The USA EPA is planning to issue "greenhouse" emission rules for commercial aircraft.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News ... rafts.html

The article indicates that the rules will be in line (or possibly more strict) than the IACO rules, and that the newest generation of aircraft already exceed the standards.

It is my belief that the recent Covid-19 situation will make meeting these regulations easy. So many of the older and worst polluting aircraft are being retired.

Have a great day,

This is a great example of the weirdness of American legislation and rule making.

The Trump admin wants a rule so it can't be sued for failure to issue a rule. As outlined by the NYT:

In 2016, the Obama administration released a legal conclusion known as an “endangerment finding,” which determined that the planet-warming pollution produced by airplanes endangers human health by contributing to climate change. The endangerment finding did not include the details of a regulation, but it set off a legal requirement under the Clean Air Act for the E.P.A. to establish a rule.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/clim ... e=Homepage

If environmental groups want a stricter rule they need to submit evidence through the comment period of the rule making process. If the rule making is completed with a weak requirement going into force, they will then sue to argue that evidence/best practices/legal blah blah blah was ignored.

Don't forget, the Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that, not only could CO2 emissions be regulated at the federal level, the court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/worl ... 24385.html

This could be tied up in the courts for a decade - just what carriers want.

This is Boeing's baby. They need to move some Max's.

These standards were agreed to at ICAO in 2016, which then require transposition into national regulations. Boeing wants EPA to move on the rule so that its aircraft can be certified in the U.S. Otherwise, Boeing might have to get certification from another country to sell its equipment to non-U.S. airlines.

I think the airlines are facing worse issues than 'global warming'. Think, furloughs, layoffs, Chap. 11, iconic fleet retirements (tho iconic fleet retirements might affect us geeks more.), money losses, order cancellations, etc. I think these rules need to be made less strict, because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

Boeing757100 wrote:

because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

...wow.

Question: have you ever actually sat back and pondered the reason scientists are concerned about global warming/Anthropocene Climate Change?

If not, then look to your own capitalization.

LAX772LR wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

...wow.

Question: have you ever actually sat back and pondered the reason scientists are concerned about global warming/Anthropocene Climate Change?

If not, then look to your own capitalization.

What I meant is that airlines right now aren't in the shape for that yet. If it were last December, sure. With so much happening, they need to survive, and with that, they can get more money, so they can shift focus to better things, such as global warming prevention.

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think the airlines are facing worse issues than 'global warming'. Think, furloughs, layoffs, Chap. 11, iconic fleet retirements (tho iconic fleet retirements might affect us geeks more.), money losses, order cancellations, etc. I think these rules need to be made less strict, because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

You are 100% right sir, let's not put something as trivial as the survival of the human race and the planet we live ahead of the most important thing at the moment, the survival of the Investors Interests.

The proposed rule is now up on the EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissio ... -pollution

As other posters noted, it adopts the ICAO 2017 standard. A few noteworthy points:

• Applies to jets above 5700kg and propeller-driven aircraft above 8618kg maximum takeoff mass.
• Applies to certification applications submitted after January 1, 2020.
• Applies to in-production aircraft as of January 1, 2028.
• Does not apply to in-service aircraft.
• Uses a metric based on fuel-consumption per km and fuselage size
• Also updates existing standards for partial combustion products and nitrogen oxide emissions.
• Does not apply to specialized aircraft like amphibians, STOL, or dedicated freighter designs (eg - Lockheed LM-100)
• Mildly interesting trivia: "Modern aircraft are overall consumers of methane," so it is a greenhouse gas not covered by the rule

bkmbr wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think the airlines are facing worse issues than 'global warming'. Think, furloughs, layoffs, Chap. 11, iconic fleet retirements (tho iconic fleet retirements might affect us geeks more.), money losses, order cancellations, etc. I think these rules need to be made less strict, because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

You are 100% right sir, let's not put something as trivial as the survival of the human race and the planet we live ahead of the most important thing at the moment, the survival of the Investors Interests.

The proposed rule is about greenhouse gases, not the survival of the human race. If you don't understand the distinction, the UN panel on climate change has very detailed and extensive reports summarizing the scientific forecasts of the effects of climate change in only a few thousand pages of light reading. The summary for policy makers in the Synthesis Report here is a good starting place, since it condenses many of the important conclusions down to a mere 32 pages:
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/?rp=ar5

There are certainly plenty of serious negative effects to be concerned about, including increased deaths due to natural disasters, but the survival of the human race is not in question.

Personally, given the modest scope of the changes, I see no reason to delay implementation of this rule. However, Boeing 757100's point is not irrelevant. In the context of addressing a problem with a 150 year history so far, and for which we are planning 100+ years into the future, a year or two of delay in implementing an initial round of regulations on one industry in a single country won't amount to much. The key point I would respond with is this proposed rule won't affect airline survival, and as far as I can see, none of the airlines are objecting to it.

The best to curb emissions is to update ATC. It is so inefficient if we could do idel descents from altitude to landing we would cut a ton of emissions. Getting rid of entrail spacing and upping staffing so sectors didn’t max out we would save a ton of emissions.

Re airlines not complaining about this rule:
Skimming through the EPA notice of proposed rulemaking


On page 42
"The proposed rule would apply to all covered airplanes, in-production and new type designs, produced after the respective effective dates of the standards" which is 2020 for brand new designs and 2028 for designs already being built/worked on.

The planes they already own, and any planes they take delivery of through 2027 don't have to met these standards (unless that plane is a new design so B797 or A360, AND for some reason Airbus or Boeing designed the plane to not meet standards, which i don't see happening.)

Re the 2028 cut off for current designs on page 104-5 (quote is longish at end) it seems that they don't have anything to worry about being able to buy theplane they want. I haven't seen an official list of what planes don't make the rule but it sounds like A220/A320neos/A330neos/A350s and B737max/777X/787s will all meet the 2028 in production standards.

It seems the only thing airlines would have to worry about is will there be airplanes available on the market after the current model line up of new designs/NEOs/Xs/Maxes and if the economics of those planes are feasible or too expensive. So the only reason i could see them objecting to this is if Boeing and Airbus are saying the new design goals are impossible and I'd imagine B and A would speak up forthemselves to the EPA if that was a worry.



"3. Technology Response and Implications of the Proposed Standard
The EPA does not project that the proposed GHG rule would cause manufacturers to make technical improvements to their airplanes that would not have occurred in the absence of the rule
(I cut some stuff out here)
• Those few in-production airplane models that do not meet the levels of the proposed GHG standards are at the end of their production life and are expected to go out of production in the near term; and
• These few in-production airplane models anticipated to go out of production are being replaced or are expected to be replaced by in-development airplane models (airplane
models that have recently entered service or will in the next few years) in the near term"

Boeing757100 wrote:

I think the airlines are facing worse issues than 'global warming'. Think, furloughs, layoffs, Chap. 11, iconic fleet retirements (tho iconic fleet retirements might affect us geeks more.), money losses, order cancellations, etc. I think these rules need to be made less strict, because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

I mean in the airline industry if you can cut cost you are cutting inefficient aircraft. The newer planes happens to be fuel efficient but they also lower operating cost. So airlines have been focusing on survival.

Pretty soon they'll have us all plying the seas again in wind-powered clippers.

Maybe CFRP is a good substitute for oak.

crownvic wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

because airlines need to focus on SURVIVAL, not global warming, at least not YET.

...wow.

Question: have you ever actually sat back and pondered the reason scientists are concerned about global warming/Anthropocene Climate Change?

If not, then look to your own capitalization.

Wouldn't you also be one of those people that rushes to get onto a flight in First Class, with zero thought of the environment based on so many of your previous posts?

If you're going to fecklessly accuse, feel free to list/link even one such post. I'll wait.

flyorski wrote:

This is Boeing's baby. They need to move some Max's.

Like this bit of irony.

res sailing freighters - designers are always coming up with some sort of sail assist, they look pretty neat, but none of them can do the job. Yet!

rrbsztk wrote:

Re airlines not complaining about this rule:
Skimming through the EPA notice of proposed rulemaking
It seems the only thing airlines would have to worry about is will there be airplanes available on the market after the current model line up of new designs/NEOs/Xs/Maxes and if the economics of those planes are feasible or too expensive. So the only reason i could see them objecting to this is if Boeing and Airbus are saying the new design goals are impossible and I'd imagine B and A would speak up forthemselves to the EPA if that was a worry.



"3. Technology Response and Implications of the Proposed Standard
The EPA does not project that the proposed GHG rule would cause manufacturers to make technical improvements to their airplanes that would not have occurred in the absence of the rule
(I cut some stuff out here)
• Those few in-production airplane models that do not meet the levels of the proposed GHG standards are at the end of their production life and are expected to go out of production in the near term; and
• These few in-production airplane models anticipated to go out of production are being replaced or are expected to be replaced by in-development airplane models (airplane
models that have recently entered service or will in the next few years) in the near term"

It seems to me that if the next generation of aircraft after the MAX, NEO, 787 and 77X can’t meet a standard their predecessors already do, they’re unlikely to be viable even without a regulation.

[threeid][/threeid]I need to figure out how to post pictures; and I don't have time at the moment. But, after studying the standards and the charts within the proposal several things are obvious (you can identify aircraft by Maximum Take Off Mass/Weight.

1) This standard does not push the aircraft or engine makers to improve their aircraft. Essentially, with exactly one exception on the wide-body fleet (see point 2) - existing production aircraft on programs that are intended to continue (See Point 3) - already well meet the new aircraft standard for 2028, and really exceed the "Existing in production" standard for 2028. The A350, B787, meet both standards. Actually the A380 also meets the standards. The 777X meets both standards.

2) The 767-300 and 767F does not meet the "Existing Type in production" standard. This matches with the information that Boeing is working on a 767-400F version to use more modern engines.

3) The 747-8i and 847-8F does not meet the "Existing Type in production" standard. Its finished.

I have not yet looked at the narrow body charts and tried to identify which dots represent which aircraft - although most current "in production" aircraft meet the standards.

So this is not about saving the planet. It's about adopting a standard that the industry generally already meets and exceeds. Makes for good PR.

I also have not yet figured out how this will affect P2F Conversions.

Have a great day,