Boundary Layer Ingestion: Environmentally Friendly Aviation?

Developed as a way to improve the fuel efficiency of passenger aircraft, could Boundary Layer Ingestion herald a more environmentally friendly air travel industry?

By: Ringo Bones

During the past few years, various aerospace research labs around the world, like NASA’s Glenn Research Center and the University of Cambridge’s Whittle Laboratory, are working on propulsion technology to increase the fuel efficiency of future aircraft and reducing the overall operating cost to consumers and also reducing the overall impact on the environment. Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) is a way of improving aircraft efficiency by reducing drag on the aircraft using the aircraft’s own engines. Analytical studies done since 2017 shows that this new technology has the potential to reduce aircraft fuel burn by as much as 8.5-percent compared to aircraft currently flown today. Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) could reduce aircraft fuel burn by up to 15-percent but it requires robust fan systems that can operate efficiently with high levels of inlet distortion or turbulence.

With the jet aircraft we are currently using, the engines are typically located away from the aircraft’s fuselage to avoid ingesting the layer of slower flowing air that develops along the aircraft’s surfaces called the boundary layer. The new propulsion system design – i.e. the inlet and the fan – is embedded in the aircraft’s body at the back of the fuselage in order to ingest the slower boundary layer airflow, using it to generate thrust needed to propel the aircraft. Using the slower boundary layer air means the engines do not have to work as hard, so their fuel consumption goes down. At the same time, the drag on the aircraft is reduced, since the engines are now “ingesting” part of that drag, so the overall aircraft fuel efficiency is improved and less thrust is needed by the aircraft to fly at the same speed. This means that the overall aircraft efficiency is higher and less fuel is needed to complete the flight.

According to NASA and the other teams involved in developing this newfangled propulsion concept, the design change is not as simple as it seems, but is actually quite challenging. Boundary layer airflow is highly distorted – as in turbulent – and that turbulence affects the way the fan performs and operates. These new designs require a stronger fan than the ones currently being manufactured by leading plane-makers. The new fan-blade assembly designs require a specialized inlet to help straighten out the turbulent airflow before it gets to the fan and a stronger, more durable fan to resist the constant pounding being applied by the turbulent airflow. As current problems will eventually be overcome, Boundary Layer Ingestion could herald a more environmentally friendly era of aviation before the end of the 2020s.                                   

Qantas’ Flight To Nowhere: Not Environmentally Friendly?

After just earning the reputation as the fastest selling flight in history, is Qantas’ “Flight To Nowhere” quite unfriendly to our embattled environment?

By: Ringo Bones

According to the Australian flag carrier’s spokesperson, the recently offered Flight To Nowhere by Qantas has just earned the reputation of one of the airline company’s fastest selling flight in history after all the tickets on offer have been snapped up in just 10 minutes. There were 134 seats up for grabs on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner priced between $575 (£445) and $2,765 (£2,145) depending on the class of ticket. The 7-hour flight is scheduled for October 10, 2020 and takes off from Sydney and returns to Sydney after overflying scenic routes that includes the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru – formerly known as Ayer’s Rock. There are also 13-hour flights that will take-off from Melbourne to Antarctica and back again for £636. Singapore Airlines already has plans for such a similar scheme scheduled for next month.

The popularity of such trips and the reason why the cheaper 7-hour “Flight To Nowhere” got snapped up in just 10 minutes is in part due to the fact that Australia’s borders are currently closed to all inbound travelers bar Australian citizens, residents and immediate family members due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outbound travel is also prohibited unless citizens are granted an exemption. Qantas has previously states it does not expect to be flying any international routes before the second half of 2021, except possibly to New Zealand. The airline’s revelation about their upcoming international services suggests that Australia will not open to visitors for the rest of this year nor the first half of 2021.

Sadly, such moves are criticized by environmental groups because it is such a carbon-intensive way for Australia to keep its domestic tourism industry up and running and given the size of the windows in a typical Boeing 787 Dreamliner means that these planes are not purposely built as airborne sight-seeing planes. I think the only few positive benefits of such flights is that pilots lacking a few hours of flight experience could gain full professional status by serving in such flights and given that jet engines need a minimum of once every two weeks of firing to maintain their air-worthy status might only be achieved via Qantas’ Flight To Nowhere program amidst the global COVID-19 Travel Restrictions.

Did COVID 19 Kill The Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet?

Even though British Airways had slated to retired their entire fleet by 2024, did the COVID 19 pandemic hasten the demise of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet?

By: Ringo Bones

When the civil aviation celebrated the 50^th Anniversary of the maiden flight of the “Queen of the Skies” back in February 2019, the Boeing 747 was notably remembered for democratizing global air travel during the 1970s. First thought of as a stop-gap measure by Boeing’s design team at Seattle during the late 1960s before the global airline industry would start using the supersonic capable Concorde and competing designs as their primary fleet, who knew that value-for-money subsonic speed air travel would define the airline industry for the rest of the 20^th Century. Before the Concorde was retired, the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet was the second fastest operational civilian commercial plane with a top speed of just over 650 miles per hour. And it also achieved a record first back in 1989 when it flew nonstop from London to Sydney.

A number of airline companies already retired their fleet of 747s during the second half of 2019 and in the United States the venerable Jumbo Jet was relegated as an air freight carrier. British Airways had planned on retiring their planes in 2024 but has brought it forward four years sooner because of the air travel downturn due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Last year, British Airways is the world’s largest operator of the Jumbo Jets with 31 planes in the airline’s fleet. For all intents and purposes, it could be said that that COVID 19 pandemic actually killed the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet as a civilian passenger aircraft, or at least hastened its retirement.

As a four-engine subsonic aircraft, the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet is far less efficient than modern twin-engine models that are made almost entirely of high-strength composites – such as the Airbus A350, Boeing’s own 787 Dreamliner or even the older Boeing 777 – all of which are cheaper to run in terms of fuel consumption. And by retiring their fleet of Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets, British Airways might just achieve their goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Did A 13 Year Old Girl Help Design The Spitfire’s Weapons System?

It would also have been much of a dream job for boys within her age but did a 13 year old girl helped design the weapons system of the iconic Supermarine Spitfire?

By: Ringo Bones

Now, 80 years after the start of the Battle of Britain on July 10, 1940, the RAF has finally recognized the role of an unseemly inventor and mathematical genius. In 1934, Hazel Hill, a teenage girl from north London, carried out the calculations that proved the new generation of fighter planes – i.e. Spitfires and Hurricanes – should carry eight fifty caliber machine guns, instead of just four. In a documentary researched by her granddaughter, Felicity Baker, a journalist, Hazel Hill’s contribution that allowed the Spitfire to dominate the Battle of Britain and denied the Nazi’s their British conquest finally got the recognition it deserve. Yet – until now – the compelling story of the schoolgirl who helped to win a war has been sadly untold. Hazel Hill’s only recognition was in a memoir written by her father’s superior officer in the UK Air Ministry.

Fortunately for Hazel Hill and her dad, the historic mathematical collaboration happened way before Number 10 declared that the Supermarine Spitfire’s design details were part of the UK’s Official Secrets Act or she could certainly have been denied access to it. In the summer of 1934, Hazel Hill, a 13 year old girl from north London, was approached by her father, Captain Fred Hill, a scientific officer in the UK Air Ministry who was trying to make the case for the new generation of fighter planes. Despite her youth, Captain Hill drew upon his daughter’s mathematical intellect and discussed plans with her as to how it could be possible to arm Spitfires with eight 50 caliber machine guns, as opposed to the four which had been originally suggested. Along with her father, she worked through the night on complex calculations that would shape the future of fighter planes like the Spitfire and the Hurricane. The work was done by lamplight over a kitchen table in north London. Night after night throughout the early months of 1934, Captain Fred Hill and his 13 year old daughter burned the midnight oil plotting graphs and laboring over complex algorithms.

When they got access to the new “calculating machines” of the time – which to our eyes today, resemble very rudimentary vacuum tube based computers – father and daughter worked long into the night analyzing the data that was previously obtained at their kitchen table. Their complicated calculations showed conclusively that each Spitfire needed to be capable of firing 1,000 rounds a minute – per gun. They also calculated the exact distance the Spitfire – whose top speed was about 360 mph – had to be from the enemy to hit them, just 755 feet.  The biggest thing was the huge increase in speed of the new fighters, which was way beyond anything people had experienced before – says mathematician Niall MacKay, the current head of the Department of Mathematics at the University of New York.

  It was tiring, unrewarding work but they both sensed how vital it would prove to be. And their instincts would before long be ratified by history because their intricate calculations would go on to help the RAF secure victory in the Battle of Britain – a triumph that many historians now believe changed the course of World War II. Bent together over their graphs, father and daughter concluded that the new generation of aircraft being built by the UK government to prepare for future war should be armed not with four powerful machine guns but eight – an idea was seen as deeply radical, even improbable at the time. Yet only then, the Hills had come to believe, would a new generation of Spitfires and Hurricanes have sufficient firepower to bring down enemy aircraft. A scientific officer in the UK Air Ministry, Captain Hill managed to convince his superior officers of the importance of his and Hazel’s findings – and six years later, in 1940, their calculations were put to the test in the skies above Britain as the RAF fought Adolf Hitler’s much feared Luftwaffe in a four month battle that has been described as the most important military campaign ever fought. The Battle of Britain is often referred to as the first major military battle which was fought entirely by air forces. Who knew that Reginald Joseph Mitchell’s iconic design could still be improved by a 13 year old girl from north London?

Kort Nozzle Propellers: Unsuitable For Aviation Use?

Even though some vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and dirigibles use them, are Kort Nozzle propellers largely unsuitable for general aviation use?

By: Ringo Bones

This sort of propulsion system is more well-known n the maritime, rather than the aeronautical engineering field, although there are experimental vertical takeoff and landing  / VTOL aircraft designs from the 1960s, and my first fascination into one is from an early 1960s aviation magazine published in India that I first saw in our public library back in the 1970s. Mostly featured in futuristic looking VTOL aircraft designs from the early 1960s - like the tilting ducted fans of the X-22 - and in more contemporary dirigible designs, it seems that the Kort Nozzle propeller is largely unknown in the field of general aviation.

Originally developed for maritime propulsion, the Kort Nozzle propeller is an assembly of a conventional screw propeller and a short nozzle named after the device’s inventor, L. Kort, a German engineer. The nozzle is rigidly attached to, or forms part of, the structure of the ship, and the propeller of the ship revolves inside the nozzle.  

The basic principle of a screw propeller working inside of a cylindrical tube or a tunnel was proposed soon after the development of practical screw propellers. Robert Griffith patented a ship stern in 1845 that provided for a screw propeller working in a short tunnel. Other variations of such hull construction were patented by C.A. Parsons in 1877, J.I. Thornycroft in 1879 and by many others. Kort revived the idea around 1925 but generally improved it by making the tube into a short nozzle, wider at the mouth than at the exit and with airfoil-shaped cross sections. By practical tests, Kort demonstrated that by this arrangement, a generally increased thrust was obtained for the same power input, as compared with the conventional screw propeller.

Even though highly efficient propellers – in terms of converting engine power output to forward thrust – were already invented and used in maritime applications from the 1850s onwards – early aviation pioneers more often than not ignored the science and engineering behind this designs and thus failed to achieve true heavier than air powered flight in the 19^th Century.  Many historians cite the Wright Brothers developing their own working propeller – albeit independently from existing maritime propeller design advancements made since the mid 19^th Century – that was largely responsible for the success of their epoch making December 17, 1903 first flight.

From a maritime propulsion engineering perspective, the practical gain of the Kort Nozzle propeller over the conventional open propeller for equal propeller diameters is well substantiated. The gain is greatest when the ship speed is low and the propeller is heavily loaded, than is, when the slip velocity is large. For this reason, Kort Nozzle propellers are used principally on towboats, fishing trawlers, and similar vessels which pull heavy loads at low speeds. For such vessels, the addition of a Kort Nozzle may increase the towrope pull per shaft horsepower by as much as 30 to 40-percent. On the other hand, for fast sea-going ships, the Kort Nozzle offers no advantages because the small gain in efficiency obtained by it is usually offset by increased appendage resistance of the hull. For the same reason, Kort Nozzles, or similar devices, have not been found advantageous for use in aircraft and most general aviation applications.

Novel Coronavirus Now Threatens The Global Airline Industry?

Given it already caused a global stock market sell-off, will the novel coronavirus soon threaten the global airline industry?

By: Ringo Bones

The World health Organization has just declared as of March 9, 2020 that the novel coronavirus as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. About a month ago, a global stock market sell-off now threatens to plunge the global economy into a recession that could be worse than that of 2008. Could the global airline industry suffer the same fate?

Around the time of the 2020 Year of the Rat Lunar New Year festivities, when the Beijing Government declared a public health emergency citing the rapid novel coronavirus spread that started in Wuhan, it didn’t take long when almost a quarter of a million scheduled flights to China were cancelled in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus. Even before the end of February 2020, there were 238,939 flights to China that were cancelled. Easyjet stocks fell by 18-percent and the IATA states that the novel coronavirus could cost the global airline industry by as much as 29.3 billion US dollars. It is not only the airline industry, travel firms are experiencing their biggest fall since the 2008 Global Credit Crunch.

Shares in many American, Asian and European airlines tumble. Carriers have been forced to cut flights due to the coronavirus. Australia’s Qantas says that the novel coronavirus outbreak could cost it by up to 99-million US dollars. If the outbreak doesn’t abate by the middle of 2020, more than half of the world’s airline companies could face bankruptcy due to cancelled flights.

Will There Be A Global Pilot Shortage?

With air travel demand expected to more than double during the next 20 years, are the powers-that-be of the global civil aviation industry doing their part to avert this looming problem?

By: Ringo Bones

During the 2019 Paris Air Show, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg stated that a growing shortage of pilots represented “one of the biggest challenges” facing the airline industry. In February 10, 2020 the BBC ran a news story on the ever increasing demand for air travel is growing so rapidly that by the year 2038 that 804,000 new pilots are expected to be needed. The biggest need will be in the Asia-Pacific region where a projected “improving economy” of Mainland China will result in more people booking flights compared to recent years. More people in the United States will be expected to fly during the next two decades, but unfortunately, the U.S. will be experiencing a pilot shortage in 2020 as experienced pilots are reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. But how do we solve the problem of pilot shortage during the next 20 years?

In the Philippines, college-age students have opted to pursue medical courses – mostly as nurses to work in the United States – because they can earn money to pay their college debt much sooner if they’d pursue a career on civil aviation. Maybe Boeing and Airbus should offer scholarships to worthy but financially impoverished potential pilots here in the Asia-Pacific region?

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.

21st Century Aviation: Still A Man’s World?

Capt. Tammie Jo Shults’ recent heroic action would have been called “the miracle at Philadelphia Airport”, but is the prevailing sexism at the aviation world prevented her from becoming “the next Sully”?

By; Ringo Bones 

Maybe it was the tragic death of passenger Jennifer Riordan of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 – where a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 carrying 149 passengers developed a fault with one of its CFM56-78 jet engines and was forced to make an emergency landing at Philadelphia Airport back in April 17, 2018 – but the social networking world was set alight by posts hailing the pilot Capt. Tammie Jo Shults as a hero who safely landed the stricken plane. It was no mean feat because without the quick action of Captain Shults, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 would have ended in tragedy because for a few harrowing seconds, the stricken aircraft rolled to an angle of 41 degrees after one of the plane engines exploded and yet Captain Shults managed to land the plane safely. Tragically, 43 year old mother of two Jennifer Riordan was nearly sucked out of the plane after a few pieces of shrapnel of the exploding engine smashed the window next to her causing rapid decompression in the cabin that nearly blasted her out of the jet. Nearby passengers managed to pull her back in and tried to revive her but she died from her injuries. 

Capt. Tammie Jo Shults is a New Mexico native who graduated with university degrees in biology and agribusiness before joining the military. Her first choice was to join the US Air Force as a military aviator but at the time, USAF doesn’t yet allow women aviators so she applied for the US Navy as a naval aviator but only served as an instructor for 10 years because the US Navy still bans women from doing frontline duty. She ended her active service in 1993 after achieving the rank of lieutenant commander. Her husband Dean Shults also works as a pilot for Southwest Airlines. 

Is the 21^st Century aviation world still largely a man’s world? Well, most folks today probably only knew one woman aviator – i.e. Amelia Earhart, but I bet most of them probably don’t know the record setting test flights made by test pilot Jacqueline Cochran with an F-104 Starfighter back in 1964 even though there’s a major airport named in her honor. Sadly, this could be the main reason why Capt. Tammie Jo Shults is currently not as big as Capt. Sully Sullenberger.

Self Piloting Passenger Aircraft: The Future Of Civil Aviation?

Despite of the current regulatory hurdles, are self-piloting of autonomous passenger aircraft the future of civil aviation?

By: Ringo Bones 

Uber first announced its own concept of self piloting / autonomous passenger aircraft after making a situational advert on what happens if their self-driving car service got snarled by heavy traffic. According to Uber, solution is already at hand via its very own self piloting or autonomous passenger aircraft – and the possibility of it entering service is sooner than you think.  

The ride-sharing firm Uber and Urban Aviation are already partnering with Bell Helicopters and already have a flying prototype of their “pilotless air taxi” which a fleet could enter service as soon as 2020 current regulatory hurdles permitting. But the good news is NASA and the United States Federal Aviation Administration is already developing new air traffic control systems specifically designed to accommodate the upcoming fleets of autonomous air taxis once they enter service by 2020. 

Currently, a number of firms have already joined the bandwagon on pilotless air taxis and pilotless / autonomous passenger aircraft. A Mainland Chinese firm Ehang and Germany’s Volocopter already made a flyable prototype capable of carrying four passengers plus a pilot in case the autonomous computer fails. All of the firms who had released plans to offer a pilotless air taxi service say that the “pilot” only serve as a technician if the autonomous flying computer develops problems but most of the time, the “pilot” will be serving as a de-facto ambassador to the passengers to allay any fears or doubts that they have on their self-flying technology. 

Technically, all of the pilotless air taxis are battery powered, capable of carrying 4 to 5 passengers and has a range of between 60 to 100 miles which make them a very viable alternative to avoid being stuck in rush-hour traffic when commuting from one city center to another which has recently classivied this class of aircraft as “urban air vehicles”. The good news is that the batteries they use to power their aviation grade electric motors are the latest ones that are able to be fully charged between 5 to 15 minutes.   

2017: The Safest Year For Air Travel?

Given that there are no commercial airline crashes for the entire year last year – will 2017 go down in history as the safest year for air travel?

By: Ringo Bones 

 Even though it is a proven fact – statistically at least – that flying is the safest form of travel, groups in charge of monitoring air safety are quite surprised that 2017 turned out to be the safest year for air travel given that not a single tragic airline crash occurred for the entire year. There were no passenger jet crashes anywhere in the world for the whole of 2017, according to separate reports made by Dutch consultancy firm To70 and The Aviation Safety Network. 

Despite of the tragic and scary chapter that we call 9/11, the number of airliner accidents has been in a slow and steady decline during the past 20 years. Harro Ranter, president of The Aviation Safety Network said: “Since 1997 the average number of airliner accidents has shown a steady and persistent decline, for a great deal thanks to the continuing safety-driven efforts by international aviation organizations such as ICAO, IATA, Flight Safety Foundation and the aviation industry.” 

The Dutch consultancy To70, estimated there was now one fatal accident for every 16-million flights, although its report was compiled before the Costa Rica crash occurred. While the Aviation Safety Network’s report shows that the accident rate now stands at one fatal passenger flight accident per 7,360,000 flights. If cargo planes were included, a report by the Airline Safety Network shows that there were a total of 10 fatal accidents, resulting in 79 deaths for the whole of 2017, compared with 16 accidents and 303 lives lost in 2016. The organization based its figures on incidents involving civil aircraft certified to carry at least 14 people. Could civil aviation industry’s safety record get better in the coming years? Sadly, fake president Trump already claims that the 2017’s air travel safety record was the result of his “presidency”.