More green-ness from SRB

Caught him on 5 live this morning suggesting that aircraft should be towed to a "starting grid" at the end of the runway rather than burning jet fuel the whole way there. See here for details.

[mitchja]

The full VS press release is also here

Regards

Hmmm. Not a bad idea in principle, but it would mean that any plane leaving the gate would really need an operational APU, and clearly airlines would need to be very certain that the plane wasn't going to go tech when it reached the starting grid and have to be brought back to the gate.

Some more cynical than myself would suggest that this is almost what happens at LHR anyway with queues of 10+ planes waiting to get onto the runway!

BC

Boeing is currently studying the use of an electric motor in the nose wheel for taxiing - achieving the same benefit. Sounds slightly more efficient and safer than towing aircraft with a tug.

WRT u/s APUs, one engine of the 4 (or 2) would have to be started on a GPU or ground electrical power before pushback, or else they wouldn't be able to start the engines out near the holding point, let alone power a/c for the pax. Starting engines on batteries is not a good idea.

With Boeings electrical motor to remove all taxiing on engines both before take off and after landing (great for places like CDG and AMS where there are very long taxi distances) the other main green things that could be done in aviation are the forever talked about modernisations of the ATC systems (national borders/GPS based point to point navigation etc) and much better departure management at airports such as JFK that don't currently have it.

But that involves governments agreeing on things so don't hold your breath.

AF

Originally posted by AtlanticFlyer
Boeing is currently studying the use of an electric motor in the nose wheel for taxiing - achieving the same benefit. Sounds slightly more efficient and safer than towing aircraft with a tug.

WRT u/s APUs, one engine of the 4 (or 2) would have to be started on a GPU or ground electrical power before pushback, or else they wouldn't be able to start the engines out near the holding point, let alone power a/c for the pax. Starting engines on batteries is not a good idea.

With Boeings electrical motor to remove all taxiing on engines both before take off and after landing (great for places like CDG and AMS where there are very long taxi distances) the other main green things that could be done in aviation are the forever talked about modernisations of the ATC systems (national borders/GPS based point to point navigation etc) and much better departure management at airports such as JFK that don't currently have it.

But that involves governments agreeing on things so don't hold your breath.

AF

Saw successful trial of this, either in news, magazine, or on Discovery. Excellent idea, not just for emmissions, but also noise!

On the APU issue, I hope I'm not about to start a war with someone who knows more about them than me, but these were originally introduced on B707 or B727 to allow them, amongst other things, to operate at fields without GPU. AFAIK, most, if not all APUs should be capable of starting engines, powering A/C etc. That is what they are for. Any ETOPS plane, which a great many are these days, must be able to start APU from cold, even in flight. Thus the Boeing solution is perfect - taxi to an engine start grid (from where it can return to the terminal in case it goes tech) on battery nosewheel motors, starting the APU en-route, then start and check main engines before proceeding to the runway threshold.

Mind you, you could probably cut far more emmisions by getting cabies and coach drivers to turn off their engines when on ranks!

On the whole, I think this is a good idea but the electric wheel would be better as you wouldn't have tugs spewing out their fumes as well;)

VS.

Originally posted by VS045
On the whole, I think this is a good idea but the electric wheel would be better as you wouldn't have tugs spewing out their fumes as well;)

VS.

Well, someone is going to have to do the maths on that. The electric motor was not exactly lightweight as I remember, but yes, should still be a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. This has re-raised my interest in this. Pretty sure now there was an article in Airliner World or something. Will have to dig through the back issues. I'll post an extract or something if I find it if anyone is interested.

Whatever the best solution is, I doubt it'll make much difference;)

The much bigger problems need to be addressed, like aircraft in the air, for example[:I]

VS.

Originally posted by radar

Saw successful trial of this, either in news, magazine, or on Discovery. Excellent idea, not just for emmissions, but also noise!

On the APU issue, I hope I'm not about to start a war with someone who knows more about them than me, but these were originally introduced on B707 or B727 to allow them, amongst other things, to operate at fields without GPU. AFAIK, most, if not all APUs should be capable of starting engines, powering A/C etc. That is what they are for. Any ETOPS plane, which a great many are these days, must be able to start APU from cold, even in flight. Thus the Boeing solution is perfect - taxi to an engine start grid (from where it can return to the terminal in case it goes tech) on battery nosewheel motors, starting the APU en-route, then start and check main engines before proceeding to the runway threshold.

Mind you, you could probably cut far more emmisions by getting cabies and coach drivers to turn off their engines when on ranks!

Radar - just reread my post, and can see my poor use of puctuation lead to the wrong meaning. You are indeed correct about APU's. I was expanding on BlackCat's point that an unservicable APU wouldn't just cause problems but would mean that engines couldn't be started without the APU if the aircraft was already off stand.

Cheers
AF

Originally posted by VS045
Whatever the best solution is, I doubt it'll make much difference;)

The much bigger problems need to be addressed, like aircraft in the air, for example[:I]

VS.

I think VS045 is right here, they need to elimante the biggest problem first

My concern for fuel-saving in the air is HOW. More efficient engines? Lighter weight? Or, the one which worries me, and many US airlines are really good at: turning off more of the fresh air.

Recirculated air is cheaper to fly with, but it's not good for the pax or the CC. On flights with air rage incidents, it's even been mentioned as a possible reason the problem escalated past words or gestures. Put the average load on (even more) limited fresh air on a long-haul and air rage incidents will only escalate. Certain US airlines once offered a bonus for pilots who chose to reduce the fresh air ratio to save fuel. I don't know if that's still in place, but I don't want to see everyone start using it!

I hope doing this is not seriously considered as a solution. Think of the health risks frequent travelers (and the crews) would face on a cumulative basis.[n]

I'd pay more for a little more oxygen - would you?

Originally posted by VS045
Whatever the best solution is, I doubt it'll make much difference;)

The much bigger problems need to be addressed, like aircraft in the air, for example[:I]

VS.

It will make a huge difference. Especially to the local environment and health of those nearby, including airport workers. At busy airports where taxiing can take up to an hour, the amount of cumlative emissions that can be cut is enormous.

Modern aircraft in the air are actually very clean and efficient - far more so than most, if not all other forms of transport. And current and future developments will only make them cleaner, more efficient, and quieter.

Modern aircraft in the air are actually very clean and efficient - far more so than most, if not all other forms of transport. And current and future developments will only make them cleaner, more efficient, and quieter.

They may be efficient for what they do, but still produce loads of pollution.

VS.

Originally posted by VS045

Modern aircraft in the air are actually very clean and efficient - far more so than most, if not all other forms of transport. And current and future developments will only make them cleaner, more efficient, and quieter.

They may be efficient for what they do, but still produce loads of pollution.

VS.

I agree. My point was that as it goes, it aint bad per head. I don't think anyone wants to fly less, so we need to improve the polution problem, Loads of polution is created in our name, supposedly to enrich our lives, like burning the rainforest to make way for more cattle for our fast food....

I try to be green and concious in my life - my two children will pick up the pieces. I wholly applaud any sensible and sustainable green initiative. This thread is about reducing polution at airports. The Boeing WheelTug is a great idea (still in development) at achieving significant reductions. Gets my thumbs up [y].

Boeing has a good idea (my brother's a Boeing engineer, so I'm getting both sides of this), but there are other things which could be done on the ground to be greener, and it doesn't have to be saving on only jet fuel.

Ramp vehicles are numerous, and not all of them are green. The sheer wastage of fuel for incinerators is staggering - look at the after-flight needs of readying a plane for its next cycle. Since so many items are now throwaway for security reasons, it's creating an even bigger mountain of trash to be dealt with. If it's not burned it's dealt with in other manners, few of them green.

I applaud wholeheartedly with green ideas - I'm a Puget Sound native, and we get recycling in our blood, I think! But just taking care of one issue (taxi) will not fix the problem. It's a great start, but it can only be the beginning.

For instance, think of all the vehicles in the garages. What do most of them run on? How much wastage is that, for one passenger? If the parking fees are raised, it may make some of the holdouts from public transit (or even group limo service) change their mind.

Does someone pick us up at the airport? Do they pay to park, meet us at an off-site location, or circle endlessly until we arrive at the curb? Think about it. All those thousands of vehicles, adding to the smog at each airport, around the world. How many can be eliminated? The bus or the train might not be chic, but it will get at least 50 travelers there with minimal pollution, and might even run on alternative fuel! Getting a CDC? Know someone on the same flight? Go together!

SRB has a wonderful idea, yet we must all do our part too.

Originally posted by vs_itsallgood
Boeing has a good idea (my brother's a Boeing engineer, so I'm getting both sides of this), but there are other things which could be done on the ground to be greener, and it doesn't have to be saving on only jet fuel.

Ramp vehicles are numerous, and not all of them are green. The sheer wastage of fuel for incinerators is staggering - look at the after-flight needs of readying a plane for its next cycle. Since so many items are now throwaway for security reasons, it's creating an even bigger mountain of trash to be dealt with. If it's not burned it's dealt with in other manners, few of them green.

I applaud wholeheartedly with green ideas - I'm a Puget Sound native, and we get recycling in our blood, I think! But just taking care of one issue (taxi) will not fix the problem. It's a great start, but it can only be the beginning.

For instance, think of all the vehicles in the garages. What do most of them run on? How much wastage is that, for one passenger? If the parking fees are raised, it may make some of the holdouts from public transit (or even group limo service) change their mind.

Does someone pick us up at the airport? Do they pay to park, meet us at an off-site location, or circle endlessly until we arrive at the curb? Think about it. All those thousands of vehicles, adding to the smog at each airport, around the world. How many can be eliminated? The bus or the train might not be chic, but it will get at least 50 travelers there with minimal pollution, and might even run on alternative fuel! Getting a CDC? Know someone on the same flight? Go together!

SRB has a wonderful idea, yet we must all do our part too.

Ultimately it all comes down to what are we going to sacrifice ? It isn't just a question of paying more through taxes (no private operator is going to increase charges individually, and if they all do it they'll be accused of profiteering, so taxes it is) to offset the effects of carbon emission, it is going to be using taxes to change people's behaviour to reduce carbon emission. And I can just see the popular press headlines about "beleagured holidaymakers" and "enjoyment tax" (in the same way as inheritance tax has been spun as "the death tax").

Paul

[mcmbenjamin]

A new artice in The Onion

Richard Branson's Global-Warming Donation Nearly As Much As Cost Of Failed Balloon Trips

i still dont understand, is he talking about lowering the use of VS planes to lower the risk of global warming???

i'm so confused, help me!!!

[?]

[HighFlyer]

SRB's suggestion is to tow the aircraft to a "starting grid" on the runway before take-off as opposed to current methods which involve moving by using the aircraft's engines and fuel, this would save fuel and the time the engines are running and therefore would be 'greener'. It would also alleviate noise pollution, on the ground emissions and probably a whole host of other things.

Dont worry - he isnt suggesting lowering the number of planes in use. As much as SRB has his green principles, he is a businessman at heart

Thanks,
Sarah

oh ..... ok!!!

i'm on a amber traffic light now instead of red!
thanks!