can improve effective propulsive efficiency through lower cooling and margin requirements, and where it may be neutral with respect to cycle efficiency.
Practice / discussion element
● Interpreting emissions and SFC data: participants review
a sample set of rig/engine test results (Jet A‑1 vs SAF blend) and identify
trends in LBO, NOx, CO, nvPM and specific fuel consumption.
Class 1.2 – Engine Integration, Operability, Fuel Efficiency and Non‑CO₂ Impacts (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How switching from Jet A‑1 to SAF blends or neat SAF affects engine thermal efficiency and SFC at fixed cycle parameters.
● How these changes interact with non‑CO₂ benefits (contrails, nvPM) and how they compare to the theoretical behavior of hydrogen‑fueled and electric‑assisted engines.
Combustor / engine system integration with SAF
● Impact of SAF on combustor pressure loss, pattern factor, and turbine inlet temperature profiles.
● Hardware implications: fuel nozzle sizing, staged combustion systems, and lean‑burn designs.
● Quantitative view on engine thermal efficiency and SFC changes when switching from Jet A‑1 to SAF blends and neat SAF.
Engine operability and control
● Starting envelope and relight characteristics with low‑aromatic SAF.
● Engine control schedule sensitivity to fuel properties (Wf/P3 mapping, surge margin protection).
● Role of fuel system metering accuracy under varying density and viscosity.
Full‑scale engine and flight tests
● Overview of AAFEX, ACCESS and ecoDemonstrator campaigns.
● In‑flight measurements of NOx, nvPM, contrails for SAF blends and 100% SAF.
Non‑CO₂ climate impacts
● Contrail and aviation‑induced cirrus formation pathways.
● How soot and sulfur from conventional fuels drive ice crystal number and optical depth.
● Evidence that SAF can reduce contrail forcing; remaining uncertainties in radiative forcing estimates.
Implications for engine and combustor design
● Design space for low‑soot combustors and SAF‑optimized burners.
● Potential for future emissions metrics beyond NOx and nvPM (e.g. contrail forcing indices).
● How engine‑level fuel efficiency improvements with SAF interact with non‑CO₂ climate benefits and certification metrics.
Practice / discussion element
● Qualitative sizing exercise: participants sketch how changes in combustor design (e.g. increased residence time, leaner operation) coupled with SAF properties shift NOx, soot and engine SFC.
Recommended reading
Supplementary reading
Module 2 – Aircraft & Propulsion System Design with Alternative Fuels (incl. SAF)
Class 2.1 – Fuel‑Driven Constraints and Fuel Efficiency in Aircraft & Propulsion System Design (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How SAF, hydrogen, LNG and battery‑electric options compare on gravimetric and volumetric energy density, and how those differences propagate into mission fuel burn and seat‑kilometer efficiency.
● How simple payload–range and Breguet‑type analyses can be used to compare SAF‑powered, hydrogen‑powered and electric/hybrid aircraft on a common efficiency basis.
Energy carriers considered
● SAF as drop‑in hydrocarbon (blend and 100% use).
● Liquid hydrogen (LH₂) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) as reference cryogenic options.
● Batteries as competing / complementary storage.
● How SAF compares to hydrogen and electric energy storage in terms of gravimetric and volumetric energy density, tankage penalties, and system‑level fuel efficiency.
From fuel properties to TLARs, sizing and fuel efficiency metrics
● Incorporating LHV, density, and volumetric energy density into TLARs and conceptual sizing.
● Breguet equation extensions for alternative fuels and hybrid‑electric propulsion.
● Mission fuel burn, payload‑range envelopes and seat‑kilometer efficiency for SAF vs hydrogen vs battery‑electric / hybrid configurations.
Fuel system integration and airframe layout
● Classical wing tank integration for drop‑in SAF.
● Fuselage tank integration, CG management, and structural penalties for LH₂/LNG.
● Impacts on wing loading, aspect ratio, and tail sizing.
Hybrid‑electric architectures across fuels
● Parallel vs series vs turbo‑electric hybrids.
● Definition of power and energy hybridization degrees with combustion plus batteries.
● Qualitative comparison of architectures for SAF, LH₂, LNG and battery‑dominant systems.
● How SAF, hydrogen and electric propulsion can be combined in hybrid powering models (e.g. SAF‑fueled turbogenerators plus battery boost) and what that means for efficiency.
Figure‑of‑merit beyond DOC
● Limitations of DOC‑only metrics for future fuels.
● Introduction to composite figures of merit that include environmental indices and technology risk.
● Explicit inclusion of fuel efficiency metrics (e.g. gCO₂e per RPK, energy use per ASK) when comparing SAF, hydrogen and electric options.
Practice / discussion element
● Simple range / weight fraction calculation comparing a regional aircraft operating on SAF vs LH₂ vs LNG under simplified assumptions, including fuel‑efficiency metrics per passenger‑kilometer.
Class 2.2 – Hybrid‑Electric Regional Aircraft Case Study, Fuel Efficiency and Design Trades (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How different hybridization strategies (SAF‑turbofan with electric boost vs hydrogen fuel‑cell hybrids) change block fuel, block energy and route‑level fuel efficiency.
● How to position SAF‑based, hydrogen‑based and electric‑dominant hybrids on the same trade space using common metrics (e.g. MJ/ASK, gCO₂e/RPK).
FUTPRINT50 hybrid‑electric regional aircraft as reference case
● TLARs (payload, range, emissions targets).
● Architecture: parallel hybrid with SAF vs serial hybrid with LH₂ fuel cells.
● How different hybridization strategies shift fuel efficiency, block energy use and operational flexibility.
SUAVE‑based conceptual design loop
● How SUAVE is used for conceptual sizing and performance evaluation.
● Representation of multiple energy carriers and powertrain components.
Configuration impacts of fuel choice
● Wing and fuselage geometry differences between SAF, LH₂ and LNG options.
● Weight breakdown and mission fuel / energy use vs fuel systems.
● Stability and control implications of aft‑mounted cryogenic tanks.
● Quantitative comparison of block fuel, block energy, and payload‑range trade‑offs for SAF, hydrogen and hybrid‑electric concepts.
Hybridization, EMS and thermal management
● Role of energy management strategy (EMS) in defining optimal power splits.
● High‑level view of thermal management challenges for hybrid‑electric aircraft.
● How EMS choices influence effective fuel efficiency and battery cycling for SAF‑hybrid vs hydrogen‑hybrid aircraft.
Comparative evaluation using a multi‑criteria figure of merit
● Construction of a composite figure of merit including DOC, climate impact, and technology risk.
● Relative ranking of configurations under different stakeholder weightings (airline vs regulator vs OEM).
● Positioning SAF‑based, hydrogen‑based and electric‑dominant hybrids on the same trade space to make like‑for‑like comparisons.
Practice / discussion element
● Group discussion: given a set of simplified results for three fuel options on the same regional aircraft, participants decide which configuration they would recommend under three different future scenarios (fuel price‑driven, climate‑policy‑driven, technology‑risk‑averse), explicitly commenting on fuel‑efficiency outcomes and hybrid powering strategies.
Recommended reading
● Mangold, J., Brenner, F., Moebs, N., Strohmayer, A. "Aircraft Design Implications of Alternative Fuels for Future Hybrid‑Electric Regional Aircraft Configurations." EUCASS 2022.
Supplementary reading
● Rao, A. G., & Yin, F. "Energy Transition in Aviation: The Role of Cryogenic Fuels." Aerospace 7(12):181 (2020).
● Rompokos, P. et al. "Liquefied Natural Gas for Civil Aviation." Energies 13(22):5925 (2020).
Module 3 – Materials Compatibility, Fuel Systems & Safety with SAF
Class 3.1 – Fuel Properties, Materials Behavior and System‑Level Implications (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How material compatibility, leakage risk and maintenance‑driven downtime feed back into real‑world fleet fuel efficiency and dispatch reliability for SAF‑dominated operations.
● How designing for robust sealing and material performance can future‑proof fuel systems for higher SAF blends and potential transitions toward hydrogen or hybrid architectures.
Materials in aircraft fuel systems
● Elastomers (NBR, FKM, EPDM, etc.), seals, hoses and bladders.
● Metallic components and coatings in tanks and lines.
● Composite structures exposed to fuel (CFRP wing boxes, liners).
How fuel chemistry affects materials
● Role of aromatics in O‑ring swelling and sealing performance.
● Solubility parameters and their use in compatibility screening.
● Differences between conventional Jet A‑1 and low‑aromatic SAF blends.
Legacy fleet compatibility
● Findings from FAA/Boeing programs on material response to SPK and other synthetic fuels.
● Typical acceptance criteria (volume swell, hardness, tensile strength changes).
Failure modes and ageing mechanisms
● Swelling, shrinkage and cracking of elastomers.
● Stress‑corrosion and environmental cracking of metallic components.
● Fuel‑induced degradation mechanisms in composites.
Implications for design and maintenance
● Design safety factors and allowance for property scatter.
● Maintenance and inspection intervals under high‑SAF‑use scenarios.
● How material compatibility and sealing performance affect real‑world fuel efficiency (via leakage risks, maintenance downtime, and dispatch reliability).
Practice / discussion element
● Interpretation of a sample elastomer compatibility test matrix, identifying which combinations of fuel and material are acceptable for service.
Class 3.2 – Design & Certification of SAF‑Compatible Fuel Systems (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How certification, inspection and retrofit choices for SAF influence whole‑life operational efficiency (through leaks avoided, rework reduced and smoother integration of higher blends).
● How design choices today can keep fuel systems compatible with future hydrogen‑ready or hybrid‑electric variants without compromising current SAF performance.
Fuel system architectures in transport and regional aircraft
● Typical tank, pump, line, and venting architectures for wing‑integral tanks.
● Differences for center tanks and fuselage tanks.
Regulatory and certification framework
● Overview of ASTM D7566 and D1655 in relation to materials compatibility.
● How fuel system requirements appear in FAA/Transport Canada airworthiness codes (CS‑25/FAR 25 / CAR 525 analogues).
Qualification workflow for new fuels and blends
● ASTM D4054 tiers and the role of OEMs.
● Material and fuel system test requirements for high‑blend and 100% SAF.
Risk assessment and safety cases
● Hazard identification: leakage, mis‑fueling, thermal and pressure cycling.
● Basic Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) tailored for fuel systems under SAF use.
● Linking material test data to system‑level safety arguments.
Retrofit and new‑design strategies
● Approaches for retrofitting legacy fleets for higher SAF blends.
● Designing "SAF‑robust" and "fuel‑flexible" fuel systems for future aircraft, including potential transitions to hydrogen or hybrid architectures.
Practice / discussion element
● Short exercise: outline a certification test plan for a new SAF pathway focusing on fuel system and materials, indicating which tests can be leveraged from existing data and which are re‑run.
Recommended reading
Supplementary reading
● Khandelwal, B. "Impact of alternative fuels and properties on elastomer compatibility." Book chapter in Aviation Fuels (Elsevier, 2019).
Module 4 – Airport Infrastructure, Logistics & Cross‑Border SAF Supply Chains
Class 4.1 – SAF Supply Chains, Production Pathways and Blending Infrastructure (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How well‑to‑tank and well‑to‑wing energy efficiencies for SAF compare to hydrogen and electricity when distribution losses, blending locations and storage are included.
● How these system‑level efficiencies influence route‑level and fleet‑level fuel‑efficiency assessments for different fuel and powerplant options.
Production pathways and feedstock logistics
● Overview of major SAF production pathways and their regional deployment (North America focus).
● Feedstock collection, pre‑processing, and transportation.
Refinery and blending operations
● Co‑processing vs stand‑alone SAF plants.
● Blending SAF with conventional jet fuel, quality control, and certification into the common pool as Jet A / Jet A‑1.
Pipeline, terminal and airport fuel farm integration
● Options for delivering SAF to airports: pipeline, rail, barge, truck.
● Storage configurations: segregated vs co‑mingled, on‑airport blending vs upstream blending.
● Implications for fuel quality management and traceability.
Economic drivers and policy incentives
● Overview of the U.S. SAF Grand Challenge and key incentives (e.g. tax credits, LCFS).
● Canadian policy instruments and potential cross‑border impacts.
System‑level fuel efficiency and logistics
● How logistics losses, blending locations and transport modes affect well‑to‑wake energy efficiency.
● Comparing system‑level efficiency and emissions for SAF, hydrogen and electric energy carriers delivered to airports.
Practice / discussion element
● Participants sketch a simple SAF supply chain for a chosen airport (e.g. regional hub), identify key bottlenecks and decision points for designers, and discuss where system‑level fuel efficiency losses occur.
Class 4.2 – Airport Integration, Turnaround Operations and Cross‑Border Considerations (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How refueling and turnaround processes differ for SAF, hydrogen and electric aircraft, and how this affects effective block‑to‑block fuel and energy efficiency
● How comparative availability and cost of SAF, hydrogen and electricity across a route network should be folded into design assumptions for fuel‑efficient operations.
Aircraft–airport compatibility for SAF and alternative fuels
● How fuel choice feeds back into airport design (tank farms, hydrant systems, truck logistics).
● Operational constraints for high‑blend and 100% SAF use.
● Comparison with hydrogen and electric charging infrastructure requirements, and implications for aircraft turnaround efficiency.
Turnaround and refueling operations
● Comparison of refueling processes for conventional jet fuel, SAF blends and potential cryogenic fuels (as a reference point).
● Turnaround time analysis: constraints, safety checks, and critical paths.
Cross‑border operations (U.S.–Canada focus)
● Regulatory and customs aspects of moving SAF across the border.
● Harmonization of fuel specifications and sustainability certification (CORSIA, national LCFS schemes).
Airports as energy hubs
● Concept of airports as multi‑energy hubs combining SAF, hydrogen, and electrification.
● Planning considerations for progressive SAF penetration while enabling future fuels.
Implications for aircraft design and operations
● How realistic SAF availability profiles should inform design TLARs (range, reserves, blend assumptions).
● Design strategies for robustness to variable fuel quality and blend ratios.
● How comparative availability and cost of SAF, hydrogen and electricity should be folded into route‑level and fleet‑level fuel efficiency analysis.
Practice / discussion element
● Qualitative case study: assess how a 50‑seat regional aircraft design would be affected by a scenario where only certain airports along its route network have consistent SAF availability and/or hydrogen and electric infrastructure.
Recommended reading
● Martínez-Valencia, L., Garcia-Perez, M., & Wolcott, M. "Supply chain configuration of sustainable aviation fuel: Review, challenges, and pathways for including environmental and social benefits." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 152:111680 (2021).
Supplementary reading
● U.S. DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office. "Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Review of Technical Pathways" (NREL/TP-6A20-77973, 2020).
● U.S. DOE. "Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Decoupling Carbon from Commercial Flight" (Fact Sheet, 2021).
● SAF Grand Challenge. "Flight Plan for Sustainable Aviation Fuel" (Roadmap, 2022).
Module 5 – MDO & Digital Frameworks for Fuel–Aircraft Co‑Design
Class 5.1 – Tools and Methods for Fuel‑Aware Aircraft Design (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How to embed fuel‑efficiency metrics (mission fuel burn, MJ/ASK, gCO₂e/RPK) into MDO problem formulations so SAF, hydrogen and electric concepts can be compared on a consistent basis.
● How to treat fuel type and hybridization level as explicit design variables in MDO studies, rather than fixed boundary conditions.
Role of MDO in sustainable aircraft design
● Why fuel choice must be an explicit design variable, not a boundary condition.
● Overview of typical disciplines: aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, systems, operations, environment.
Toolchains and environments
● SUAVE as an open‑source conceptual design and optimization environment.
● Overview of alternative tools (e.g. FAST, AHEAD or in‑house codes) and their fuel modelling capabilities.
Integrating alternative fuels into MDO
● Parametrizing fuel properties and tank integration within sizing loops.
● Modelling of hybrid‑electric powertrains with multiple energy carriers.
● Coupling with environmental assessment (LCA and non‑CO₂ metrics at mission level).
● Setting up common fuel‑efficiency metrics (mission fuel burn, energy use per RPK) so SAF, hydrogen and electric configurations can be compared fairly.
Optimization problem formulation
● Definition of objectives: DOC, fuel burn, GHG emissions, contrail forcing, technology risk.
● Constraints: safety, certification envelopes, airport compatibility, infrastructure availability.
● Example of multi‑objective optimization and trade‑off visualization, with fuel efficiency and hybrid powering architecture as explicit decision variables.
Practice / discussion element
● Walk‑through of a simplified SUAVE (or analogous) case
where the participant changes fuel type and observes first‑order effects on
mass, performance and fuel efficiency metrics (provided as pre‑computed plots).
Class 5.2 – Fuel–Aircraft–Operations Co‑Design Project (2 hrs)
Fuel efficiency and comparative scenarios
● How to structure comparative scenarios (SAF‑dominant, hydrogen‑ready, electric‑assisted) within a single design exercise using common efficiency and climate metrics.
● How to interpret trade‑space plots where fuel efficiency, infrastructure constraints and technology risk all influence the preferred hybrid powering model.
Definition of a course‑level design exercise
● 50‑seat regional aircraft operating in a mixed SAF / conventional fuel environment.
● Basic TLARs, route network, and infrastructure assumptions.
● Optional scenarios with hydrogen‑ready and electric‑assisted variants to compare fuel efficiency and operational concepts.
Setting up the design space
● Design variables: wing loading, aspect ratio, engine sizing, battery fraction, SAF blend level.
● Discrete choices: propulsion architecture (conventional vs hybrid), tank placement options.
Evaluation and figures of merit
● Performance, DOC, lifecycle GHG, contrail forcing proxy, technology risk index.
● Simple weighting schemes for different stakeholders.
● Fuel efficiency indicators and how they shift between SAF‑dominant, hydrogen‑assisted and electric‑assisted designs.
Interpreting and communicating trade‑offs
● How to summarize complex trade spaces for decision‑makers.
● Communicating uncertainty: technology, policy and market assumptions.
Wrap‑up and next steps
● How participants can extend the case study in their own organizations.
● Available open‑source models, datasets, and ongoing HYSKY/AIAA activities.
Practice / discussion element
● Interactive discussion of pre‑computed design trade plots; participants vote on preferred configurations under different scenarios, with explicit focus on fuel‑efficiency vs infrastructure and technology‑risk trade‑offs.
Recommended reading
● Mangold, J. et al. "Preliminary hybrid-electric aircraft design with advancements on the open-source tool SUAVE." Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2526, 012022 (2023).
Supplementary reading
● Marciello, V. et al. "Design Exploration for Sustainable Regional Hybrid-Electric Aircraft: A Study Based on Technology Forecasts." Aerospace 10(2):165 (2023).
Module 6 – Context Module: Pathways, LCA, Policy, Certification & Deployment
Class 6 – Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment & Calculating the Carbon Intensity of Fuels for Aircraft Designers (2 hrs)
● Fuel efficiency & comparative scenarios
○ How lifecycle carbon intensity (gCO₂e/MJ) connects to aircraft-level efficiency metrics (MJ/ASK, gCO₂e/RPK).
○ How to use carbon-intensity values with mission energy use to compare SAF vs hydrogen vs electric/hybrid concepts on a common climate-efficiency basis.
● What “sustainability” means
○ Environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
○ How “sustainable” is defined differently across the U.S., EU, Canada, ICAO/CORSIA, etc.
● LCA fundamentals and “LCA math”
○ Goal/scope, boundaries (well-to-tank, well-to-wake, cradle-to-grave).
○ Functional units and GWPs.
○ The basic carbon-intensity equation (sum of stage emissions / energy or transport work).
● Worked example: corn-ethanol-to-jet and ILUC
○ Stepwise corn-ethanol-to-jet (ATJ) pathway.
○ How ILUC is added and can erode the apparent benefit.
○ Comparison to a HEFA or PtL pathway.
● Proof of sustainability from feedstock to aircraft
○ Chain-of-custody (mass balance, segregated, attribute-level book-and-claim).
○ ICAO’s role: CORSIA sustainability criteria, approval of certification schemes, periodic re-approval & audits.
○ How verification and data flow along the supply chain.
● Book-and-claim & trading environmental attributes
○ PPA analogy for renewable electricity.
○ How the “sustainability attribute” can be decoupled from the physical fuel, bought/sold and claimed by airlines.
○ Implications for route-level vs airline-level decarbonization and what designers should assume.
● Implications for aircraft designers
○ Using ranges of gCO₂e/MJ plus mission MJ/ASK to get gCO₂e/RPK for different fuel/powerplant concepts.
○ How to treat LCA uncertainty (ILUC, regional practices) when comparing SAF, hydrogen and electric/hybrid futures.
Why aircraft designers must care
● Conceptual design choices (range, payload, hybridization level, reserve policies) directly determine mission energy use; when combined with fuel carbon-intensity, they lock in or avoid emissions over a 20–30 year fleet life.
● Regulatory and market instruments (CORSIA, SAF Grand Challenge, EU ReFuelEU, Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulations) increasingly use lifecycle carbon-intensity thresholds and credits, which can become design constraints or value drivers for new aircraft families.
● Without a basic grasp of LCA math, ILUC and book-and-claim, designers risk optimizing on the wrong metric (e.g. block fuel only) or misinterpreting airline requests framed in gCO₂e/RPK or “net-zero compatible” language.
● Understanding how SAF, hydrogen and electric/hybrid options compare on both fuel-efficiency and lifecycle carbon-intensity enables more credible trade-studies, better communication with sustainability and finance teams, and more robust long-term technology bets.
Practice / discussion element
● A short numerical exercise: calculate gCO₂e/ASK for fossil jet vs a SAF pathway (with and without ILUC) using mission MJ/ASK.
● A book-and-claim scenario discussion: SAF at one hub, claims on another route, and what that means for interpreting “fuel efficiency” and “decarbonization” for a given aircraft design.
Recommended reading
● Watson, M.J. et al. "Sustainable aviation fuel technologies, costs, emissions, policies, and markets: A critical review." Journal of Cleaner Production (2024).
Supplementary reading
● ICAO. CORSIA Eligible Fuels portal (standards & sustainability criteria for CORSIA-compliant SAF).
● ICAO. "CORSIA Sustainability Criteria for CORSIA Eligible Fuels" (Doc 05, November 2022).
Danielle McLean (d@hy-sky.net) Rishav Shrestha(r@hy-sky.net)
INVITED INSTRUCTORS
|
Eva Maleviti, PhD |
Gökçin Çınar |
Swapnil Jagtap, PhD |
|
Susan van Dyk, PhD |
John Buxton |
Jonathan Pardoe |
|
|
|
|
CLASSROOM HOURS / CEUs: 22 classroom hours / 2.2 CEU/PDH
COURSE DELIVERY AND MATERIALS
- The course lectures will be delivered via Zoom. Access to the Zoom classroom will be provided to registrants near to the course start date.
- All sessions will be available on-demand within 1-2 days of the lecture. Once available, you can stream the replay video anytime, 24/7.
- All slides will be available for download after each lecture. No part of these materials may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, unless for course participants. All rights reserved.
- Between lectures during the course, the instructor(s) will be available via email for technical questions and comments.
CANCELLATION POLICY: A refund less a $50.00 cancellation fee will be assessed for all cancellations made in writing prior to 5 days before the start of the event. After that time, no refunds will be provided.
CONTACT: Please contact Lisa Le or Customer Service if you have any questions about the course or group discounts (for 5+ participants).