Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Flight Could Save Thousands Of Gallons Of Fuel"  
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6871 posts, RR: 7
Posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10982 times:

San Jose Mercury News for 18 October:

"A few weeks ago, [Air New Zealand] operated a plane from Auckland to San Francisco to demonstrate how a flight could save thousands of gallons of fuel and cut tons of carbon emissions by using new technology and procedures it had developed with th U. S. Federal Aviation Administration."

What are they talking about?

[Edited 2008-10-25 21:08:34]

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10973 times:

Possibly linked to the approach the QF A380 did the other day, something about approaching with engines in idle(?) and doing the approach from a steeper height?

User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10918 times:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4186825/


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12212 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 10851 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Timz (Thread starter):
It was operated by

NZ operated the flight using a B772 on NZ8. The flight involved all practical operational restraints, including air traffic congestion control vectoring, air traffic fixed route structure, procedures, flow restrictions and airline restraints removed.

While waiting at the terminal, instead of the B777 using its APU, it was connected to AKL and SFOs power units.

The flight had priority clearance from air traffic control for landing, taxiing and departure. With priority clearance, it allowed the pilots to glide the aircraft in, so the pilots would not constantly increase the throttles to maintain height. a priority departure route out of Los Angeles, unimpeded climb through to cruise altitude", the most efficient flight path that took into account winds and aircraft weight.


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10101 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 777ER (Reply 3):
The flight had priority clearance from air traffic control for landing, taxiing and departure. With priority clearance, it allowed the pilots to glide the aircraft in, so the pilots would not constantly increase the throttles to maintain height. a priority departure route out of Los Angeles, unimpeded climb through to cruise altitude", the most efficient flight path that took into account winds and aircraft weight.

So basically, they did a bunch of stuff that they can't do for every flight on a regular basis?

Oh well, I suppose it is an interesting demonstration, even if not feasible at all.

Regarding the approach and priority clearance, do you mean that they did a steeper approach? Because if they did the standard 3-degree glideslope, I'd assume they wouldn't have the engines at idle during the whole approach.

Or are you referring to an idle descent from cruise altitude down to final approach?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10646 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):
So basically, they did a bunch of stuff that they can't do for every flight on a regular basis?

Oh well, I suppose it is an interesting demonstration, even if not feasible at all.

This type of thing would be possible if ADS-B (or it's equivalents) plus full open skies every got fully implemented. I think NZ did it to show just how much savings there could be, as an impetus to the regulators to actually get on with it.

UPS is using scheduled arrivals at one of their airports (where they're basically 100% of the traffic), which basically allows you to do all of the cruise/descent/landing part of what NZ, but on a regular basis.

Tom.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10576 times:

As was pointed out a while back on Yahoo! news, if every commercial flight could take a direct route to its destination instead of having to use the "trafficways" in the sky, thousands upon thousands of gallons of fuel could be saved, not to mention time and stress.

Unfortunately, the FAA still has no ability to even get such a system set-up or implemented, so demonstrations of how efficient airplanes can be will remain just that - demonstrations.

An impressive show, but with the antiquated system supporting it not about to change, too bad.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12212 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10441 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):

NZ is introducing heaps of new measures to save fuel usuage which will make NZ a market leader, like bio fuel on all its domestic fleet by 2010, blended winglets on its B763s next year, another measure on its B744 fleet which removes water from inside the engines/fuel.

The test flight was a prooving flight so it can become basically standard on all flights. The aircraft will remain at cruising alititude for about 15-20mins longer so the aircraft can glide down at a steeper descent with the engines at idle speed, and ATC will give them priority landing. The FAA are 100% behind the idea, or else they wouldn't have allowed NZ to operate the flight.


User currently offlineHercPPMX From United States of America, joined May 2008, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10201 times:

Wouldn't letting one aircraft have priority landing to save full keep the other Aircraft in the pattern to remain in the air longer, and burning more fuel. The same thought could be applied to the priority take off, other aircraft have to wait longer to get off the ground and burn more fuel. I don't quite understand how this would make sense at the busy airports of the world, however at the smaller less busy ones you could save fuel.. Maybe I just don't 100% get the idea, but bravo to the governments and to NZ for trying to find more "green" ways to operate.


C-130; it's a love-hate relationship
User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10161 times:

The above described arrival is called ASPIRE (can't remember what it stands for), here is a link to a description:

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/news/2006/q4/061002b_nr.html

If you are flying (or have flown) into Atlanta between August 19th and November 18th on a red-eye flight from the West Coast on Delta or AirTran, you will be flying an arrival procedure called the NOTRE (landing to the West) or the VIKNN (landing to the East). These procedures are called Continuous Descent Arrivals which involve and aircraft descending from cruise to the runway with engines idle and on a three degree glide slope.

We here at GATech, along with the FAA, Delta and AirTran have developed these procedures and are testing them to see whether the aircraft can fly them and meet our predictions. From preliminary results, aircraft get to the runway faster, and save a substantial amount of fuel. Aircraft do not need any more equipment than is already on the aircraft, no ADS-B, nothing. Just an FMS, radio, ACARS and a flight plan.

9V-SPJ


User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9690 times:

Sounds a bit like the procedure SAS trialled at ARN a few months ago, where one of the arrivals from the US had continous idle descent from top of climb until touchdown.

User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

I really whish there is a plan to try the same thing here in Dorval!!! The euro flights could already be coming in almost exactly in the runway axis, day after day, over the River...

User currently offlineSuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7767 times:

9V-SPJ -

You wouldn't happen to have the approach plates for these procedures. I checked AirNav as well as the FAA but couldn't find anything for VIKNN or NOTRE

Unfortunately I will not be on any red-eyes into ATL - but hearing about it makes me what to book a flight just for that. I got to imagine it is a pretty quite descent if the engines are at IDLE.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7398 times:

SuseJ772, they are ATC assigned only procedures, that's why you can't find them on AirNav or FAA. I am not sure if I can send you the actual Jepps, but I could probably send you a poster we presented at the conference which has the charts that we created, not Jepps. Incidentally, if you are interested, have a look at the RIIVR1 or 2 into LAX on AirNav or FlightAware. We designed that one as well and it is also a CDA.

9V-SPJ


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7335 times:

Isn't that kind of approach the best guess for why BA38 crashed in Heathrow? Very low fuel draw allowing watery fuel to freeze in the lines on the way down?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offline9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

Nomadd22, no, to maintain the glideslope, and if the aircraft is configured for landing (flaps, gear etc) thrust is required.

9V-SPJ


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6956 times:



Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 8):
Wouldn't letting one aircraft have priority landing to save full keep the other Aircraft in the pattern to remain in the air longer, and burning more fuel. The same thought could be applied to the priority take off, other aircraft have to wait longer to get off the ground and burn more fuel. I don't quite understand how this would make sense at the busy airports of the world, however at the smaller less busy ones you could save fuel.

You need to implement it on all aircraft (or at least a big majority). When you do that, it's not a "priority landing" or "priority takeoff", it's just scheduled. If aircraft were sequenced in and out of airports this wouldn't be a big issue, but the current system waits until everyone arrives essentially on the airport before scheduling people in...as a result, you get pileups. Same thing for takeoff.

Think of it this way...30 aircraft are due to depart in the next hour. Only one of them is going to go straight to takeoff...the other 29 are going to wait for some length of time, burning fuel out on the ramp...that happens because, until you push back, you don't have a spot in the takeoff line. However, if they scheduled the pushbacks (say, every 2 minutes) then each and every airplane would get to go straight to the runway with a "priority takeoff" but they wouldn't be burning fuel waiting on the ramp (they'd still be waiting, just not running engines to do it).

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 14):
Isn't that kind of approach the best guess for why BA38 crashed in Heathrow? Very low fuel draw allowing watery fuel to freeze in the lines on the way down?

Actually, this kind of approach would have saved BA because they would have hit the runway threshold on an idle final approach, so they never would have had to spool up engines. The engines were running just fine at idle, the problem showed up when they tried to spool up for final. They wouldn't have had much reverse thrust ,but brakes would have been fine.

Tom.


User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6867 times:



Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 15):
Nomadd22, no, to maintain the glideslope, and if the aircraft is configured for landing (flaps, gear etc) thrust is required.

Indeed. Particularly to counteract drag induced by increasing flaps, especially at 20 degrees or further.



DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5383 times:

The idea is not to have the engines at idle all the way to touchdown !

You must have all engines spooled up by 1000 feet above the runway, otherwise in case you need the power the response time is simply too long.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5059 times:



Quoting HercPPMX (Reply 8):
Wouldn't letting one aircraft have priority landing to save full keep the other Aircraft in the pattern to remain in the air longer, and burning more fuel. The same thought could be applied to the priority take off, other aircraft have to wait longer to get off the ground and burn more fuel. I don't quite understand how this would make sense at the busy airports of the world, however at the smaller less busy ones you could save fuel.. Maybe I just don't 100% get the idea, but bravo to the governments and to NZ for trying to find more "green" ways to operate.

The idea is that through improved technology and by having a more precise ETA etc ATC can plan in advance of when they need that slot...but yes it does mean that another aircraft that arrives early might have to hold a bit longer unless ATC can implement the technology and procedures universally.
For an airline like NZ flying to the USA it is easier to implement this than say a USA domestic carrier as the NZ flight will be flying for about 12 hours from the South Pacific with practically no other airtraffic around them the entire flight except for that last 20 mins into SFO as they are out over the ocean. By having the ideal poweroff descent from cruise altitude can save a lot of fuel without affecting other airlines much (if any) at all.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4761 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
The idea is not to have the engines at idle all the way to touchdown !

You must have all engines spooled up by 1000 feet above the runway, otherwise in case you need the power the response time is simply too long.

That's why flight idle and ground idle are different speeds (at least on some engines). FAR spool-up requirements apply at all phases of flight.

Tom.


User currently offlineJgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4535 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
You need to implement it on all aircraft (or at least a big majority). When you do that, it's not a "priority landing" or "priority takeoff", it's just scheduled.

I'm glad someone else picked up on that. This type of thing become impractical even impossible if you start to scale it up. New technology will help, but at major airports you are always going to have multiple a/c arriving at what would be the same time. So ATC is always going to have make one #1, another #2, etc. Even if airlines can deconflict from their own scheduling and the from schedules of other airliners you are always going to have delays for mx, wx etc.


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (5 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

I agree with those who say that airlines are, in one way, using the "environmental fashion" to make progress on items that were on their agenda for long, under other guises. For instance, in Europe, haven't the airlines pleaded for simpler ATC and a "single sky" for years, hoping to cut some flying time, with all the economical gains that would come with it? To little or no avail, up to now; the governments have always been quick and keen to act upon air transport, whenever it meant inventing a new tax (or bailing out someone, let's be honest); helping the industry to function well has not been so much popular. Now, airlines are trying, I suppose, to gain some public support to achieve ATC gains that are good for everybody and everything, environment included. Why not?

But, as some say, in a normal world, there will still be stacks of airplanes waiting to take-off or to land at the same time, and sometimes including flyuing between the same airports... That is the time when the industry will face its own contradictions, about frequency vs capacity, for instance, and about offering soooo many flights to choose from, with small planes filling the airways.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (5 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 3875 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
However, if they scheduled the pushbacks (say, every 2 minutes) then each and every airplane would get to go straight to the runway with a "priority takeoff" but they wouldn't be burning fuel waiting on the ramp (they'd still be waiting, just not running engines to do it).

Which sounds great in theory, but won't work in practice. As soon as you get a non-compliant pax, a broken towbar, a late bag, or any other minor problem, you have now started a cascade that will affect all the other flights behind you. You will not be able to make a flight push early, because they are not ready, but for a relatively minor problem, you will have to delay this flight for possibly an hour or more because someone couldn't stow his bag in time or delay other flights to slot in this now late flight. This will further create havoc with arriving flights and gate space.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 3780 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 23):
Which sounds great in theory, but won't work in practice. As soon as you get a non-compliant pax, a broken towbar, a late bag, or any other minor problem, you have now started a cascade that will affect all the other flights behind you. You will not be able to make a flight push early, because they are not ready, but for a relatively minor problem, you will have to delay this flight for possibly an hour or more because someone couldn't stow his bag in time or delay other flights to slot in this now late flight. This will further create havoc with arriving flights and gate space.

I suspect 'just in time manufacturing' and other complex scheduling processes, even our inefficient ATC likely have a whole bag of tricks to build slack in almost everything. You could even hirer cooks from fancy busy restaurants!



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
25 Lowrider : It does. Air Cargo. When the plant runs short of something, that is who they call. Not really, if they did the New York, Newark, Philly area would be
26 Post contains links EBGARN : SAS domestic in Sweden has done this for a few years now: http://www.lfv.se/sv/LFV/LFV/60014/60119/60126/ While I'm personally not on the "CO2 bandwag
27 Tdscanuck : You still need to sequence, but the big change is that you do it *way* earlier in the process. If you know you're #27 for landing when you're an hour
28 Dispatchguy : It's not just the US. The Canadians tried a no-notice trial earlier this month where flights from the US to the Tracks would, once they crossed into
29 Max Q : Tds, Regardless of flight idle and ground idle speeds it is an industry requirement at every airline worldwide that, on approach you have engines spoo
30 Tdscanuck : Well, it's not only a technical one, but that's not really relevant. I'm well aware of what a stabilized approach is. Only one of the stabilized appr
31 PeterPuck : Continuous idle decents end at a minimum of 500 feet agl. Engines must be spooled up between 500 feet and the flare. No airline out there is any diff
32 9V-SPJ : For many airlines, you have to be on a stabilized approach 1000 ft AGL, this would mean flying the 3 degree glideslope, resulting in power need to mai
33 Kellmark : If you have the spoilers up they both increase drag and decrease lift. Sink rate goes up dramatically. Not what you want on a final approach. With al
34 Kellmark : One other point about the spoiler issue. The aircraft are not certified to operate that way. Transport aircraft must meet go-around requirements with
35 Tdscanuck : You can increase alpha to counter the lift decrement...then you can run the engines at higher speed for to counter the higher drag, giving you a high
36 Mir : You can't maintain a 3-degree glideslope at idle power, so a CDA is one performed at idle from cruise down to where the aircraft starts configuring (
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"The Flight Of The Phoenix" posted Thu Dec 30 2004 03:34:31 by Thomasphoto60
"Flight Of The Phoenix" posted Sun Oct 24 2004 02:26:39 by Thomasphoto60
FlightBlogger: "One Year On: The Story Of The 787" posted Tue May 6 2008 02:29:32 by 797charter
BE - "Wings Of The Community"? posted Tue Apr 29 2008 02:07:31 by Vasu
Does Pulling Out Of A City Damage "Good Will" posted Sun Nov 4 2007 19:59:05 by BillReid
Air AsiaX "Spirit Of Sir Freddie" A Bad Omen? posted Mon Oct 15 2007 11:06:14 by USADreamliner
Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline? posted Thu Aug 30 2007 18:19:47 by CO777DAL
The Future Of The New "Midwest" posted Fri Aug 17 2007 11:25:40 by N917ME
Lt. Gov Of NY Has "attack" JFK-BUF- Details? posted Tue Jul 24 2007 16:36:11 by Skoker
CX "Spirit Of Hong Kong" Under The Weather At LAX posted Tue Jul 17 2007 03:59:16 by CXB744
Out Of Jet Fuel In ACC? posted Wed May 28 2008 17:34:53 by Aviateur
The Results Of Expensive Fuel On Aircraft Size posted Thu Feb 14 2008 23:08:52 by KennyK
Flight Int'l: Download All Issues Of 1909-2007 posted Tue Jun 19 2007 21:00:41 by Jimyvr
Hawaii-Bound Flight Diverted To SFO Because Of PAX posted Wed Apr 4 2007 04:24:39 by 1011
BA Flight 252 On The 5th Of Jan posted Sat Jan 6 2007 15:42:17 by Albird87
Surinam B747-300 Flight On April 14th Out Of AMS posted Tue Dec 12 2006 23:24:34 by Birdwatching
Airbus Could Trigger Nuclear Option Of € Controls posted Mon Nov 27 2006 18:09:54 by Longhaulheavy
If You Could Meet The Head Of Technical Operations posted Thu Nov 9 2006 05:06:50 by HPAEAA
TG Flight Return To ARN Because Of Aggresive Pax posted Sun Jan 22 2006 01:44:37 by Flyboy_se