Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline

[paparomeodelta]

Trying to figure out ten (or five) criteria to use in order to measure and benchmark airlines against each other in regard to environment.

Happy for all your ideas :D

[Intruder]

Can't do it. Airlines are inherently "ungreen." With all the petroleum they burn, there is virtually nothing they can do to make up for it.

[sb_sfo]

Every time an airline does one of these for PR purposes, they've coordinated with ATC to get an expedited taxi, and continuous descent approach, and other special routings to save fuel. Regular flights don't get this kind of special attention.

Couple things an airline can do include cleaning up maintenance and painting processes, not carrying extra weight (catering supplies) etc., but it's mostly "greenwashing". You can do a bit with little stuff like turning off the hangar lights and using GPU power whenever possible, but it is a dirty industry.

Each new generation of airplane does things a little better, like LED instead of fluorescent lighting for cabin interiors, but you're not going to retrofit existing models for something like that.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline


One that actively lobbies for nuclear power and curbing coal burning in China.
And doesn't waste time and energy getting twitched about cult fads and meaningless sloganising.

Greenwashing. mmm. Bullsh!t is green, isn't it?
LEDs instead of flourescents! Just about sums up the green movement when that's suggested to an airline as an "environmental" saving. That would save how much fuel on a transatlantic? A pint? And how many hundreds of thousands of extra tons of fuel does the industry have to burn to generate the profit to pay the millions in certification costs for something that won't come into effect for 20 years?

Sounds like a well thought out plan to me. not. (ie a typical Green one...penny not very wise, millions foolish)

"Lend me your abacus Swampy, I can't get enough noughts behind the decimal point on mine"

We'd get there a whole lot better and faster if we listened to engineers and economists instead of kooks, druids and spaced-out sociology students.

;)

...I'll get my coat

[Slasher]

Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline

1. No use of engines
2. No use of APU
3. No use of GPUs/GTSUs
4. No pushback tugs
5. No baggage trains. All bags carried by hand.
6. All aircraft locked up. Everyone goes home.

Greenie airline nirvana complete.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Engines off at TOD would reduce the carbon footprint :ok:

[paparomeodelta]

Hey guys, seriously, I am collecting wisdom for a project.:8

I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.

More: weight reduction in general, such as better ways to distribute tax-free than onboard. Maximize cabin factor, invest in finding better fuel, c´mon, let´s pack this...

[paparomeodelta]

Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.

Reduce noise over urbanized areas, that is, sorry...

[Piltdown Man]

You really have to get your terms of reference sorted out. Modern living has never been green and never will be. Ever since we started burning fossil fuels we have been "un-green." So what you are looking for is the least polluting method (which still isn't green). So the first thing is to stop the poor from travelling - why do we need to go to Spain or Orlando for a holiday? Stay at home for your holidays. Then you'll have to stop them (the masses) eating mange tout from Kenya. And you'll have to stop shipping - that really pollutes as do cars...

The ideas you have already are worthwhile and are savings worth having, but even if all added together will be but a mere a piss in the ocean.

The you have to do the green vs greenback maths. I could save a considerable amount of fuel by flying at minimum drag speeds, but would cost my employer a fortune. Is that what you want to hear?

I'm afraid Agaricus bisporus has got it spot on.

PM

[paparomeodelta]

Okey, rephrasing.

There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.

The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.

I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...

Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.

Don´t be a cynic.

[ChristiaanJ]

paparomeodelta,

Do you have the remotest idea what you are talking about?

Madoff's Ponzi scheme has already faded into insignificance, compared to the "anthropogenic global warming" scam and the billions of your and my money already being pumped into it.

Do you know how much carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide, mind you, not carbon) needs to be added to the atmosphere to push up the 'global' temperature by 2°C? You don't? Look it up. It's about twice as much as there is currently.

How much of that are we humans adding of that at the moment? About 3%.
How much is aviation adding to that? About 3% of those 3%.

How much are your LED lights going to reduce that? About 0.00001%, I would say.

What is the reality?
The reality is that the aviation industry, over the years, has been reducing fuel consumption significantly, not because of some sort of "do-gooder" "green" mentality, but simply because it makes economic sense.

Unlike wind mills, solar farms or coal-fired power stations, they're not subsidised to the same extent, you know?

CJ

[FlightlessParrot]

Quite a lot of denial of reality going on here, isn't there?

One obvious measure is minimum fuel-burn per bum-mile, which also turns out to be quite good for profits.

The other big win is probably more in ATC and routing, rather than anything any individual airline can do.

I wonder why people are so sure that all concern about climate change is bullcrap? Surely it could not be that it is inconvenient? Maybe they just like to position the airline industry in opposition to most of the world's governments, which I am sure is a very good strategy for preserving jobs.

[paparomeodelta]

Easy now, ChristiaanJ (http://www.pprune.org/members/105267-christiaanj). I am not lobbying about global warming, and I have never even mentioned LED lights, those are of course insignificant.

I am talking about that the industry is under attack, and we have to do something to show that we are taking the public opinion seriously.

The project I am working on, together with one of the worlds most prestigious universitys, has EU support and is aiming towards finding criterias on how airlines can benchmark themselves, in a friendly competition leading to a better environment in regard to emission, noise etc.

So I am politely asking for input to find five or ten criterias as headlines for this benchmark.

I love a great fight, but not here and now, and only about women...

[sb_sfo]

Just a comment to an earlier post I'd made-I thought the OP was talking about overall "green" operations, including waste disposal, etc. You guys have any idea how many fluorescent tubes are on a 744, and how often they're changed, and where all the mercury vapor in the tubes goes, and where all the glass goes, and how these things are shipped all over, when every F039WWBCAC tube I've seen in the last 10 years is made in Mexico? Where I'm at, it's illegal to throw one in the trash. I'm not advocating saving fuel by switching lighting, FFS.

/rant

[ChristiaanJ]

Easy now, ChristiaanJ. I am not lobbying about global warming, and I have never even mentioned LED lights, those are of course insignificant.OK... it's just that I see red the moment I see "emissions" and "carbon" (leave alone "carbon footprint").

I am talking about that the industry is under attack, and we have to do something to show that we are taking the public opinion seriously.
Quite...
In my opinion, it's high time the industry got its finger out, not by pandering to the "public opinion" any longer, which has been manipulated by the greenies and the warmers for far to long, but by being "pro-active" and pointing out their contribution to the global economy, their negligeable contribution to "global" pollution, or their continuous efforts to become more efficient (if only just to survive, against efforts to tax them out of existence).

The project I am working on, together with one of the worlds most prestigious universities, has EU support and is aiming towards finding criterias on how airlines can benchmark themselves, in a friendly competition leading to a better environment in regard to emission, noise etc.Sadly, it sounds like one more of those "projects" that are devised to qualify for a lot of grant money, without any base in reality.
Compared to agriculture, fishing, road and maritime transport, deforestation, depletion of water resources, etc. etc..... aviation only has a totally negligeable impact on the environment.
The sooner the aviation industry "strikes back" the better.

So I am politely asking for input to find five or ten criterias as headlines for this benchmark.Agreed, so after setting out my viewpoint, I now owe you a polite answer, too.
Let me 'brood' a few hours....
Some essential criteria will be useful, not only for 'friendly competition' (was there ever such a thing?), but also to assess what really does need to be done for aviation to take back its rightful place in the reality of things...

CJ

[paparomeodelta]

Sadly, it sounds like one more of those "projects" that are devised to qualify for a lot of grant money, without any base in reality.

Thanks ChristiaanJ, i get the same reaction from time to time and from topic to topic...

But, I also want to add that one airline and one of the aviation industries giants are pumping in substantial money into this, so it is not really a project without reality. The industry sees this as imperative when the whole society is struggling with environmental issues. The finger will lead to nothing good...

As one pointed out before, this particular project is working with some substantial stuff, such as straighter routing, better ATC, curbed GPS approaches and much more.

The reason why I´m not more precise in what I want is that i don´t want to limit thinking inside the envelope, I want you guys to turn every stone. So all thoughts on the topic are welcome. Good ideas can turn better, and bad ideas can turn into good ideas...

[fireflybob]

If motor vehicles had condensation trails coming out their exhausts I don't think we'd have to worry about the public percepation of the greenery (or otherwise) of aviation.

The herd look at the sky and see condensation trails and think it's all pollution!

"Global Warming" - another crime committed by governments as an excuse to rake in more taxation.

[Agaricus bisporus]

I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.


PRD, I think the trouble with what you're asking is that most airlines are already so efficient on fuel usage, often to the point of compromising operational efficiency is that we're all sick to death of being browbeaten over yet more imaginary or impossible fuel savings. The measures we've already implemented often reache the point of fanaticism and make our lives unnecessarily harder, ie flying at sub-turboprop speeds or reducing the number of bar trolleys to "save weight". This efficiency has already been achieved by financial (cost) pressures alone. Now the public have been fed this "green" pill by the media and govts and especially the media have made aviation the whipping boy for carbon emissions, the latest eco-punchbag. The facts are quoted in posts above, mankind makes a tiny contribution to carbon and aviation is a tiny percentage of that. The fact, therefore, is that if the public feel aviation is a major culprit they've been lied to and aren't judging us from a posession of facts.
So getting yet more earache about fuel savings for a further, and distinctly unproven eco reason is a step too far. We did it years ago, but for a more compelling reason. We can't do it again.
The public need educating about what the facts are re aviations contribution to carbon emissions, but I know that's dreamland. Logic is the first victim in this sort of battle.

Simply turning off the city's office lights at night, plus other blindingly obvious ways energy is squandered - turning the heating down a degree or two, street lights off after 1230 etc would have a thousand times more effect that beating aviation up for savings it cannot make...but that's logic, so let the empty cities blaze all night, seems they're doing no harm...Still, sorting that would make the "public" actually do something themselves and they wouldn't like that. Much easier to beef about something remote, like airlines.

Finally, I guess English isn't your native tongue, but curbed and idling are not aviation terms and PBM is an acronym I'm not familiar with. You'll get more credibility using correct terminology so please get that right in your report. By idling I imagine you mean holding - (wasting time flying in circles) but doing this on GPS is no different to using a beacon fuel wise. I don't know what you mean by curbed, sorry, but most approaches/departures are already as expeditious as is reasonably practical and cannot be shortened easily - for that same old reason, cost. The same applies to airways.

Sure, there will be small ways here and there but they ain't going to amount to a whole row of beans, I expect another 2% savins are no longer operationally possible in the main. So our potential savings are 3% times 3% times 2%. ie four fifths of five eighths of **** all.

Lobby to switch off Belgium's street lights instead!

ps. Eco insanity. London's first Hydrogen powered buses are on the streets and being hailed as "carbon free". Dr Goebbels eat your heart out, the Big Lie is still hard at work. The hydrogen is made from hydrocarbon (ie oil or natural gas) and every ton of the wretched stuff produces between 7 and 11 Tons of carbon in it's manufacture. ( I read that yesterday 16 Dec, I think in The Times,). If only they knew.

Go tell that to the public too.

[Intruder]

Hey guys, seriously, I am collecting wisdom for a project.

I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.

More: weight reduction in general, such as better ways to distribute tax-free than onboard. Maximize cabin factor, invest in finding better fuel, c´mon, let´s pack this...
Then, seriously, there STILL is nothing that will make an airline "green"! As I and a couple others have pointed out, it is inherently an "ungreen" industry.

There is very little an airline can do in flight, because of ATC and other regulations. "Noise reduction" profiles already cause more fuel to be burned on takeoff, and ATC interference in published arrivals and approaches already cause more fuel to be burned in the descent.

How much less energy is used if air conditioning and electricity is provided by a ground station instead of an APU? Just because the energy cost/accounting is transferred elsewhere doesn't make it "greener."

[Intruder]

There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.

The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.

I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...

Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.

Don´t be a cynic.
Fuel vs noise is generally an either-or proposition. Hush kits and noise abatement profiles both use more fuel. New airplanes and engines cost too much to be an answer for many airlines.

Reducing full-flap use on approach also reduces safety margins due to faster landings, more tire wear, and longer rollouts. Is "green" a suitable substitute for safety margin? If so, how many additional mishaps, injuries, and fatalities are acceptable?

Turning off the air conditioning on the ground will save significant fuel. Where is the public support? Reducing the "smoothness" of transitions will reduce fuel consumption in many cases. Where is the public support?

What upgraded equipment is going to yield landing priority? Where? What happens to the other airplanes that are delayed? Won't they more than offset any reduction in fuel consumption? Please define a "curbed approach." I have no idea what that is.

Cynical?!? How about realistic and analytical instead of naive...

[Agaricus bisporus]

Organic matter - matter that has come from a once-living organism, is capable of decay or the product of decay, or is composed of organic compound.


As a way of turning the tables on the pseudo-scientific twaddle peddled by the tree-huggers perhaps we should campaign to remind people what the word "organic" really means whan applied to a substance.
As oil and gas are the result of bio-degrading vegetable matter (composting on a geological scale) they and their related products are actually one of the most pure organic materials on the planet.

Tell Friends of the Earth to stick that in their pipe and smoke it, cos they say organic means it must be good for them!
And CO2 is pure organic too, being made partly from carbon, so what's the problem?

QED

[Pugilistic Animus]

I bet when the environuts* are out over the ocean at 35000+ ft they don't complain about too much fuel then:rolleyes:...to save money aviation is probably the most fuel conscience of industries...and the whole of transportation contributes only about 12% of total CO2 emissions...also like everyone says--- pollution is a much, much greater concern and most if not all industries can do better wrt to that issue:uhoh:

* hypocritical Muppets:*

[Slasher]

I wonder why people are so sure that all concern about climate change is bullcrap?

You can do some homework outside the mainstream media -
try asking Al Gore who's on his way to his first $200 million,
then the Socialist Forum International and its latest strategy
to redistribute global wealth (the history and political alignments
of certain Green pr!cks from Oz and Europe would be a good start).

The SFI fooled everyone about DDT in the 70s (and we know
the thousands of deaths as a direct result from that). This time
around not everyone will be fooled by these commie bastards
again.

[paparomeodelta]

Finally, I guess English isn't your native tongue, but curbed and idling are not aviation terms and PBM is an acronym I'm not familiar with. You'll get more credibility using correct terminology so please get that right in your report. By idling I imagine you mean holding - (wasting time flying in circles) but doing this on GPS is no different to using a beacon fuel wise.

Sorry, i meant curved, not curbed. Have you heard of that? if not:

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/19/328443/europe-mints-new-approach-to-landings.html)

And to be able to do such a landing with accuracy, you need to use GPS, and really accurate wind data from atc. This is sophistiquated stuff.

This differs in a positive way from regular "green" approaches, gliding in a straight approach (sometimes over places where people live) with engines idling (sure you never heard of that..?)

[Intruder]

What is "green" about a curved approach? It appears they may have some limited applicability to airports that currently have marginal clearance over straight-in approach corridors but have better clearance otherwise. Otherwise, a curved approach would have the airplane in a constant bank, which will ADD TO fuel burn! Also, reduced wings-level time on final approach will significantly reduce safety margins.

The claims are interesting, too. What makes uplinked winds any better than real-time winds calculated by the airplane's FMS and INS?

Once again, what is the allowable trade-off in CO2 and noise vs injuries and deaths?

BTW, "idling" final approaches are also prohibited in jet airplanes for safety reasons...

[paparomeodelta]

Around 500 kg less Co2, every curved landing within the "Vinga project" in Gothenburg so far. And idling is not prohibited!

Can´t we just keep off the grumpyness, cynisism and quarrelling here, and be constructive?

[bfisk]

There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.



See, that's where your problem is: there is decidedly NOT any demand from the PUBLIC that airlines will fly more environmentally friendly. Frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientiest to figure out that flying is inherently un-friendly to the environment; but people still fly.

There's the politicians, the environmentalish and the fashion-conscious marketers who drive the hype. The rest of us know that taking that holiday in Spain may not be as environmentally friendly as staying at home and growing our own vegetables and singing kumba-ya, we just don't give a rat's ass. The neighbour is going so why shouldn't I? And when the flight cost's less that the parking fee at the airport...



To answer your question, it's easy as pie: use newer aircraft and fill up the seats for the lowest emission pr person pr mile. "Green approaches" have f all to do with emissions, it has to do with economics, and the free sensationalist publicity.

[ChristiaanJ]

Around 500 kg less Co2..
Can´t we just keep off the grumpyness, cynisism and quarrelling here, and be constructive?We could, if you can keep off the CO2 nonsense.

Aviation has an impact on the environment, nobody is denying that.

IMO. most of it can be classed under two headings, noise and pollution.


Noise... while the industry is making continuous progress, with the A380, as the biggest civil aircraft flying, also amazingly being just about the quietest, the noise footprint of an airport still extends way beyond its boundaries.

New airport are being built well away from towns, but people will still move to new developments right under the flight path, and THEN complain about the noise.

And older airports, once well away from towns, are now gradually being swamped by suburban sprawl.

Tweaking departure and approach routes and procedures can occasionally alleviate this, as was done already at JFK in the Concorde days (!), but today it no longer changes much.
The only solution is quieter aircraft carrying more passengers, exactly like the A380, reducing both the noise itself, and the number of aircraft movements.

It might even be a possible benchmark for your study - which airline is producing the most (and most annoying, in terms of volume, frequency, time of day, etc.) noise?


Pollution....if we can get away a moment from the CO2 nonsense... CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Yes, like any industry, such as power generation, transport in all its other forms, etc. that uses fossil fuel, aviation produces pollution.

On the one hand, burning aviation fuel does produce a certain amount of NO2, SO2 and particulates. It is only a small amount compared to any other industry, and has an impact mainly on the air quality at and around airports... the remainder is dispersed higher up in the atmosphere.
Oh yes, and burning aviation fuel also produces water vapour, as evidenced sometimes by contrails..... which actually causes cooling of the local weather.

On the other hand, like any other industry that uses modern technology, aviation does also produces pollution right where it's based, from the amount of waste products it produces.

Just think oil, spilled fuel, cleaning and de-icing products, packaging, discarded electronic components, to mention but a few.
You can add to the list itself.
How much of that gets into the local water table, or in the local landfills, or is shipped to third-world countries?
Not to mention the 'secondary' effects.... like transport to and from the airport of passengers and cargo (transport which is nowhere near as fuel-efficient as air transport itself, and pollutes the environment right on the spot).

Recycling, pollution prevention, waste management... those might be other benchmarks that could be added to the list.

CJ

[paparomeodelta]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[CancelIFR]

Tjena paparomeodelta,

Well if you listen to these old dinosaurs from parts of the world that they still build the water pipes on the outside of houses because, "How else would you get to them once they have frozen." Check out the ISO 14001 certificate, i know Finnair were the first and a certain light blue charter airline from our home country was the first charter airline to recieve it. I believe the criteria of ISO 14001 should be easy enough to find. It does however deal with the organization as a whole, not just the fuelburn etc. of the airplanes.
PM me what the vinga project is by the way, i fly to landvetter frequently and have never had to fly all the way out to that lighthouse :}

[seat 0A]

paparomeodelta,

Dow Jones has a Sustainability Index.
You will see that in the Transportation and Leisure sector, Air France KLM has been the leader since 5 years.

Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (http://www.sustainability-index.com/07_htmle/indexes/djsiworld_supersectorleaders_10_1.html)

Within Air France KLM we make a real effort to fly as clean as we can. And ofcourse there are many ways within the company to work eco-friendly. Check the dow jones website for indicators.

[Capt Pit Bull]

I am talking about that the industry is under attack, and we have to do something to show that we are taking the public opinion seriously.

That's the problem right there.

- The general public wants to be able to fly to places.

- The general public wants its conscience to be clean.

Ergo the perception that the public wants 'green' airlines, when in fact these two requirements are mutually exclusive. Taking such an opinion seriously is the last thing the industry should do; pandering to it gives it credibility.

Frankly any money would be better spend by donating it to schools to promote the sciences (which are rapidly dropping off the agenda in the education systems in the western democracies) so that the person on the street actually had a clue wtf they were talking about when discussing green issues.

But then again, an educated public is the last thing most politicians want.

pb

[paparomeodelta]

Thank you "light blue charter" and KLM/AF and some others for valuable input. Got a question about the VINGA project. Translation, quick and dirty from GoogleTranslator:

Apollo airline Novair has assumed an important role to push environmental issues in the aviation industry, and to implement them in their own operations.
From a process to develop internal procedures to become more environmentally conscious, this commitment has increased. Today Novair is advisor in major projects for the aerospace industry in Sweden and Europe concerning the efficiency of air traffic.

- We believe it is important to help reduce emissions and noise reduction around our airports. We took a big step in 2007 when we began to fine tune our own flight process with great success. Since then it has escalated. Now we are advisers in the major European modernization project of air traffic control, SESAR. It is great fun and we see great progress with the work already, "says Henrik Ekstrand, a pilot of Novair and one of the most active members of the SESAR project in Novair.

The aim of the project aims to unite all airspace in Europe and create a single European airspace (Single European Sky "). This commitment consists of two parts: the development of new technologies, and the projects implemented now, with a focus on using existing technology to best effect. Vinga and MINT projects are examples of these initiatives, and aims to accelerate the introduction in Europe.

In its efforts to reduce noise and emissions have Novair over the past three years have identified several problem areas that impede the industry's environmental development. These questions run Novair now for the industry's behalf, sometimes myself, sometimes together with other stakeholders who share the same views.

- Many issues we are working on a national basis are linked to the Swedish environmental legislation and lead times to get the changes are long. One example is the noise issue for aircraft that affects the area around our airports, an issue that arose in recent years. Now we see with pleasure that the start of positive things happen in the matter, "said Henry.

The goal of Novair involvement in environmental issues is to accelerate the implementation of modern technologies and tools in the daily operation, and to create incentives to do so. The more people who apply the technology the greater the results can be achieved. Some examples of issues that Novair interested in extra for are:

1st Noise versus emissions: To avoid having to fly over densely populated areas in the vicinity of the airport usually require a detour which means increased consumption of fuel and increased emissions.

In the case of departing traffic, it is imperative to create a law based on what type of aircraft used. A modern aircraft noise significantly less than older aircraft. In the current situation, we have no such law for such Stockholm Arlanda Airport.

With regard to inbound traffic, we have historically flown on a straight flight path just before landing. Can you instead make a "curved approach", which requires much more sophisticated navigation technology while gliding to the airport on landing so it uses much less fuel and you do not make a noise which people live (this has Novair been through and done at Stockholm Arlanda Airport and at Gothenburg Landvetter Airport).

2nd Reduction of CO2 emissions: Here Novair working on a broad front to minimize the weight of the aircraft, perfecting the flight operational processes and implement new navigation technology. Profit is the fuel savings. A good example of how to ultimately reduce emissions.

3rd Implementing new technologies: Novair trying to encourage the airline industry at large to implement new technology. In response to that is being discussed a proposal to aircraft equipped with such equipment should be given priority to land when it is queued in the air above the airport ("best equipped, best Served"). New technology allows airlines to fly more environmentally friendly and disturb less of airport neighbors.

In three years Novair managed to reduce their own carbon emissions by 5% by tuning its operational flight process, which should be seen as a great success. Novair great interest in environmental issues has meant that international organizations have their eyes on Novair competence and commitment. As there is also growing raft of projects with successful results have steadily improved, for example:

EcoFly Sweden: an ongoing project in cooperation with such LFV and SAS since 2007. The goal was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Swedish air space of at least 10 000 tonnes per year.

Results: The project is still active and an interim report from 2009 shows that the targets were exceeded. EcoFly Sweden has achieved savings of over 20 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually in Sweden.

MINT: Green "curved approaches" to Stockholm Arlanda airport. The project was implemented in 2009 with the goal of implementing technology curved approach to Arlanda to avoid flying over Upplands Väsby. From 2018 it is not allowed to fly over Upplands of a turning before landing (airport's condition 6).

Results: This approach technique is now used, and the savings are about 0.5 tonnes of carbon in reduced emissions per approach.

VINGA: An ongoing project funded by the EU, where Novair, the only Swedish carriers, contributing to reduce carbon emissions and noise. The project is carried out at Gothenburg Landvetter Airport and covers all parts of a flight assignment, ie. to fly straight to and from Gothenburg Landvetter Airport, green curved flights, efficient ground movement and efficient departures.

The purpose of the VINGA project is to be the good example that helps to accelerate the process of change in the industry and few other European airports to implement this environmentally friendly way to fly.

The official VINGA-flights are scheduled to start in early 2011. In autumn 2010, Novair carried about 60 pieces of curved approaches to Gothenburg Landvetter Airport as an early validation, to build up expertise among pilots and air traffic controllers.

Results: Based on the first test flights ensures good indications that the project will result in savings of up to 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per approach. In addition, we relieve certain very overflight traffic. It is easy to see what such a measure would bring about the introduction of internationally.

Both MINT and Vinga's SESAR project, in which the aviation stakeholders to work together to achieve the best results. In such Vinga-project work Novair with CAA, Gothenburg Landvetter Airport, Airbus and its subsidiaries Quovadis.

On their way to achieving ambitious targets
The European targets for the civil aviation sector is to achieve a halving of carbon emissions to 2020 relatively modern technology.

- The international goals for 2020 is ambitious, but we are already well underway. About 2020 we look back 20 years time we will fly safer, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than we do today, "says Henrik Ekstrand.

In order to aviation environmental improvements will continue to increase needed new technologies. The aviation industry is now waiting for new engines with sharper technology will be launched within the next year of the major motor manufacturers who can be a double-digit improvement, and thus a major step closer to targets.

- As airlines, we can do much themselves to fly more environmentally conscious, but the great progress made in pace with new technologies and alternative fuels become more and more accessible. So together we will be able to achieve very good results, "says Henrik Ekstrand.

There are many factors that will contribute to 2020 targets achieved:

• New technologies for engines, aerodynamics and lighter materials
• Development of air traffic control that allows more direct and more efficient flights, coupled to a single European airspace (Single European Sky)
• Smart navigation

In addition to this, we will see an increased use of biofuels by 2020 to reduce aviation's dependence on oil.

Film
The film shown to passengers depicts VINGA project in a real flight environment and can be seen on YouTube (5 min): YouTube - En bättre resa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fHs7O60CTg)

[Intruder]

Around 500 kg less Co2, every curved landing within the "Vinga project" in Gothenburg so far. And idling is not prohibited!

Can´t we just keep off the grumpyness, cynisism and quarrelling here, and be constructive?
Your subsequent citation says the "MINT" project is the one that has reported results, not the "Vinga" project (which starts next year). Since there is no illustration of the criteria used in the curved and traditional approaches into Stockholm, there is no way for us to tell how that curved approach supposedly saves fuel. If a different vertical profile is used in addition to a curved lateral approach path, why is the different vertical profile not used in the traditional approach?

"Idling" (use of idle thrust) is indeed prohibited on final approaches under the "stabilized approach" criteria in place in every airline I know of. Current use of FMS with VNAV capability already calculates a profile based on idle thrust until intercepting final approach, so there is NO difference between a traditional VNAV arrival and approach and any optimized "curved" approach in this respect. Any gains in fuel efficiency are likely due to ATC involvement, where test airplanes are allowed to fly their preferred arrival and approach profile without ATC intervention. If airplanes were allowed the same clearance on a traditional arrival and approach, there would be little or nothing to be gained by a curved lateral final approach profile.

Also, you have not addressed the offset in fuel burn for the case where an "efficient" airplane is given priority and another airplane has to delay because of it. How is Novair "green" by suggesting that other airplanes burn excess fuel instead of themselves?

There's no grumpiness or cynicism here. There are many valid questions about test methodology, side effects, and validity of test reports. There are also valid questions regarding what EXACTLY is the definition of "green" in your context, and whether that definition is actually valid is a gross ecological context. Too many companies and researchers are promoting "green" products and techniques that are nothing more than eyewash. A "priority" scheme that forces other airplanes to burn more fuel is NOT "green"; and neither is an approach profile that makes use of priority handling not available to aircraft at large.

UPDATE -- I just looked at a MINT demo at Mint Demonstration Flight Part 1 (http://wn.com/mint_demonstration_flight_part_1) .

There is NOTHING in the demo that requires or relies on a "curved approach." That they happen to use a "curved" lateral profile for the intercept of the final approach course is only incidental, and likely due to noise considerations for the specific airport in the demo. Any fuel savings appears to be SOLELY due to the shorter arrival/approach profile and priority handling by ATC, allowing shorter flight time and use of the preplanned VNAV and LNAV profiles.

If you have other info that contradicts this analysis, please post it.

[neville_nobody]

Aviation is actually very green it just depends on how you view it. The problem is that all the greenies focus on is fuel burn.

If the green movement was serious about all this they would have to consider the environmental impact that building railways and roads (and the all raw materials that go into it) has on the environment additional to the fuel burnt. IF you start taking these issues into consideration aviation is very efficient.

This is why aviation is used often in remote areas as the cost/logistics of building other forms of infrastructure is prohibitive. All you need for a plane is a runway the rest can be pristine rainforest.

I feel that the Aviation is a bit of a soft target when it comes to these sorts of issues. I would imagine that if a green movement starting pointing out the amount if environmental damage roads and motor vehicles really do I think you would find that the car companies would come down on them very very heavily, much like the electric car. Instead greenies can shoot down aviation as being ungreen, yet noone in aviation really stands up for it.

The green movement is usually the biggest hyporocrites, as they want to live in new houses with all the mod cons, new cars etc yet still crap on about being green. If people want to get serious about saving the planet you will have to go back to a lifestyle that your forefathers lived. Zero travel, real organic food grown by you, meat is for celebrations only, mud brick housing, water tanks, solar power etc etc

That kind of lifestyle is achievable, but is actually hard work, so it will never happen. A good start to being green would be to abolish fast food, and instead of turning all that food into burgers, they should selling it to the third world as REAL food and help easing starvation.

[paparomeodelta]

Inruder. Your questions are very relevant, here are a few answeres. I realize that there are not anough space here to go through all details, and my ambition with the thread was originally to get some input and ideas on how we could fly cleaner and greener, and that applies of course also to flight related actions. Txs TUI and KLM/AF and others...Aviation is not a dirty industry, but there are of course stuff that any industry can do to add to an overall greener society. That is what I want to tell my kids, anyway...

Since there is no illustration of the criteria used in the curved and traditional approaches into Stockholm, there is no way for us to tell how that curved approach supposedly saves fuel.Idling on approach saves fuel and emissions, and the curved approach contributes to that by at the same time avoiding urbanized areas, eliminating/lowering noiselevel for people living close to airports.

Also, you have not addressed the offset in fuel burn for the case where an "efficient" airplane is given priority and another airplane has to delay because of it. How is Novair "green" by suggesting that other airplanes burn excess fuel instead of themselves?This is a general discussion that goes on, and the idea is to make it imperative for airlines to equip planes so they can perform environmentally better. Initially there will, as you demonstrate, be no difference...

[Intruder]

Your "curved approach" idea is essentially a non-event. There are already MANY "curved approaches" published, but they are called DME Arc approaches. They can be flown by ANY airplane equipped with a VOR and DME, and can be flown using VNAV by airplanes so equipped. There is no added value in the Novair idea, because such approaches can be implemented anywhere. RNP requirements simply keep the airplane closer to the lateral path. While that may have some marginal value in perceived noise by some people on the ground in some areas, it is NOT any "greener" than any other approach currently in use. Indeed, the people who developed the traditional approaches could have implemented a DME arc approach if it met the clearance and other safety criteria.

Once more, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the normal vertical profile in the Novair approach and any other straight-in or DME arc approach. Current FMS systems already plan for idle thrust until gear down. The need for "avoiding urbanized areas" was brought on by developers building under airport approach and departure paths, and governments allowing them to do so. Those who live and work in those areas, in general, knew what the situation was and decided to pay less money for more house (or office) under the noise patterns. Many of he responses to their complaints have compromised safety in the past, and we have no idea as to the criteria used in these new "curved approaches" using RNP to ensure an equal OR HIGHER level of safety.

So, again, what is the tradeoff between safety and a "curved approach" to a shortened final approach?

And finally, the net effect of priority schemes will not be "no difference," but an INCREASE in fuel use by all the airplanes delayed by the priority airplanes. Mandating equipment is not a panacea. MOST airliners in service in the US and western Europe today already have the required RNP ability, and ATC still cannot allow them to use their most efficient profiles. Then what happens when ALLL of the airplanes have "priority"? I think we'll be right back where we started...

Someone else pointed out that ground operations may be the place to start finding new "green initiatives." That may be a better approach for you, since you don't appear to grasp the realities of air operations, and tend to fall prey to marketing without considering the side effects...

[Piltdown Man]

So you want green? Well you have to strangle a few greenies, get rid of a few governments and put in some clever computer systems. Here's why.

1. Have a start up time that means no waiting at the runway.
2. A short taxi journey to nearest runway with minimal backtracking or optimum intersection.
3. Optimum powered takeoffs (probably full welly and full climb thrust - sod the noise).
4. An immediate turn (allowing for terrain) direct to a three mile final at destination with no wind or a computer optimised track to optimise/mitigate winds along track.
5. An un-interupted climb straight to optimum level.
6. An un-interupted descent.
7. A landing on the nearest runway to the parking stand.
8. Operationally, fly with minimum fuel.
9. Fly always at optimum speeds.
10. Have lightest seats, minimum catering, minimum spare magazines, safety cards, toilet rolls, blankets, rubbish etc.
11. Have clean holds, no rubbish.
12. Have clean wings, engines (compressors washes etc.)
13. Have good seals on all doors.
14. Have GPUs/FEPs/ACs at all ground stations.
15. Fly fully loaded.

And do you know what, we try to do all of the above except for 3 and 9. Both cost too much - it is cheaper to burn the fuel than pay for maintenance. Governmental and Local procedures, jobsworths, greenies, other buggers flying, 'elf'n'safetee etc. all put the mockers on the rest.

PM

[Golf-Sierra]

I think what the airlines could do is take an approach similar to what energy companies currently do by teaching people how to save energy - work out ways to actually reduce the need to travel so much. The first place I would target is of course business related travel - a lot of which is plainly not necessary as there are alternatives out there. So - research your passengers, research why they travel, research what alternatives would appeal to them, invest in alternatives, make money.

Bear in mind that a lot of the SLF who actually have to undertake these ridiculous flights will love you for it. Next year I'm probably going to be flying to Australia for a 3 or 4 day business event. Yes - 48 hours flying time, massive jet lag to demo some software - because the videoconferencing facilities at our offices are 'poor' and management generally thinks videoconferencing is not quite there yet.

Wouldn't it be great if - for say 50%-75% of the total trip cost I could go to the Qantas Business Center in London, my Australian colleagues likewise in Sydney - and enjoy the latest state-of-the-art holographic Hollywood style videoconferencing, the latest state-of-the-art environmental control stuff to alleviate the time zone difference, and the latest state-of-the art features I can't even think about but the engineers who one day build this solution will need to come up with.

Don't haul people - bring them together.

You did ask for out of the box thinking ;-)


Regards,

Golf-Sierra

[DERG]

If the plane has the fancy Bart Simpson zig zag exhaust bits on the engines then thats GOOD. Round ones are BAD.