The dawn of the 100 mile final?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I assume the London airports are not on the list of 100 airports where this scheme will be implemented.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Up front
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.' 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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".............
Never mind, I know I should always bring my "A game"......
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".............
Never mind, I know I should always bring my "A game"......
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: West Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
No denial, just a sensible dose of cynicism!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But... SEBASTIAN... How much would the CO2 have increased without the IR????
Many scientists guarantee it would still have increased just as much.
As for the "it happened XX,XXX years ago" stuff...rubbish. Global warming and natural climate change in the past (interesting site, and spend a few minutes kicking around there and RealClimate 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
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
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Institute of Physics (AIP)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Last edited by Sebastian-PGP; 3rd Apr 2009 at 14:56.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: West Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cows or planes?
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.
So I look forward to all the alleged environmentalists lobbying to KILL all cows.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Baltimore
Age: 49
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Sebastian-PGP; 6th Apr 2009 at 00:51. Reason: misspeled werds
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.