Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

What is your helicopter carbon footprint?

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

What is your helicopter carbon footprint?

Old 2nd Oct 2007, 09:58
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 363
Climate change caused by man-made activity is a scam perpetrated by some scientists with a vested interest and by governments who want to tax us more. Global warming is a natural phenomenon not caused by my helicopter, cows farting or eco-warriors hot air.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm
whoateallthepies is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 12:32
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 620
Whirls,

I wasnt targeting you - I dont know anything about your lifestyle, what you fly, or why - thats why I specifically targetted business jet owners, and huge economies which exempt themselves from the Kyoto treaty.

I never suggested that my flying was OK, and nobody else's was - the implication was that some sorts of flying (eg to save life & limb) is easier to reconcile with the negative effects than others (eg jetting a single pasenger to the Bahamas).

Nobody can claim to know for sure what causes climate change (although some contributors seem dead certain) - but surely we ought to keep an open mind to the possibility that it may be because of us, and it would be a big shame if we sat back and did nothing to stop it.

I'll go now.
Non-PC Plod is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 18:34
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,648
I think most people can see that polluting the world (landfill, dumping at sea, industrial waste, etc) is fundamentally a bad thing and that we should do all we can to avoid contaminating the earth, sea and sky.

But, and it's a big one, the climate changers have convinced themselves that this pollution is causing the climate to change based on flimsy evidence.

Politicians are able to win votes by pretending to be green (and at the same time negotiating carbon offsets so their voters don't actually have to change their lifestyle).

The average joe is bombarded with hype ( once the media say global warming is happening enough times, viewers end up believing it without question because the alternative view gets little airtime.

At the moment aviation contributes a piddling 3% to carbon emmisions but thanks to forecast growth predictions (based on little fact and ignoring the growth in industrial nations) we are targetted because if people can afford to pay to fly, they can afford to pay a bit more to fly.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 18:40
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 322
Crab I think you're bang on the button there.

Well said.

tam
hihover is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 18:41
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Up North
Posts: 261
Well said Crab
chcoffshore is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 23:05
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 43
I think crab summed it up rather well. It really is getting ridiculous.

Ask Pablo? "So, what do you do Pablo?" "Well, I'm a Sustainability Engineer"...

How about a carbon labelled bank account anyone?
This will show existing and potential customers how much carbon their account produces.
swordfling is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 00:34
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,012
Call it hype if you wish, but even then the shrinking glaciers, pack ice and tundra should tell you something, Crab. I am amazed at how a little ignorant political spin, properly laid, can "confuse" people. Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate. Of course, a few non-scientist White House lawyers agree with Crab, so there ARE two points of view. I personally called the head of the US climate labs in Colorado to ask him what he thought about the "debate". He laughed, and said he should really be crying out.

That being said, the actual carbon cost for the van vs the helo is not just covered by the vehicles, as that lame web site describes. The van needs a road, and that road needs a grader, paving trucks and an entire infrastructure of police patrol, tax guys, repair crews, fencing, gasoline stations and such muck to keep it operating. These all add measurably to the "carbon toll" of that van, but are counted as zip.

The helicopter carries its infrastructure on its back, asks nothing else, but with a higher fuel flow, it looks less efficient.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 00:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 53
Posts: 806
What a lot of tax revenue-driven completely unproven fashionable hypocritical David Cameronesque (lets cycle to work but take a Gulfstream G5 to Greenland to watch the glaciers melt) bollocks.

We are in the eighth interglacial age... get over it.

Carbon footprint...my arse. The politicians are laughing their socks off

SB
scooter boy is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 00:58
  #29 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,499
Actually, Mr. Cameron also sometimes takes a helicopter, too.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 01:22
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 70
Posts: 292
crying over spilt avagas

My youngest had some Shell cards he got from the local servo. One of them boasted that the oil co had donated 181, 000 litres of racing fuel to some high profile formula 1 driver during his career.

I've clocked up 1000 hours in R22s, so thats' about 30kL, can I still go to heaven?
22clipper is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 06:41
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,648
Nick, our scientists can't tell you what the weather is going to do next week so how on earth do you think they can accurately predict long term climate change from short-term data.

The scientific community is very good at jumping on bandwagons because that's where the funding for their research comes from.

As for the 'little ignorant political spin, properly laid, can confuse people' - how are you so sure that you are not the victim of exactly that crime?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 10:19
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
The problem is that there is apparently no absolute consensus in the scientific community. The real concern is that the IPCC report has become the focus of political agendas, as shown by this film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Originally screened in UK on:
http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html

The film is worth getting hold of, if only to understand the arguements against C02 warming. From memory it does not mention that the reason it was so much hotter in the time of the dinos was that plants hadn't sucked all the CO2 up. Make up your own mind.

The real problem here is there has not been done a nice simple high school style experiment which removes (or otherwise) any doubt. We need Adam Hart-Davis to the rescue! Any BBC chartered heli pilots?

My own view is that if CO2 debate leads to an efficiency drive, than that is not a such a bad thing. CO2 may be pressurised back into the gound, where it will remain as a sublimed solid. Hovever i would not be suprised if already infrastructure efficient helicopters began R&D on blade twist for reduced fuel burn. Not such a bad outcome.

Maybe all that CO2 R&D money should be seen as an opportunity.

Last edited by Graviman; 3rd Oct 2007 at 10:30.
Graviman is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 10:37
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 322
Funny thing is that last year in Britain it was called Global Warming by the media, this year the weather has been pants so they call it climate change!

Its all spin and just been used to collect more tax and as for the glaciers receeding, well there used to be one in Derbyshire - probably will be again some day!
rotorboater is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 10:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
The other problem here is that it is also masking the other potential issue concering "renewable fuel". Palm oil planting in Bourneo is destroying the natural habital, and is the primary cause for Orangutang decline. In fact most of the current mass exstinction has more to do with the man/nature conflict that climate change. Road building is part of that conflict.

So, when will Sikorsky be releasing that nuclear fusion reactor option on the S92?
Graviman is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 10:55
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 444
Cameron's carbon footprint

From the latest Register of Members' Interests:

To facilitate my travel in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition since December 2005 I have received helicopter and private plane travel from the following:
JCB Research Ltd
Jonathan Green, a retired businessman from London
Lord Harris
Harris Ventures Ltd
Michael Spencer
JC Bamford Excavators Ltd
Community Security Trust, a charity
Henry Lawson, of Henfield Lodge Aviation Ltd, Henfield
Mr Andrew Cook, through William Cook Holdings, Sheffield
(The details of the travel provided have been provided to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.)
24 August 2006, upgrade from Business Class to First Class on a British Airways flight from Johannesburg Airport to London Heathrow. (Registered 30 August 2006)
27 September 2006, helicopter flight from London to Brecqhou, and return, to meet with Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, provided by Aidan Barclay of Ellerman Investments Limited, London. (Registered 20 October 2006)
26 October 2006, private flight from Farnborough, to Belfast, Manchester and return to Farnborough, provided by Mr John Hoerner, of Chipping Norton. (Registered 16 November 2006)
Gift of an oil painting of myself from Sir Jack Harvie CBE. (Registered 10 January 2007)
4 January 2007, return flight from Oxford to Shobdon, near Hereford, for myself, my wife and my daughter, provided by Richard Smith, of HR Smith Group of Companies, Leominster, Herefordshire. (Registered 29 January 2007)

(HR Smith: "Since its formation in 1965, the H.R.Smith Group of Companies has opened up a whole new horizon of advanced technology through the development of a wide range of specialist materials and equipment.

Designed to revolutionise the efficiency of military and civil airborne and land communications, navigation and special functions, H.R.Smith Group expertise leads the world in material and product superiority across a wide spectrum of activities.

The Group also has a distinguished international reputation for high performance advanced thermoplastic structures, microwave antennas and components as well as test instrumentation.")

26 March 2007, private plane from Edinburgh to Blackpool, provided by Mr Michael Peagram, of Oxford. (Registered 13 April 2007)
Two tickets to the FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium on 19 May 2007, provided by The Football Association. (Registered 6 June 2007)
29 June 2007, helicopter from Battersea, London, to Leeds Bradford Airport and return, provided by Mr Tim James on behalf of Kensington & Chelsea Aviation Ltd, Guildford. (Registered 10 July 2007)

Last edited by JimBall; 3rd Oct 2007 at 16:50.
JimBall is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 11:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK/Australia
Posts: 73
I think the causal question of climate change needs to be put in the same basket as religion. There are a lot of believers but not a lot of solid proof in either direction . Each to their own , as its a personal experience journey on both. Zealotry looks like its going to be a bringer of unhappiness in both. IMHO
tacr2man is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 13:39
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 363
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public…and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
- Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

"The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming that preceded it from 950 to 1300 AD stand out in every temperature record as the major weather events of the last 1,000 years, and they're a hefty problem for global warming advocates. If the world was warmer in 1200 AD than today, and far colder in the year 1400, why would we blame current temperatures trends on auto exhausts?"
- Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues

whoateallthepies is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 15:25
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Abingdon uk
Age: 55
Posts: 28
wind - how little to off set ?

Assuming that methane gas is considered to be a major green house gas can I assume that if I give up F--ting my flying will have a neutral carbon foot print ?

If so how much less would I need to degas if if fly a Gazelle than say an R22.

Seriously now - climate change is a problem and will be taken more seriously by all when it is seen to be tackled in less of a tax raising type way.

regards

Richard
Lost Again is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 16:10
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 288
Angel

Interesting read, that thread. Full of kind of conspiracy theories and statements from other people that know, because they have titles which sound very good. It remindes me about the "Nasa was never on the moon" discussion. It is just too boring to reply to all those theories that are around, why it global warming is not true. Look at the last post. Arguing with a time frame of just a few hundred years looks good, but lacks credibility. Look at data about the last 400'000 years and the picture changes. And I could get on and on...
There are a lot of pretty strange experts out there and we as humans have the tendency to believe what is written and what we like to hear.
As pilots we are in the public view the bad boys, but that is not the result of the global warming research. It is a result of how the public sees us through the eyes of those who report things about us. If you want to do something good about our community, stop denying global warming, but look for arguments that show that helicopters are not the reason why I get one heck of a warm summer next year .
Nick Lappos arguments are a pretty good start and I am sure, we could come up with quite a bunch of arguments. And BTW, there is no endless supply of JetA, therefore it is always a good thing not to wast it. It is like "don't play with your food" that your mother told you so many times.
It is about time, we accept the fact, that it is possible, that there will be a global warming. If not, all the better. But if it happens as predicted by the vast majority of the experts, then it is about time to do something. Even if I think, that having a bit more sun and less rain would not hurt me to much here.
What most of the people don't get, is that there is a certain PROBABILITY, that certain things will happen. And on every new modell calculation, that probability gets closer to 1. Today, there is no modell calculation, that predicts no global warming with a higher probability then global warming. And the tendency is going towards a higher probablity of global warming.
And no you can rip appart all the models and argue with the channel 4 "experts". I don't care. The future will show, who was right. But that will not help the helicopter community.
Rotorbee is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2007, 23:20
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 219
That being said, the actual carbon cost for the van vs the helo is not just covered by the vehicles, as that lame web site describes. The van needs a road, and that road needs a grader, paving trucks and an entire infrastructure of police patrol, tax guys, repair crews, fencing, gasoline stations and such muck to keep it operating. These all add measurably to the "carbon toll" of that van, but are counted as zip.
It's a good point, the point being that the calculations are complex, more so when taking into account shared resources like the ones you cite.

I think the best example of this recently was when it turned out flower miles were too simple as a measure of energy use:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6356383.stm

I hope over time goods and services will move to being dual-priced, both in money and energy terms with similar accounting audits. Consumers can then make more of an educated choice. And aviation is just another service, there's nothing unique about it bar some of the international tax agreements.

Bottom line: In 2050 when there are expected to be 9 billion people on this planet and many of them wish to share the living standard (equate that to energy use) of those reading this forum, even if you choose the convenient belief that co2 risk is small, do you want to gamble the only planet you have?
FairWeatherFlyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.