Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

Old 21st May 2019, 23:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UAE
Posts: 3
Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

Im surprised that I have not seen discussion on the obivous challenge that is ahead of aviation. While global environment challenges seem very real and science backed - the aviation industry is still talking about growing over the coming decades. New markets, new routes, more planes and pilots - yet at the same time scientists almost all say our only hope is to cut drastically on emissions.

Are we talking about this fact yet - or is it just too uncomfortable?

your thoughts....

ps: Im an airline pilot - love my job - hope generations to come can too

Last edited by Mach1.; 22nd May 2019 at 09:17.
Mach1. is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 484
Journo by any chance?
Longhitter is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:39
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 366
Journalists and "consultants" who believe that they are the ultimate authority when something goes wrong
Chris2303 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 06:17
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: The woods
Posts: 2
I donít think people in the industry are too concerned at a daily level. Even the futurists are working on a Mach5 project requiring very thirsty propulsion.
A few percent gain here and there keeps the punters happy.
Realistically a full aircraft presently uses less fuel than would be used if each passenger drove his car the same distance solo. That gets forgotten in the climate debate.
bill fly is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 06:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,495
Originally Posted by bill fly View Post
Realistically a full aircraft presently uses less fuel than would be used if each passenger drove his car the same distance solo.
Realistically, that's not setting the bar very high ...

DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 22nd May 2019, 06:56
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea
Posts: 650
The climate “debate” is being argued by anti-vaxing flat-earthers. It's hard to make predictions,especially about the future*, but:
It doesn’t take much imagination to see a day when private aviation, pleasure motor boating, needless journeys and any heavy carbon footprint activity will become both heavily taxed and socially unacceptable.

I can also imagine heavy tarrifs levied by many countries against others seen to be non compliant with whatever crisis accord is ruling the day, because by the time there is any global consensus actual action will be critical.**

*Yogi Berra

**Spare me the idiot rebuttals.
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 22nd May 2019, 07:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: ILS 110.75
Posts: 412
With aviation accounting for about 2% of all global emissions and road transport for 74% - our biggest challenge is to inform and educate.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 07:47
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by Auxtank View Post
With aviation accounting for about 2% of all global emissions and road transport for 74% - our biggest challenge is to inform and educate.
Not exactly. For all transportation, aviation is 12%, road 74%

In our house, we have reduced our road emissions to the minimum, generate all of our net electricity and try to source as much local food as possible. It barely makes a difference.
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 22nd May 2019, 08:19
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 989
Stop listening CEO speeches to the public... There is no concern about emissions on daily basis anywhere in airline industry. Related things are however important: less fuel burn means less money spent. Less fuel burn means less payments for emission quotas (Europe). Those two are measured in real money, taken care of, and subsequently environment benefits from it. Next question?
CargoOne is online now  
Old 22nd May 2019, 08:20
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,154
When I started in this business I would load 10900 KG of fuel on to a HS Trident to fly 160 pax from LHR to GLA or EDI.

Now I put a that sort of fuel load on a B737-800 to fly 189 pax LGW to CFU.

I think that marks the gains in efficiency the industry has made and will continue to make.

Last edited by A and C; 22nd May 2019 at 19:07.
A and C is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 09:21
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,950
What type of aircraft is a B373-800 ?
TSR2 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 09:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by TSR2 View Post
What type of aircraft is a B373-800 ?
New name for the MAX?!
Alan Baker is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 09:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Weedon, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 120
I think the biggest challenge facing aviation and every other "climate-destroying" industry and activity is that the "tree-huggers" can't see anything other than a "ban it" approach. The eventual solution will undoubtedly have to come from an engineering source, using technology to remove the carbon we have poured into the atmosphere over the last 250 years.
There has been some very promising progress on possible techniques in Canada recently, and Cambridge University have set up a dedicated department looking at possibilities, but the activists still think that stopping everything now is a viable position, and that is taking a lot of attention (and resources) away from a realistic approach to the problem.
There will undoubtedly have to be elimination of the worst polluters - burning lignite to produce electricity to charge electric cars makes absolutely no sense at all - but for many human activities the ultimate solution will probably be to find ways to effectively remove the pollution post-event rather than to stop the activity completely.
sooty655 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 10:27
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Dundee
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by Mach1. View Post
Im surprised that I have not seen discussion on the obivous challenge that is ahead of aviation. While global environment challenges seem very real and science backed - the aviation industry is still talking about growing over the coming decades. New markets, new routes, more planes and pilots - yet at the same time scientists almost all say our only hope is to cut drastically on emissions.

Are we talking about this fact yet - or is it just too uncomfortable?

your thoughts....
Yes, there are lots of activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, converting traditional mechanical, hydraulic and pneumatic systems with electrical alternatives. Electric brakes and thrust reversers are just two examples of the work being done, reducing weight and eradicating the use of corrosive, inflammable fluids. The 'More Electric Aircraft' brings its own challenges with increased voltage and power levels which has to be managed through the aircraft wiring. Higher dependency on insulation materials and the continual need to reduce weight is a real focus for the R&D teams at Airbus, Boeing, etc. I'm working on some of these challenges today and great steps are already being taken to meet these growing needs. I'm not employed by Safran but here's a short article that shows their commitment to these initiatives.

https://www.safran-electrical-power....t-power-future
Speedywheels is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 10:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Realistically, that's not setting the bar very high ...

If you must worry about CO2 rather than fuel cost.
Take aircraft type, normal fuel burn for flight, divide by number of miles flown, divide by number of revenue pax. Most modern twins will return better than 120mpg per revenue passenger.
No infrastructure is needed to be built and maintained between departure and destination - no rails or tarmac
Other 'incidentals'
Cost of passenger time traveling is also reduced.
Some journeys are only practicable by air.



Ian W is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 11:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Age: 68
Posts: 78
Some journeys are only practicable by air.

But as they used to say, is your journey really neccessary? e.g. stag weekends to las vegas as some work colleagues recently did?
sunnybunny is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 11:09
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 266
The eventual solution will undoubtedly have to come from an engineering source, using technology to remove the carbon we have poured into the atmosphere over the last 250 years.
I agree that solutions to climate change issues will come from engineering and science but why would we need to
remove the carbon we have poured into the atmosphere over the last 250 years
?
I’m all for cleaning up our act a bit but not sure why CO2 has such a bad name.
Can anyone explain with a bit of data ?
Cheers
73qanda is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 11:24
  #18 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 58
Posts: 4,132
It doesn’t take much imagination to see a day when private aviation, pleasure motor boating, needless journeys and any heavy carbon footprint activity will become both heavily taxed and socially unacceptable.
Yes, and this will have unintended consequences. When I learned to fly (I think back around when A & C was filling up a Trident) there were basically two types of pilots applying to fly for the airlines: Former military pilots, and pilots emerging from "private aviation". The ex Military pilots were very well trained, and used to flying within a regimented system. The private pilots had a more self directed learning path, in more simple planes, as generally they had funded their training and experience themselves. Now we have those paths, plus the more formalized career training path, which really does not include much "private" flying. Fewer hours, less total experience, training directed at the airline role only. Perhaps more similar to the military training environment than than private path.

The "private" path has one difference to the military or career path training, being a lot more self directed, with the pilot making more of their own decisions (particularly go - no go), and solo flying - perhaps in a modest "experience builder" plane. I have seen that pilots who emerge from the self directed path, and have flown a lot of solo, are confident decision makers. The airline passengers of the future would like to be flown by pilots who are well motivated, and confident decision makers. That's not to speak less well of military or career path pilots, we need a mixture of all types of pilots.

As private flying becomes more costly, and less socially welcome, the opportunity will be lost for new pilots to fly hundreds of hours of personal experience building, and solo decision making. Airliners will be flown (or watched form the pilot's seat) by pilots who have passed the training to the minimum requirements, and perhaps had little opportunity to make solo piloting decisions, and carry out the outcome of their decisions.

I hope that the career path training ramps up to produce very experienced entry level airline pilots, 'cause they won't be coming from the "private" path so much in the future.....
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 11:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 623
It is refreshing to see some science being applied to the issue as opposed to believing that school children egged on by pushy parents are the world experts

Aviation is 4% of UK CO2 production, and 2% globally. Both aviation and shipping have applied science to reduce pollution per unit cargo mile, but volumes have increased. Banning transportation will not solve anything.

The biggest issues are:

The big polluters. China produces 100 times the CO2 that the UK does and has increased by 17% ie one other country has increased CO2 production by 17 times the total UK CO2.

Developing countries particularly Poland and Indonesia who are churning out coal, building coal fired power stations and refuse to come to the table

Corruption, which has led to deforestation especially in South America and mass poverty in sub saharan Africa. The latter perpetuates wood burning for fuel and prevents eg hydroelectric development in the DRC

The west IMHO needs to address these ongoing issues and promote technology such as carbon capture to sell / give to to developing countries.
homonculus is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 11:29
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 930
Iím all for cleaning up our act a bit but not sure why CO2 has such a bad name.
Can anyone explain with a bit of data ?
Just in case you have been off-planet for the last 100 years or so:
Greenhouse gasses
It was an established module on my engineering course over 40 years ago
beardy is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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