The dawn of the 100 mile final?

[mickjoebill]

By 2013 100 European airports will allow planes to descend from cruise to land, thus saving 450 kg of C02 per landing

New Plan To Reduce Planes' C02 Emissions - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/ap/tech/main4905744.shtml)

mickjoebill

[Huck]

One thinks that 777 pilots might like to jack the throttles around a little on final, given recent events....

[Smilin_Ed]

.....500,000 metric tons (515 US tons).....

I think a few zeros are missing here. :)

[Carnage Matey!]

I thought all airportsallowef aircraft to descend from cruise to land. Not much point in a fly-by only airport!

[TyroPicard]

.. airports will allow planes to descend all the way from cruising altitude to the runway in one smooth glide..

Won't need to "jack the throttles" at all, then!

[BillS]

Just a small part of the 13,000,000 tonnes expected from PBN (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/nr/2009/pio200904_e.pdf)

[BALLSOUT]

Is this not what we normaly do allready?

[Port Strobe]

So in Rome for example they're just reassigning your cruise level as you get closer are they? :E

[FL470]

Well, we try. But because of airspace structure and political obstacles, we are rarely allowed to do so :ugh:

[Paradise Lost]

Since we normally cruise at FL450/470, it's going to be a bit tight for us; could we start at 150 miles please?

[aviate1138]

It all seems so futile.

Since 1750 All of Mankind's CO2 inputs have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by barely a 1/10,000th part! What on earth are these silly Green people trying to do?

ref. "Currently CO2 occupies only 1/10,000th more of the atmosphere than in 1750, Keeling & Whorf, et al. 2004"

Aircraft contribute such a small amount in reality but politically it seems they are choking the planet!

Why change anything for politicians whims?

[the_stranger]

@ aviate1138, it might be futile when looking at CO2 levels, but it does save fuel, maintenance costs and probably my precious time...

[rubik101]

When you consider the nonsense that goes on in the London TMA, for instance, where we are forced to descend 50 miles prior to the TMA boundary and stooge along at FL280 or lower for 80 miles or more, then find ourselves 6000' high on the profile for our destination, I just wonder how difficult it would be to allow us to descend when we need to and power up at 5 miles on finals?
Modern Technology? Berlin Tegel landed an aircraft every fifty seconds during the Airlift.
Current best around two minutes.

[anotherthing]

...London TMA...

I just wonder how difficult it would be to allow us to descend when we need to and power up at 5 miles on finals?
You are of course having a laugh? Ever seen a diagram of all the routes within 100 miles of the LTMA? How about within the LTMA itself?

[Dont Hang Up]

ref. "Currently CO2 occupies only 1/10,000th more of the atmosphere than in 1750, Keeling & Whorf, et al. 2004"



Talk about lies, damn lies and statistics.

CO2 only occupies about 3/10000ths of the atmosphere in the first place. So an increase of 1/10000th constitues a 33% increase! Quite alarming if its true.

[TyroPicard]

If you look at the CO2 levels here...
File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg)

there does seem to be a regular cycle between roughly 180 - 300 ppm every 100,000 years or so. The big question is - which will continue, the upward trend or the cycle, now that man is interfering in a big way?

[Re-Heat]

Since 1750 All of Mankind's CO2 inputs have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by barely a 1/10,000th part! What on earth are these silly Green people trying to do?
Not to mention the huge absorption of the oceans, raising acidity and killing sealife - that is truly on record btw: not just pie in the sky greenery.

[mm_flynn]

there does seem to be a regular cycle between roughly 180 - 300 ppm every 100,000 years or so.Look more carefully at the graph to see the arrow at 400 showing 'current levels'. Without doubt the level is significantly higher than for the last million years. On the other hand it has been 10x current level in the distant past - on some of theose occassions it was quite warm and others quite cold.

Who knows what the future holds - but less fuel burn and lower maintenance costs are both good things to do now.

[11Fan]

I wonder how many carbon credits I would have to come up with to offset stacking all the tree-huggers in a pile like a cord of wood, pouring petrol on them, and lighting them on fire.

I'm accepting donations to the cause.

[demomonkey]

If we British really cared about either the environment or fuel burn and maintenance costs we'd see building a third runway at LHR but capping the maximum of flights at say 70% of maximum would both reduce overall congestion and pollution in the UK.

At any time throughout the day, there may be up to 10-20 aircraft circling in the London stacks adding 10-20 minutes extra to their flight times, burning extra fuel, worsening the air quality etc.

Now as a bit of a closet tree hugger, I don't want to see virgin land concreted over nor do I want to see the polar ice caps melt so building a third runway AND capping capacity would would have the effect of reducing the total output of CO2. So this way, everyone is happy - job done - well unless you live in Sipson.

[BALLSOUT]

It can't just be me, I would say the majority of my flights we already manage a continuous decent from cruise to landing. Rome may be more of an exception. London TMA, often have continuous decent into STN.

[ATIS]

Indeed CDA's into London airports from 6000' are mandatory. Your number is automatically taken if you level off for more than 2 miles.

I assume the London airports are not on the list of 100 airports where this scheme will be implemented.

[wobble2plank]

Does this mean that German ATC will stop telling us when, how, and how fast to descend coupled with the 'slow to 220 kts and descend at 3500fpm or more'.

Hope so.

[BillS]

PBN manual here. (http://www2.icao.int/en/pbn/ICAO%20Documentation/ICAO%20Documentation/PBN%20Manual%20Doc%209613.pdf)

[groundfloor]

Junior Chuck Yeager Check Capt asks "when will you start your descent?" Line Capt replies "100 miles." Check Capt furiously checks: his 3 times table, deceleration, weight adjustment, QNH adjustment, position of the VOR in relation to the runway.... gives up eventually and asks " How do you get 100 miles?" Very senior line Capt nochanantly replies "Oh I always go down at 100 miles.' :p

[411A]

As might be expected, some (perhaps many) European airports are well and truly behind the times, with these long, straight-in approaches.
Lets look at KLAX, as just one example, here on the western side of the great Atlantic divide.

At LAX, these approaches have been a regular occurance since...1966.:rolleyes:

[wiggy]

Ah yes, the good old civett arrival....a.k.a. the "Trombone one":
It may well be a CDA but it also usually involves a "full and free" check of the thrust levers

... "Maintain high speed"..."slow to min clean"....."increase to 250 knots"...."Maintain 180 to three".............:ugh:

Never mind, I know I should always bring my "A game"......

[Flightman]

What are KLAX's CDA percentages like?

With all that airspace and 100 mile straight in approaches, I'd be surprised if it was below 90%.

[Peter Fanelli]

I'm accepting donations to the cause.

I'm in for $100.00

[Sebastian-PGP]

There is no "if true". It's an empirical fact that we've increased CO2 levels about 33% since the dawn of the IR.

Denialism on climate change is a mental affliction. I love many things that burn fossil fuels, but pretending science isn't telling us what it's telling us or trying to ignore it is foolhardy. At best.

[deltahotel]

Welcome to the world of night freight where CDA from TOD to short finals is the norm!!

DH

[goeasy]

But... SEBASTIAN... How much would the CO2 have increased without the IR???? Many scientists guarantee it would still have increased just as much. And no one can prove otherwise.

No denial, just a sensible dose of cynicism! :=

[Tempestnut]

Aviation takes a grossly disproportionate hit from the environmentalists, mainly I believe because it is still perceived by the more activist amongst them as a luxury and un-necessary. Anyone with even a modicum of scientific understanding, and lets face it, many pilots and engineers fall into this category, will if they do some research find the following.

No evidence what so ever that CO2 has caused any significant warming of the atmosphere during recent times, or for that matter during Geological times going back several million years, and most likely beyond that.

They would also note that temperatures are falling currently and have been doing so for some years. In fact there has been no overall warming since 1995.

They would find studies showing the oscillations in the oceans, and the correlations with the periods of warming and cooling over the recent past (200y). Further they would note that having reached a historically high level of activity around the year 2001 or so the sun has now gone quiet. So quiet in fact that scientists are now starting to talk about a grand minimum, not seen since the Dalton Minimum lasting from 1790 to 1830. Check out the temperature during that period. And let’s hope we don’t have a return to conditions during the Maunder Minimum. This is interesting stuff because there are some 11 (or more) different cycles of the sun and combined with the Milankovitch cycles of the movement and rotation of earth all manner of influences are at play. The thing is we can correlate these influences with paleoclimate records going back millions of years, far more plausibly than with the incomplete atmospheric CO2 records.

I could go on and on but would like to stress that the majority of real independent scientists who are studying the causes as opposed to the effects of climate variability are very sceptical of the current political consensus.

If the aviation authorities are reorganising decent and approach methodology so that airlines can save fuel this is good. But they should do it for real reasons such as saving fuel so that it lasts longer, reducing NOx, SO2, CO, HC, and particulates, all of which we have scientific and empirical proof that they are harmful. CO2 along with water are the 2 by-products of the complete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, and isn’t ironic that water vapour and clouds have by far and away (95% or more) the greatest influence over the greenhouse within our atmosphere. And CO2 does not contribute the rest, but is more than 50% of the remaining influence.

CO2 is vital to our well being, and at the trace amounts it present in the atmosphere it exerts little real effect on our climate, but increasing levels have contributed to a significant greening of the planet over the last 30years, contrary to what the press likes to report.. The theory is there for it to cause warming, via forcing of water vapour and clouds, but empirical measurements don’t back up the theory. :=

What we are witnessing now are our politicians using the confusion of the credit crunch and banking collapse as a shield to disguise huge tax rises via carbon credits to pay for the fiscal stimulus. I only hope it does not lead to a reduction in safety, as I fear that many of the bone headed management strategies present in government and like those I put up with in my job are creeping into aviation faster and faster. :ugh:

[Sebastian-PGP]

But... SEBASTIAN... How much would the CO2 have increased without the IR???? You can simply look at the trend line and see that it wouldn't have increased 33% in a couple centuries. That's NEVER happened in human history. Pointing to what the atmosphere looked like a million years ago is irrelevant, as A) we weren't around then and the climate wouldn't have supported our existence, and B) every other rapid climate shift in history has resulted in mass extinctions. Seeing as we rely on other animals and plants for FOOD, if something is going to cause a mass extinction of the stuff we eat...you might want to start thinking about that. Myself, I'm fond of eating. YMMV. Think about how much easier fitting in that R22 will be if we're all starving.

Many scientists guarantee it would still have increased just as much.Show us one. That is NOT the consensus view held by nearly every physical sciences body in the civilized world. If anyone's saying that, they're in a distinct minority and they lack the empirical data to support such a belief. There's no peer reviewed evidence to that effect. Why has there not been a single peer reviewed document in the last ten years debunking the AGW hypothesis? There are tons of industries that would stand to benefit if GW went away as a public policy issue...you'd be the biggest rock star in the world if you could pull that off. That no one is stepping up, and that even Exxon Mobile and BP and Shell have accepted that anthropogenic global warming is real should tell you something.

As for the "it happened XX,XXX years ago" stuff...rubbish. Global warming and natural climate change in the past (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm) (interesting site, and spend a few minutes kicking around there and RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org) for a few minutes...you'll see that almost every argument Tempestnut is using is a rehash of stuff long since debunked). Another good resource: A Few Things Ill Considered : There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing.php)

Coby Beck's debunking of contrarian arguments has been well received in the scientific community.


You wouldn't tolerate physicists and glacialogists and climate scientists trying to tell you how to manipulate the controls of an aircraft properly.

Why aviators would in similar fashion presume to tell scientists their business strikes me as rather odd.

All these organizations agree that GW is real and a human induced phenomenon.

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)(GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html) (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm)(SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html)(EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135) (RS)
American Geophysical Union (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html) (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html) (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html) (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html)(AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html) (CMOS)You think you're qualified to say you know more than they do? (So much for the "most scientists doubt the basic precepts of AGW" nonsense, eh?)

[Tempestnut]

SEBASTIAN

Homo sapiens have been around for longer than you seem to realise, certainly into millions of years. And we are at present in the type of conditions that cause mass extinctions. Its warm climate that prompts life to flourish, and at present the earth is in an ice age. We are current in one of the short interglacial’s (20,000y) within that ice age (2million years) but its an ice age none the less. We are also in a time of CO2 deficiency and certainly if the dinosaurs where around they would not be as huge as they where as there is simply not enough of the stuff in the air for plants to grow quickly enough.

If you think I am quoting long since debunked information then just provide me with the empirical proof that CO2 caused the warming in the late 20th century. I bet you can not, as letters to my MP, the PM, BBC the Met Office; the Royal Society etc etc have not furnished me with anything other than rehashed rhetoric. Perhaps you are the font that I have been waiting for.

Just as a pilot relies on real proven and tested science to calculate takeoff numbers, I prefer something other than non corroborated nonsense before I am taken in by all the alarmist rhetoric

As for you imagining that big business has a vested interest in turning back AGW if they could, nothing could be further from the truth. They all see it as a way of increasing prices and making a buck. This whole thing has nothing to do with improving the environment, but is an extraordinary alliance of Government who seek to tax and control, environmental activists who seek to send us back to the stone age, big corporates who see money to be had. In amongst this is a dedicated band of scientists and volunteers who are doing all the legwork that Hansen of GISS and Mann and Schmidt or Real Climate have failed to do. Mann’s work especially is nothing short of fraud. Yet these are the individuals that our pathetically ill-informed press constantly quote. Its any wonder the public are confused.

[fireflybob]

Yes but even when all the "experts" agree they can all be wrong! And actually they don't all agree!

Not saying we shouldn't take sensible precautions but I am very sceptical about the Global Warming forecast - I can remember Magnus Magnusson standing on top of models of the globe circa 40 years ago when the "experts" were predicting another Ice Age. It doesn't seem to have happened yet.

But what really concerns me is that governments have now found another reason to tax us more - will they give us a refund if it's discovered the experts are wrong?

Also if one happens to voice scepticism one is almost treated as though one has denied the holocaust ever occured.

[Ancient Observer]

Mr M O'Leary was right about one thing. (About the only thing ever). He pointed out that cows are far more dangerous for global warming than planes. Cow farts alone are worse than all planes, and if you add in cow belches, it is even worse. There is no scenario where planes ever become as bad as cows.
So I look forward to all the alleged environmentalists lobbying to KILL all cows.

[glad rag]

If you must, simply MUST add some partially witty comment that will be deleted anyway as it adds absolutely zero to the debate, have the grace and intelligence to realise that copying and pasting the original is even more counter-productive to your display of your wit. Or just don't bother in the first place.

Thank you. Now write out 50 times on your bathroom wall "I will not copy and paste posts to which I am replying."

You can send a photograph of that. THAT would be worth posting.

Your ever-loving Moderators. Don't do it again. Any of you.

[Sebastian-PGP]

Homo Sapiens haven't been around for millions of years. Speaking of Wikipedia, even a precursory visit shows you to be way off the mark (try 50-150K years max). If you're getting that sort of thing wrong, I can't imagine why anyone would find the rest of your post credible.

Did you bother reading the link I supplied? The empirical link between CO2 and AGW isn't even debated by the skeptics like Singer and Lindzen.

As for Mann's work, it's been entirely vindicated (specifically) in IPCC4, which is endorsed by the organizations I mentioned. Again, if the choice is your misinformed anonymous speculation or the peer reviewed discussions of those organizations...not a tough call to make. Conspiratorial rantings aside, if there's any merit to your arguments, why aren't skeptical scientists providing peer reviewable data and rebuttal analyses? They take pot shots and run editorials, sure...but nothing resembling a peer reviewable body of work like the reality-accepting climatologists have done.

The silence from your side is deafening.

As for your last point, if you think XOM and BP have a vested interest in us moving away from petrol to non-hydro carbon resources, you probably think GM has a vested interest in you buying a Toyota.

Well, that could possibly change--maybe they'll start doing more than pay lip service to biofuels, solar, etc.

Bob--sure, they could all be wrong. But what if they're not? The consequences of doing nothing are nothing short of potentially life threatening for billions of our progeny.

We don't have an unlimited time to guess. We have to go with what the most likely scenario is, and lack of a credible alternative from the other side makes the public policy discussion a lot simpler.

Once again...the misinformed conspiratorial rantings of non-scientists like tempestnut, or the consensus view of the folks trained in the physical sciences (as though all those propeller heads could pull off the conspiracy that tempestnut suggests they're doing)...it's not a tough call to make if you're even the least little bit rational.

[Capot]

ref. "Currently CO2 occupies only 1/10,000th more of the atmosphere than in 1750, Keeling & Whorf, et al. 2004"

Talk about lies, damn lies and statistics.

CO2 only occupies about 3/10000ths of the atmosphere in the first place. So an increase of 1/10000th constitues a 33% increase! Quite alarming if its true.

These damned tricky little numbers. If CO2 now occupies (note the present tense drawn from the quote, it's important) 3/10000ths, and has increased by 1/10000th, that sounds to me very like an increase of 50%. Even more alarming!

[DingerX]

If concern over CO2 emissions can get governments to do what simple fuel economy can't, so much the better. Our Hydrocarbon resources are limited, and their real cost to the human race is considerably more than the current cost to pump 'em out of the ground. That's the basic flaw in the capitalistic model.

Aviation takes a big hit in these debates. In part it's because a significant portion of any aviation cost consists directly in burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons. But in this world, burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons is integral to all transportation systems, including so-called "Green ones", and if you consider secondary costs (such as fuel burned by staff getting to work, line maintenance, and the rest), I doubt aviation would appear as huge an offender.

Those who think that Global Warming (or anthropogenic climate change) is not the scientific consensus need to talk to scientists before coming to that conclusion. Those who think that sudden climate change can occur in history without catastrophic results to human societies need to speak to historians.

It's gonna be bad, but killing aviation is not the answer. In fact, the very simplicity of Aviation's use of energy makes it a prime candidate for a green solution, which is why major companies are playing with swapping the kerosene-burners for algae-burners.

[ChristiaanJ]

Mods,

I'm amazed you have not spotted this topic yet as another prime candidate for moving to JetBlast.....

[YeahYeah]

Of course these savings on emissions will be negated as departures are levelled off and speed restricted below, or 60 mile off-course climbs become the norm...

[Basil]

Denialism on climate change is a mental affliction
. . . and THAT attitude is one of the problems!

We may be going through a period of warming BUT is it anthropogenic or not?
Well, it doesn't really matter because we are not going to reverse this process - not a chance.
Seems a great opportunity for the UK Chancellor to tax anything car related - but wait, didn't I hear today that we are to scrap our cars and buy new ones to get the economy going? Well at least just building them doesn't produce CO2, does it? :rolleyes:

We will have to adapt to a warmer climate.
Now who'd like to join Basil's Northern Rocks Farmland Purchase Fund?

[DingerX]

Okay, some points of clarification:

First off: my post was an attempt at burying the thread. If you put out a painfully long post with annoying details that have to be considered before responding, there's no need to kick it to jet blast: the thing just dies. So, please, when you see a 2-day-old thread, you're only doing a disservice by punting it with a comment "Why hasn't this been kicked to jet blast?" Why? Because the dang thing's moribund.

Second: There's no doubt it's anthropogenic. And there's no doubt things are headed hotter. The only question now is how bad are we going to let things get, and, arguing from historical evidence, the "least bad" is going to be really nasty. I'm not alarmist about it; just pragmatic.

Third: Yes, politicians do not have our best interests at heart, any more than the idiots who protest aircraft. "Democratically Elected" Politicians, when presented with a problem, will determine that the solution is the action that irritates the least number of people while scoring points with the constituency that cited the problem: to the press and the public, one trillion pounds and one million pounds both get the same typeface. Likewise, most environmental activists will go after whatever's iconic instead of whatever can do the greatest good; and they tend to be biased against anything you can classify under "secrets Man was not meant to know."

So, in other words: just because there are a lot of idiots saying stupid things doesn't make anyone right. There's no need to shunt this thread. Just let it die.

[ferris]

Second: There's no doubt it's anthropogenic. And there's no doubt things are headed hotter. Feel free to post your evidence for such dramatic and closed statements here.
In the mean time, here is a link to a petition by scientists purposely to debunk the myth that "most scientist agree" with AGW.
Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

There's 30-odd THOUSAND scientists who disagree. But why let FACTS question the new "religion"?

Next we can move on to why a warmer planet would be catostrophic, or even bad?

[FREDAcheck]

There's 30-odd THOUSAND scientists who disagree. But why let FACTS question the new "religion"?
A Scientific American survey of a sample of signatories suggested that around 200 of the 30,000 are climate researchers. Naturally I'm interested in all opinions, but I hope policy makers concentrate on the opinions of climate experts producing peer-reviewed science.

[ChristiaanJ]

You don't have to be a "climate expert" to recognise BS.... and pseudo-science.

CJ

[Dani]

Is there a list of the 100 airports using PBN?

About global warming:
I posted here about 5 years ago who believes it is true - I was pretty much alone. There are still a lot of pilots who wish to ignore. One proof more that pilots don't have to be very knowledgable. The numbers of ignorants will decrease. Let's hope that they don't use more fuel than necessary - the price of it will make them behave rationally...

Dani

[Ancient Observer]

If one believes in global warming, shouldn't one be out there shooting cows rather than worrying about airplanes?
Over the same time period as the establishment of the Aviation business - say, about 60 years, the Industrialisation of the production of cows has grown at a much faster rate.
Man did not have domestic cows 100 years ago. A few farmers had a very few, but they were prohibitively expensive and only less than 0.1% of the population ate Beef..
As each cow is worse at global warming than each plane flight, I guess we all ought to buy some guns and shoot some cows.