No towing from stand to take off - yet.

[beamender99]

From The Times in the UK

"It was sold to airline passengers as a bold, green initiative that would save thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide from their flights.

But Virgin Atlantic has quietly abandoned a plan to tow Boeing 747 jumbo jets to special “starting grids” at the end of runways after the aircraft manufacturer found that pulling the landing gear would seriously weaken it.

Sir Richard Branson, the president of Virgin, has launched a series of green initiatives in the past two years in an attempt to claim the mantle of the most environmentally responsible airline. But an analysis by The Times has found that most are having little, if any, impact on the airline’s emissions.

Environmental groups argue that the initiatives are “green-wash”, accusing Virgin of promoting them for PR value without making clear that it will be many years before they will begin to deliver environmental benefits.

Virgin claimed that starting grids would save up to two tonnes of CO2 per flight because aircraft engines would not be started until ten minutes before take-off. It also said that people living near airports would benefit from “much lower noise levels and dramatically cleaner air”.

Sir Richard even persuaded Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of Californina, to endorse the plan in 2006. When Virgin started testing in December 2006, it suggested that many of its aircraft would be involved and that airports around the world would swiftly embrace the idea.

Now it admits that the project has been suspended indefinitely, because of the landing-gear problem and because existing facilities at airports could not accommodate the starting grids.

A Virgin spokesman confirmed there had been only six towed departures at three airports: Gatwick, Heathrow and San Francisco. Boeing revealed that it had analysed the results of the trials and found that towing an aircraft placed too much stress on the landing gear and reduced its life. A Gatwick spokesman said: “We are not building any starting grids.”

Jeff Gazzard, a board member of the Aviation Environment Federation, said: “Virgin is using bogus green initiatives in an attempt to make passengers feel less guilty about flying and persuade regulators to allow the industry to carry on growing at its present unsustainable rate.”

The Virgin spokesman said it was wrong to criticise the airline for seeking environmental solutions, claiming its rivals were doing relatively little. He said: “In a few years’ time there will be significant change.”

With other Virgin initiatives, it was found that only 1 per cent of business-class passengers took up the chance of a Heathrow Express train ticket instead of a chauffeur-driven car. And only 5 per cent of biofuel had been used instead of normal aircraft kerosene in a flight described as creating “the first airline in the world to fly on renewable fuel”.


Will this idea of towing to take off ever get adopted?
May I suggest that "the landing gear is not good / strong enough" will not go down well in goverment high places.

[cstleon]

I had a feeling that LH was doing this in FRA years and years ago - but I can't find any evidence of it on the web, which suggests that perhaps the plan was shelved there, too.

[Rabbitwear]

They are not designed for long towing at high gross weights. When they are towed to the hangar they are usually empty.

[Ricky1]

Nice to see them making the effort though. After all it is important. Hopfully if they keep up the brainstorming, they may just catch on to something that will work. Every little helps.

However, I can see how the landing gear of a B 747 or an A340 could be strained by being towed a longer distance than normal at MTOW. Does anybody know the MTOW of a 747or an A340? As for the idea of towing the aircraft before takeoff. How about towing them back to the terminal after landing when they are far lighter? How much stress would this cause the landing gear? Probably pritty close as, they are not designed for this kind of operation. Also you have to think about the delays this may cause other airlines while waiting for the start ups. May end up costing the same in fuel due to the knock on effects.

They will come up with something better, they always do! Can't see ground at major airports to happy with the idea of change though.

Anyways,
good night all,
Rick

[Oftenfly]

Ricky1, not sure what you mean by "something better," but the technology here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=298722&highlight=chorus+motor

is attractive. Possibly not retro-fitable, though. Oftenfly

[newt]

Would it not be better to fly great circle routes direct to destination instead of using airways designed for aircraft using VOR/DME? That might get you there quicker and save gas!! It might even be safer! Then get BAA to sort out the problem of gates and slots and you could save even more!!

Or has this been suggested before!!!!!!!!

[Bushfiva]

Didn't NW tow to the runway at one time, for their somewhere-in-the-US to Beijing route, which was the longest route at that time?

[lgwpave]

MTOWs :
B747-400 396,894Kg (875,000lbs)
A340-600 365,000Kg (804,687lbs)
A380-800 560,000Kg (1,234,588lbs)

As to the queueing problems, some airports (inc LGW) looked into providing enlarged hold areas, allowing other A/C to pass

[Stick'n'Rudder]

I had a feeling that LH was doing this in FRA years and years ago

The only towing being done (besides pushback, of course) is that of repositioning planes between parking spots and maintenance facilities.


Would it not be better to fly great circle routes direct to destination instead of using airways designed for aircraft using VOR/DME?

All across Europe we move away from those routes since quite some time, replacing them with straighter RNAV routes. Plus, Eurocontrol helps unify the skies above Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany.


Then get BAA to sort out the problem of gates and slots and you could save even more!!

AFAIK, a slot helps saving fuel already. What costs less fuel, sitting at the gate with engines off – or airborne racing around ugly holding patterns?

[PAXboy]

Arrived at LGW this evening but our stand was not empty. So we stood for 11 minutes with both motors (DHC-8 Q400) idling all the while. What a fabulous waste of gas and increase in pollution. The airports have, almost universally, been allowed to book in more flights than they can handle. The amount of time spent in the hold and taxi to/from the active is massive but no one is going to change it.

It looks as if long haul towing will have to wait for a system that puts the motive force onto the mains, not the nose gear.

[tbaylx]

People really have no clue on where the greatest fuel savings in aviation come from. here they are fretting over tugging and aircraft to the runway to save some fuel, when airlines all over the world burn tonnes of the stuff stacked up in holds at congested airports.

Ever fly through Indian airspace? They need 10 MINUTES of spacing due to lack of radar coverage, so here you have thousands of aircraft transiting through their airspace at non optimum altitudes because there is someone 200 miles ahaead of them at the same level that they wanted. That costs airlines a darn bit more fuel than they burn taxiing. Want to go green? take all the money that you want to invest and go buy India a proper, modern radar environment. Presto you just saved millions of dollars in fuel costs a year with a associated reduction in CO2 emmisions.

Its a bit harder for a non aviation person to understand however and certainly much harder to fix than a nice simple solution like tugging an aircraft, so you never hear about it in the press.

[larkers]

I agree, at least Virgin are making the effort to do something! And - they certainly do more than most. Face the facts guys, no one is going to give up long haul travel - it is a necessity for many. All airlines can do is minimise their impact where they can.

[PAXboy]

Indedd tbaylx. When this topic first came up, I made reference to the Holds in the LTMA. If the UK govt wanted to cut down on emissions, they only have to get the CAA to limit holding times. That means cutting the number of flights into EGLL and so nothing will happen. The gas used in the Holds is staggering. You only have to look at the number of machines per day and the average amount of time that they spend holding. The computation would then be easy.

Your info about spacing over the sub-continent is most interesting.

[Skipness One Echo]

If you are really getting your knickers in a twist about the amounts burned on taxi in or holding then you do NOT have an adequate perspective on the problems inherent in made made climate change.
Aviation is a small minority contributor, albeit one growing from an insignificant one to a slightly larger minority. Be intelligent and go and read about the what the MAJORITY causes are.
However that should in no way prevent uninformed wittering and shrill voices. Should you have a real problem with climate change and aviation, then why on Earth are you flying?

THIS TOWING TO THE RUNWAY FARCE WAS A PR STUNT FROM DAY ONE. ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH HEATHROW OR GATWICK KNEW THAT !

Of course the media fell for it as ever.....

[Rossair]

I hate to mention 'the elephant in the room' but the most effective and immediate way to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions might be, I am sorry to say, to reduce the total number of flights.

Saving a relatively small amount fuel by towing aircraft out to the runway may be pointless while there are plans to build a new terminal and a new runway at both Heathrow and Stansted and air travel is forecast to double by 2035 (or before).

While I know that there are many factors producing climate change I am beginning to be persuaded by the experts at the Met Office Hadley Centre who say that Aviation may be making a major contribution. As a professional pilot with many years of flying ahead of me, I hope they are wrong.

The huge Met Office computers nowadays produce extremely accurate upper air wind and temperature charts. The same computers also produce the climate change predictions. If we accept the former data, may be the latter data might have some validity.

[Jet II]

would it have been that much of saving of emissions? - you would have a clapped out old tug belching diesal fumes and would need to keep the APU running longer, so the total saving to the enviroment would have been negligable compared to waste identified by previous posters

[Forkandles]

While I know that there are many factors producing climate change I am beginning to be persuaded by the experts at the Met Office Hadley Centre who say that Aviation may be making a major contribution. As a professional pilot with many years of flying ahead of me, I hope they are wrong.

The huge Met Office computers nowadays produce extremely accurate upper air wind and temperature charts. The same computers also produce the climate change predictions. If we accept the former data, may be the latter data might have some validity.


Well, that's me convinced. I'm off out to buy me a Prius! :D

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258830

(Good thread in Jet Blast on the very subject. I know, I know, but they're not all Guardian readers).

[PAXboy]

Skipness One EchoIf you are really getting your knickers in a twist about the amounts burned on taxi in or holding then you do NOT have an adequate perspective on the problems inherent in made made climate change.Not getting my knickers in the least bit twisted. You may have noticed that I said, "If the UK govt wanted to cut down on emissions, they only have to get the CAA to limit holding times."

For myself, I consider that we have not a hope in hell of stopping mankind from trashing the planet. Human beings do not know how to stop doing things that they like doing and that make money! I expect climate change to worsen steadily and to try and enjoy as much of my time on this planet as I can. The only thing that will stop humans is when disaster starts. If an example were needed: How many folks live on the San Andreas fault? Then some people die and the rest carry on. One day LOTS of people will die but folks are not going to move out.

So I expect the govt and the pressure groups to carry on doing what they do and nothing will change ... except the climate!

[chrisr150]

I should jolly well hope that there isnt any tugging going on all the way from the stand to take-off, as SLF I like to think the flight crew are concentrating on the flight ahead and would at least wait until in the cruise... :E

[avrflr]

AR used to operate 747s between AKL and EZE. SOP was to fuel them to capacity, pull the CBs for the fuel overfill shutoffs and then fill them until a little bit of fuel spilled out of the vents. They would then tow the aircraft to the end of the runway, start the engines and depart with unseemly haste. Apparently there was still a window of a couple of hours in the middle of the flight when they REALLY couldn't afford to lose an engine.....:ooh:

P.S. Man-made climate change is a scam! Don't believe the lies! Make the world a better place: kick an environmentalist.

[ChristiaanJ]

PAXboy
"...doing things that they like doing and that make money!..."
Exactly. Cashing in on the global warming scam makes lots of money, for all the right people. Not for you and me, though.

There ARE a lot of environmental issues, that DO need dealing with.
The so-called "global warming" is not one of them.

CJ

[Human Factor]

...accusing Virgin of promoting them for PR value...

PR? Branson? Never...... :rolleyes:

[ExSimGuy]

"Aviation Pollution"

I fly (long haul) for my holidays - Because I live and work a long way from my home. We live in a "global world" and my excuse for my work-place is that I'm "spreading modern technology" (okay - and making money at it:E)

In "the good old days", I'd be taking a holiday every 3 years, and spending a couple of weeks traveling on a ship (at a smaller "carbon footprint"? Probably not) Don't think my wife-come-August would be happy with that suggestion!

So the answer is to tax air travel out of existence? (whether either per-pax or per-flight) Never mind RB's "spin" being green - how about the robbing bar-stewards in our elected governments?

Anything that can allow me to spend time at home, or my wife to spend time with me at our "other home" (constraints with children at school) and yet contribute less to the environmental damage so caused, is worthy of consideration. Otherwise, I'll have to stop contributing to what's known as "UK's Invisible Earnings"

Anything that works economically is worth a shot at. If it works it will make money - if it doesn't it will die a death. But progress has always been from someone willing to try out an idea.

[ChristiaanJ]

....yet contribute less to the environmental damage so caused....Sorry to disappoint you.
Your "environmental damage" is totally invisible, and even unlikely.
The CO2 fiction is being discredited more and more.
So is the "global warming" fiction.

If anything, your flight may do some good, because high-level persisting jet contrails add a small amount to the earth cloud cover, keeping down the temperature variations.

Go and see your wife. Human relations far outweigh the "Save the Planet" fictions.

Cheers,

Christian

[PAXboy]

Actually, I think that Climate Change is real and that air travel is contributing to it and possibly even to a significant level.

I also read with interest that ships are particularly dirty and no one has tried any serious attack on them just yet ...

As I say, mankind WILL trash the planet. It makes zero difference whether we do so in 5/55/5000 years, we will ruin this planet and billions will die. I have no concern whether it happens in my life time or not because it cannot be stopped. The very idea that countries/companies can work for the greater good is laughable! The politicians have no choice but to sound concerned but they know that nothing can change the behaviour of a species that has been so successful at dominating the planet. So - business as usual.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The planet will not be trashed. It doesn't give a to55. What might very well happen is that we will make it inhospitable to humans and the human race will die out.

The planet won't care about that or about who takes our place. Or who takes their place either, when that time comes.

We humans are pretty insignificant in the great scheme of things.

SSD

[Anti-ice]

As we are accustomed to with Branson - this just smacks of PR and nothing else.

This is someone who wants to 'save the world' environmentally - and then send the public a handful at a time into space, releasiing tonnes of potentially very toxic rocket fuels.

Having a second home 4,500 miles away doesn't really make you look a passionate environmentalist either :rolleyes:

Really doesn't wash !

[BAFQTV]

ChristiaanJ talks about:

If anything, your flight may do some good, because high-level persisting jet contrails add a small amount to the earth cloud cover, keeping down the temperature variations.


This is called "Global Dimming" and the proof of it happened when there was no air travel in the US for several days in September 2001. Temperatures rose and it was attributed to this phenomenen. It must be true because it was on "Horizon", who also predicted the Asian tsunami!

Lets keep flying!:D

[saccade]

The most important motivation of Richard Branson to develop biofuels is not the environment, but the peak in oil production which will probably happen before 2015 (according to Shell). After peak oil the growth of aviation will be limited by the availability of energy, but more likely by the oil price explosion if the difference in demand and supply start to grow.

Agree that biofuels are a very dubious 'alternative', but I admire anyone who is trying to do something constructive (and risk $400 m of investment).

For the interested, a study from the ASPO about the relation peak oil-aviation (27 pages, pdf):
http://www.aspousa.org/proceedings/houston/presentations/Roger_Bezdek_Houston_Slides_10-19-07.pdf

[jetopa]

P.S. Man-made climate change is a scam! Don't believe the lies! Make the world a better place: kick an environmentalist.

Do you really think that this is going to help? It reminds me of some silly redneck saying in Germany of the 80s: 'Nuclear power? I dont't care. My electricity comes out the plug in the wall...' :ugh:

I'm not saying that Sir Richard B. is right. But advocating sensitivity in environmental issues might give us a head-start before some silly and over-active populist politicians force us to implement things we all certainly do not want.

[Tempestnut]

I think this may be an appropriate moment for my first post. I’m not a pilot or aviation engineer but I am an engineer with long experience in diesel engines until recently when I switched to computing. I have had a lifelong interest in aviation so feel “qualified to contribute”

Firstly, the whole Climate Change, Global Warming, Carbon footprint scenario we are being sold is nonsense, and I speak from one who has read a vast amount of the scientific evidence. The whole thing is a political movement to get us to focus on the environment but they have chosen the wrong gas, the wrong bogie man if you like. However it is one that even those with a cursory education recognise and partially understand (ie most politicians and many environmentalists but not all)

CO2 is not a pollutant and nor is it a very important greenhouse gas. And given that, man made contributions to the total CO2 output each year is minuscule compared to natural outputs. In fact CO2 is essential to our well being and to food production on our planet and without which we would all perish. The higher the concentrations the faster plants grow. And by the way despite the fancy graphs from the IPCC and our good friend Al, CO2 concentrations were higher in the early 1800’s and around 1930. New evidence shows that the concentration fluctuates quite a lot with the reasons for this not fully understood, but one thing is certain, it has not been cause by us burning fossil fuels.

All this brings into question the grandstanding of organisations such as Virgin, who could be a little more honest and say they are looking for ways of saving fuel to help their costs, improve their profits and at the same time reduce the real pollutants such as Nitrous Oxides, un-burnt Hydrocarbons and Particulate matter, all of which have been forgotten in our quest to reduce the life giving gas CO2.

We have server risks out there over the future of our fuel supplies (Middle East and Russia not to mention growing demand from China and India) and by implication our current standards of living. We should be pushing harder to save fuel and pushing for our engines to build cleaner burning and even more fuel efficient engines. In my experience if the engineer today says that’s impossible, tomorrow he will be crowing, look what I have achieved. :D Trying to save CO2 sets everyone on a hiding to nothing.:ugh:

The worst thing we can do is use bio fuels. I know from my Diesel experience that an engine designed for diesel will produce higher levels of the real pollutants on bio fuel. Also maintenance costs rise. Then there is the disastrous effect it is already having in the poorer parts of the word where even more forest is being cut down to grown Palm oil trees and much high quality agricultural land in the west is being used for Bio fuel production as the farmers look to improve returns, so that we in the West source even more from the third world who in turn cut down more forest to supply us. This is in addition to the completely bizarre fact that, producing this fuel, costs us as much in energy as it subsequently returns. No joined up thinking going on here is there? :ugh:

Lastly for those who enjoy a good scientific sleep inducing read and regularly suffer from insomnia here are some links to some kind sole that have been collating the real science for us.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php)

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/)

[Paradise Lost]

The whole 'Global warming' debate is most vexacious and controversial. It has just as many sceptics as it has converts. IMHO it remains a good idea for aviation and aviators to at least make some effort to try and curb our noise and emissions if only to show the 'environmentalists' that we are not totally irresponsible.
As has been alluded to in previous posts, the actual Co2 contribution made by aviation isbarely discernable compared to naturally occurring emissions from geothermal activity, plankton blooms, politicians etc. If Virgin Branson wish to investigate any options to be more environmentally sensitive, then more power to their elbows; and of course they will maximise any publicity they can glean.......that's good business!
What is a whole load more cynical and offensive is our government pretending to be 'green' while using the entire subject as another revenue generating exercise.

[Skydrol Leak]

Simply, Branson is an "entrepreneur" or how other rich people like to name themselves; "socialite" and we can go on and on putting a title to your name as "Sir" etc...
He is a business man first and Sir and environmentalist second. He has so much wealth and connections that he can made up an any full size page article in London times and you will buy it.
When you are in the position as he is you just have to pretend you care for the planet and the rest of us who live here, but in reality he doesn't give a jack....t about it.
Trying out a coconut derived biofuel was the biggest joke I have ever read and they actually got backed up by Shell,hahahaha....nuts.
We need to conquer few other planets :ugh:of the size of Earth to produce enough biofuel for all the airplanes flying daily around the globe...
And this thing about towing a fully loaded airplane to reduce emissions is all about publicity and has nothing to do with being "green".
It gives you some extra "free" time in the media and what is better that hearing all these stories about Virgin going green, but no one actualy does the count about it on the end of the day.
So be ready for more unbelieveable stories of Dr.Branson in the future...