British Airways Fuel Tankering Debacle: Environmental Hypocrisy in the Airline Industry?

After a British Airways whistleblower’s recent revelations, is the global airline industry as a whole guilty of “environmental hypocrisy”?

By: Ringo Bones

A British Airways whistleblower has just recently revealed an industry-wide practice that deliberately adds weight to flights that invariably increased greenhouse gas emissions on every flight. A practice called “Fuel Tankering” sees planes filled with extra fuel because they fill up on airports where the aviation fuel is priced cheaper than their home base or their final destination airports. After the British Airways’ whistleblower’s revelations on the BBC Panorama, it shows that the British Airways’ fleet of planes generated an extra 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide as of 2018 through fuel tankering.  Cost savings made on a single flight range from as small as just 10-quid or 10 UK£ - but in some situations, the savings can run for hundreds of pounds.

British Airways were accused of “environmental hypocrisy” and “green washing” after airing adverts and public relations spin on the airline company’s commitment to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and more recently on their commitment on solidarity with the global Climate Emergency movement.  If the global airline industry had been practicing fuel tankering during the past few years, their overall additional carbon dioxide emissions would be an additional 900,000 tonnes per year. John Sauven, Greenpeace UK’s executive director, told the BBC that this was a “classic example of a company putting profit before planet”

Whistleblower Sounds Alarm on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner Oxygen System

With the iconic plane-maker’s still unresolved problems with its widely flown 737 Max, is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s oxygen system problematic enough to raise a whistleblower’s concern?

By: Ringo Bones

Two days ago, a Boeing whistleblower had raised doubts and alarm over the 787 Dreamliner’s oxygen system claiming that the passengers flying on board the 787 Dreamliner could be left without life-saving oxygen in a case of sudden cabin depressurization. A former quality control engineer from Boeing named John Barnett says tests suggesting that up to a quarter of the oxygen systems could be faulty and might not work when needed. He also claimed faulty parts were deliberately fitted to planes on the production line at one Boeing factory. Boeing denies his accusations and says all its aircraft are built to the highest levels of safely and quality. With the “faulty” automatic anti-stall system of their top-selling Boeing 737 Max, is this another unresolved engineering problem that could become a catastrophic failure of the 787 Dreamliner?

Back in 2016, John Barnett told the BBC that he uncovered problems with the emergency oxygen systems. These are supposed to keep passengers and crew alive if the cabin pressurization fails for any reason at altitude. Breathing masks are meant to drop down from the ceiling, which then supply oxygen from a gas cylinder. Without such systems, the occupants of a plane would rapidly be incapacitated. At 35,000-feet (10,600-meters) they would be unconscious in less than a minute. At 40,000-feet, it could happen within 20 seconds. Brain damage and even death could follow.

Although sudden decompression events are rare, they do happen. In April 2018, for example, a window blew out of a Southwest Airlines aircraft after being hit by debris from a damaged engine. One passenger sitting beside the window suffered serious injuries and later died as a result – but others were able to draw on the emergency oxygen supplies and survived unharmed.

Is Cathay Pacific On The Wrong Side Of History?

Is Cathay Pacific now on the “wrong side of history” for suspending a pilot involved in the Hong Kong pro democracy protests?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though the Beijing government is still wary of doing a repeat of the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, there has been a consensus in the so-called “liberal West” that Cathay Pacific may be on the “wrong side of history” when the management immediately suspended one of its pilots involved in the pro democracy protests in Hong Kong. The political fallout of such action might have been Cathay Pacific’s stocks falling in value by as much as 4-percent back in Monday, August 12, 2019. As being one of the airline companies in the Far East providing a balance of economy and world class service, the relative ease on how it bowed to mainland Chinese pressure now tarnishes the company’s reputation – at least from the perspective of the “liberal West”.

Even though the Hong Kong pro democracy protests that now includes calls for universal suffrage and calls for guaranteed autonomy originally started as a protest against a rather draconian extradition crime bill drafted by the Beijing government that allows mainland Chinese authorities to extradite capital crime suspects from Hong Kong, Macau and even Taiwan. The controversial extradition bill would probably have been passes unnoticed and would probably have passed below the Hong Kong resident’s radar if the Beijing government had behaved reasonably – as in by not arresting or causing the disappearances of the Causeway Bay Books bookstore owners near the end of 2015. And let’s not forget the ongoing Uyghur crackdown and sending them to internment camps / forced cultural reeducation camps by the Beijing government – a form of “cultural genocide” that the Trump Administration seems to have turned a blind eye over this very important issue.

Air Travel Carbon Offsetting: Making Civil Aviation More Environmentally Friendly?

Even though less than half of the world’s airlines offer carbon offsetting, does the practice really offer genuine environmental benefits?

By: Ringo Bones

With our global climate about to reach the point of no return when it comes to the ongoing climate change issue, it seems that every possible scheme has been on offer by every commercial and industrial sector to save us from climate catastrophe. Even though the airline industry forms just 2-percent of overall man-made green house gas emissions, it has become one of the most criticized for not doing enough to clean up its act. So clean up it did. One of these schemes is called carbon offsetting, but does it really work? But first, here’s a brief primer on carbon offsetting.

Carbon offsetting is the process of compensating for greenhouse gas emissions through schemes that are designed to make corresponding reductions in emissions from other parts of the economy. From donating to wind farms to replanting or protecting parcels of forest in at-risk areas, these offset programs offer a diverse amount of options for air travelers. Whilst it seems a fairly straightforward system that ensures you are making the sustainable decision transport-wise, it has drawn a fair share of condemnation from environmentalists.

On delving deeper into the definition of carbon offsets, it becomes clear why airline offset schemes have become controversial. Balancing the carbon dioxide emitted by your air travel through the planting of several trees in South America does not involve the solitary act of placing a tree in the soil. In order to plant the trees, there are several steps. Firstly, the trees must be bought from a supplier, transported to a warehouse before being driven out to the tree planting site that also needs to be prepared prior to the tree seedlings being planted – all of these actions produce their own share of carbon dioxide emissions, which are not always taken into account. If your tree planting offset scheme produces more carbon dioxide emissions than your flight – or by not buying any emissions offset at all – then it is really not an offset.

Stratolaunch: The World’s Largest Aircraft To Ever Take Flight?

Despite the delays since it was announced back in 2011, is Scaled Composites’ Stratolaunch now the largest aircraft by wingspan to ever take flight?

By: Ringo Bones

Stratolaunch finally took its successful maiden flight back in Saturday, April 13, 2019 10:00 AM local time from California’s Mojave Air and Space Port, which now makes it the world’s largest aircraft to ever take flight. Its 385-foor wingspan beats out Howard Hughes Spruce Goose by a significant margin and its primary purpose is to launch satellites into space at a much reduced cost than existing launch methods.

Originally designed by Silicon Valley billionaire Paul Allen and its construction was made possible by the Northrop Grumman subsidiary called Scaled Composites and the plane’s completion was first announced back in 2011. Unfortunately, Stratolaunch remained on the ground far beyond its originally planned first test flight date back in 2016. Paul Allen died near the end of 2018 of complications related to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, though the project continued in his stead.

Despite being made almost entirely of carbon fiber material and related lightweight composites, Stratolaunch weighs in at 500,000 pounds. Much of it is due to the plane’s twin fuselage design and to further reduce costs, the plane uses six Pratt & Whitney jet engines similar to ones used on the iconic Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet and also the plane’s 28-wheel landing gear is also similar to the one used on the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet.

Only a handful of twin-fuselage planes have been developed in the past few decades and Stratolaunch will primarily be used for spaceflight – as in a satellite launch system for launching payloads into space. Even though it only attained a speed of 189 miles per hour during its maiden flight, the plane is still very capable of reaching 35,000 to 40,000 feet at such relatively low speeds because launching payloads into space at such heights provides significant rocket fuel savings compared to existing launch methods of using static rockets on ground-based launch pads.

Launching payloads at such altitude also minimizes complications from bad weather as the plane can simply fly over storm systems and further fuel savings can be made by flying Stratolaunch over the Earth’s equator and launch satellites there. The plane is capable of launching up to three of Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus XL rockets. Sadly, due to the aircraft’s rather “unique” shape, there are still delays on the plane’s certification by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, not to mention additional more test flights before it can start launching payloads off the planet. And Stratolaunch is also facing competition from Richard Branson’s Virgin Orbit – a satellite launch system that’s based on a modified Boeing 747-400 aircraft and due to Branson’s plane having a “more conventional profile” compared to Stratolaunch, Virgin Orbit could get FAA approval much sooner than the twin-fuselage Stratolaunch.

Can Weighing Passengers Make Civil Aviation Safer and Greener?

Will civil aviation become safer and more environmentally friendly if we precisely know how heavy each paying passenger is?

By: Ringo Bones

Nick Brasier - chief operating officer of the Berkshire-based start-up technology company - called Fuel Matrix claims that in the future every airline passenger will be weighed in order to make civilian air travel much safer and much more environmentally friendly that it is at present. And if Mr. Brasier’s discrete method of weighing passengers becomes mandatory, it could also slash ticket prices. Does Mr. Brasier’s Fuel Matrix really have the potential to transform civil aviation for the better?

Ever since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth hit the movie theaters and people everywhere became conscious about the size of their carbon footprint, environmentalist had been, more or less unfairly, pointing their finger at civilian air travel for their excessive carbon dioxide emissions. Even though fossil fuel companies produce way, way more carbon dioxide than the global airline industry, any schemes that results in significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by airline companies seems to be only of political value at best, but as they say, every little bit helps.

The resulting safety improvements and operating cost reductions may be more of interest to the global airline industry than the resulting absolute reduction of carbon dioxide if Nick Brasier’s Fuel Matrix scheme gets widespread acceptance. At present, airlines use “assumed mass” – estimating the total weight of the passengers by using set figures. Typically each passenger is assumed to weigh 88-kilograms. Mr. Brasier believes that airlines currently load about one percent more fuel than they actually need and due to the unforgiving laws of physics and Mother Nature, consequently burn between 0.3 and 0.5 percent more fuel due to the very fact that they carry unnecessary surplus fuel. 

With the global airline industry spending an estimated 200-billion US dollars a year on fuel, the possible saving worldwide is up to 1-billion US dollars per year. In addition, safety will be enhanced by captains loading extra fuel when it is actually warranted – such as when several rugby teams are booked on the sane flight. Additional savings can be made by allocating passengers in the optimum seats to ensure that the aircraft is properly balanced. At present, pilots sometimes need to apply “trim” during flight to counter a weight imbalance, a procedure that adds extra fuel burn.

At present, Nick Brasier’s Fuel Matrix is already in discussion with a number of long-haul airlines, including at least one British carrier, about deploying the tech firm’s fuel-saving system. Back in 2015, Uzbekistan Airways said it would weigh passengers before takeoff in an effort to “ensure flight safety”. Back in 2017, passengers at Helsinki airport were asked to step on to weighing scales before boarding by Finnair. This was a largely voluntary scheme to gather data on average passenger weights. Also in 2017, Hawaiian Airlines implemented a new policy on flights to American Samoa to weigh passengers and assign them to specific seats to ensure weight is evenly distributed inside the plane.

Aerotoxic Syndrome: Unrecognized Occupational Health Hazard to Pilots and Cabin Crew?

Aerotoxic Syndrome, also known as Toxic Cabin Air Syndrome, could be poised to become as the airline industry’s version of the dreaded “Gulf War Syndrome?

By: Ringo Bones

As of March 28, 2019, five of the UK’s largest airlines are facing legal action which claims pilots and cabin crew are regularly exposed to toxic fumes during flight. The Unite Union said legal notice has been served in 51 cases, the majority of which are against British Airways. Easyjet, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic are also subject to the legal action over “aerotoxic syndrome”. The Unite Union, which represents airline staff, claims pilots and crew are exposed to frequent “fume events” when air drawn into the aircraft becomes contaminated by toxic compounds. The Unite Union says the fumes – which originate from the oil used to lubricate the jet engines – contain organophosphates and trichlorophenol and long-term exposure can lead to chronic ill effects and life threatening conditions. Pardon me but two of the chemicals mentioned here reminded me of nerve gas / cholinesterase inhibitor chemical agent precursors suspected of causing the dreaded “Gulf War Syndrome” that affected a large number of troops who served during Operation Desert Storm back in 1991.

Sadly the science behind aerotoxic syndrome is still under dispute by the world’s leading occupational health authorities. Aerotoxic Syndrome is a phrase coined by Chris Winder and Jean-Christophe Balouet in 2000 to describe their claims of short-term and long-term ill-health effects caused by breathing airline cabin air which was alleged to have been contaminated to toxic levels that exceed established parts per million safe levels with atomized engine oils or other chemicals. An assessment by the UK’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee found that claims of health effects were unsubstantiated. An update in 2008 found no significant new evidence. As of 2013, aerotoxic syndrome is still not recognized in medicine. Could aerotoxic syndrome / toxic cabin air syndrome just become the global airline industry’s Gulf War Syndrome?

Are Modern Airliners “Too Automated”?

From the tragic crash of the Airbus A330 of Air France Flight 447 back in June 2009 to the Boeing 737 Max crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 less than six months apart, are modern airliners just “too automated” to be airworthy?

By: Ringo Bones

Despite of Trump’s recent parroting of 21^st Century era passenger jets becoming too automated even though he probably himself never piloted an ultralight aircraft or piloted a crop-duster biplane, there seems to be some truths to his Tweets. Blaming on too much automation and computer control on why the most modern passenger jets are becoming less airworthy in comparison to planes from a previous generation may seem a valid point, but should today’s pilots be also familiar with the fundamentals of barnstormer-era aeronautics by familiarizing themselves on how to fly a crop-duster biplane akin to elite sailors from the world’s greatest navy fleets being trained on three masted sailing ships like cadets from the then West German navy used to train on the Gorch Foch square-rigger? Well, remember the Air France Flight 447 incident? Air crash investigators said that the crash of the Airbus A330 during its Rio De Janeiro to Paris flight back in June 1, 2009 could have been prevented if the copilot involved were familiar with the difference between a low-speed stall and high-speed buffeting – as in having experience of flying a crop-dusting biplane or similar single-engine propeller aircraft. But are modern computer controlled automation of modern passenger aircraft – like the MCAS used in the Boeing 737 Max aircraft involved in the Lion Air Flight 610 (October 29, 2018) and the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (March 10, 2019) less than six months later actually making modern jet airliners less airworthy than their predecessors?

Known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS takes readings from two sensors that determine how much the plane’s nose is pointing up or down relative to the oncoming airflow. When MCAS detects that the plane is pointing up at a dangerous angle, it can automatically push down the nose of the plane in an effort to prevent the plane from stalling. MCAS is activated without the pilot’s input, which has led to some frustration among pilots of the Boeing 737 Max jet. At least half a dozen pilots have reported being caught off guard by sudden descents in the aircraft, according to the Dallas News. One pilot said it was “unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models,” according to an incident report filed with a NASA database.  

Experts say that pilots need to be retrained about familiarization about modern computer automated systems used in modern passenger aircraft – and in my opinion especially pilots who grew up in a place where crop-dusting biplanes and similar aircraft in which they can train to familiarize themselves first hand between the difference of a stall caused by insufficient airspeed and high speed buffeting caused by exceeding the aircraft’s maximum speed without the reliance of onboard computer gear – are virtually nonexistent. At present, Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration are currently at odds over how much pilot training will be required to familiarize themselves with the MCAS used in the Boeing 737 Max.

End of the Airbus A380 Superjumbo Production Run: An End of an Era?

Although it never reached the romance level of the Anglo-European Concorde, does Airbus decision to scrap the production of the A380 by 2021 mark an end of an era in the aerospace industry?

By: Ringo Bones

To most aviation and aerospace enthusiasts, the four-engine Airbus A380 is more than just a technological tour-de-force. The fact alone that its main parts are made across four countries in the Eurozone – i.e. France, Germany, UK and Spain could be seen as a cross-border economic miracle for those who still believe in the promise of a European Union. Sadly, economic exigencies in the current air travel industry – especially during the past few years – have sent a death knell to the Airbus A380’s production run.

When plans to produce the A380 Superjumbo was presented to Airbus’ top brass during the late 1980s, it was projected that the aerospace company could sell around 2,000 Superjumbos and there was also a desperate need for the Eurozone-based Airbus to grab the market share of Boeing’s flagship 747 Jumbojets which were selling like hotcakes to the airline industry since the end of the 1960s. At the time, Airbus’ top brass saw that the A380 Superjumbo could better meet the challenges in connecting the world’s crowded airport hubs – London, New York, Dubai and Tokyo – in comparison to the existing Boeing 747 Jumbojet. Despite of black-swan events that shook the civil aviation / air travel industry – i.e. the September 11, 2001 terror attacks – Airbus’ top execs still believe that they could still steal the 747’s market dominance and went ahead in the A380 Superjumbo’s production.

Despite production delays, the Airbus A380 Superjumbo finally took its first ever commercial flight back in 2007 with Singapore Airlines. It swiftly became popular with the flying public due to the added legroom and spaciousness, but it was complicated and expensive to produce in part thanks to the way production was spread across various locations. Sadly, demand for the A380 Superjumbo from the world’s major airline companies eventually dried up as the industry shifted away from larger planes in favor of smaller wide-body jets which offer comparable fuel efficiency per passenger like the two-engine Boeing 787 Dreamliner and even Airbus’ own smaller two-engine passenger planes like the A330 and the A350.

The future of the Airbus A380 Superjumbo has been in doubt for several years as orders dwindled. But in a statement on Thursday, February 14, 2019, Airbus said the “painful” decision to end production was made after the Dubai-based airline company Emirates reduced its latest order by cutting its overall A380 fleet size from 162 to 123. Emirates said it would take delivery of 14 further A380s over the next two years, but has also ordered 70 of Airbus’ smaller A330 and A350 models. Even though US airline companies decided to retire their fleet of Boeing 747 in 2018 and British Airways already decided to also retire their fleet of 747 Jumbos by 2021, there are still plans at Boeing’s main Seattle production plant to make the freight / cargo carrying variant of the famed 747 way after the year 2025, it looks like the venerable 747 Jumbojet managed to outlive its competitors sent to kill it.