New Landing procedures to reduce Carbon output

kippy

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/eyaueyideykf/

Can anyone who is familiar with flying give their opinion on this? Is it as easy to implement/carry out as is being stated in the report?
I assume the savings come from the lack of needing to power up the engines at various times to keep to a particular level?

Kippy

View Profile

Yeah apparently this has been in the pipeline for a while now. I think the JAA/EASA are in the process of implementing this. Arrival charts (STARs) are being reprinted as well as approach plates to allow for constant descents. At the moment it's a step down method which involves levelling off at selected altitudes before being cleared for further descents. This of course burns more fuel.
I'm in the process of doing my instrument rating and my instructor is teaching me to fly my approaches at a constant rate of descent to allow me to reach my MDA without having to level off before hand. Its easier for the pilot and more "commercial".

techdiver

Sorry if this is a stupid question as I know very little about this, but why wasn't this landing approach always used if it is more fuel efficient and easier for the pilot as the last poster stated?

View Profile

Its probably due to more accurate ATC systems and more sophisticated onboard computers in modern a/c.

FlutterinBantam

Apparently SAS are conducting experiments to evaluate this procedure,more as a fuel conserving idea rather than emission driven.

Would have limited practicality in my opinion.

More PR than anything else.

irishatco

The IAA are involved with Eurocontrol in testing a new structure for terminal airspace that will help achieve this, with the aim of introducing it as Dublin. There are also project teams from Oslo, Rome and Paris involved I believe.

I'm a bit short on detail as it's still at an experimental level and hasn't been shown to many Irish controllers, but from what I've heard it will reduce fuel burn in the approach phase of flight, along with a reduction in pilot and controller workload, so will increase airspace capacity and reduce delays.

There's a small bit of reading here: http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/proj_Point_Merge.html

On a wider level, if agreement can be reached on the flexible use of military airspace, and greater integration of ATM systems occurs, then there will be greater scope for allowing point to point air travel and CDAs, but that's a long way in the future in my opinion, and will involved huge investment in equipment, procedures and training.

Mailman

according to my rough calcs that's a saving of 143 litres of aviation fuel on a landing.

environmentalists say co2 released above ground level is more damaging than at sea level so there's a benefit there too.

Board Walker

oh great! this means exploding ear drums! grrrrrrrrr

chickenhawk

Board Walker wrote: »

oh great! this means exploding ear drums! grrrrrrrrr

Why? Just keep a 500fpm descent.

Tenger

irishatco wrote: »

On a wider level, if agreement can be reached on the flexible use of military airspace,

Have seen a map before of French airspace and theres an awful lot of military airspace there. By cutting down on the restricted areas you allow commercial airliners shorter routes. I know that flights from London to DUB are often (but not always) shorter on the weekend as the RAF only run excercises in Wales Mon-Fri.

diverdriver

Flutterinbantam has it right. That's pure PR. In fact it's all about saving fuel for the airlines. Thus saving money. Which is what it's all about. As for reducing 'Carbon' emissions. Well I wish people would stop using that term. Carbon implies dirty black stuff. In fact it's Carbon Dioxide, a colourless, non polluting gas that is vital for photosynthesis. Without it we all die.

That article is pure spin for the benefit of the greenies. It won't make an difference of course. They still want everyone to stop breathing out Co2 and riding bicycles everywhere to save the Polar Bear.

A320-200

chickenhawk wrote: »

Why? Just keep a 500fpm descent.

You seem to be forgetting that the cabin descends at a much lower rate that the actual aircraft. An aircraft descending at -3000 fpm will have a cabin descent rate of around -400/-500 fpm. Also a 500 FPM descent from cruise is ridiculous. For example cruising FL360 EDDF-EIDW, you want to cross BAGSO at FL100. The top of descent is 78NM from BAGSO, with an ROD of -2500ft roughly. The same restriction with an ROD of -500 FPM would lead to a TOD of 411NM from BAGSO, in which case you would be talking to Amsterdam radar(if not still Langen). Trying to co-ordinate a continuous descent of an aircraft between 3 CTA's isn't a big problem, but if every other aircraft does the same thing its becomes an impossibility if attempted with todays airspace structure.

I have to agree with flutterinbantam, i cant actually see the point of implementing this for the small amount of fuel you're going to save. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

chickenhawk

A320-200 wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that the cabin descends at a much lower rate that the actual aircraft. An aircraft descending at -3000 fpm will have a cabin descent rate of around -400/-500 fpm.

I was talking about cabin pressure. Even in a seminole 500fpm is slow never mind an a320!!

Good post by the way.