Airliners-India.com Forum Index Airliners-India.com
Flickr Group & Facebook
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

New Landings Save Airplane Fuel

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Airliners-India.com Forum Index -> Tech/Ops
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
selecta
Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 813
Location: ORD

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:29 pm    Post subject: New Landings Save Airplane Fuel Reply with quote

Airlines try "continuous descent" to save on fuel costs

link

Once or twice a week, airplanes landing at the UPS transport hub in Louisville, Ky., chart a new course to the runway. Using the latest in GPS tracking technology, the planes glide toward their destination in a maneuver called a "continuous descent," which brings planes to the ground on a direct line, rather than through a gradual approach.

New aircraft maneuvers rarely make news, but UPS's testing of the new technique in Louisville, Sacramento, Calif., and Cologne, Germany, could substantially reduce skyway congestion, noise, and pollution—and save money on jet fuel costs. Recent testing at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta found that each continuous-descent landing saved 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide.

With oil costs soaring, every drop of jet fuel counts. Eight years ago, passenger and cargo airlines in the United States had a fuel bill of some $16 billion. This year's bill will approach $60 billion, experts predict. Last month, the cost of fuel increased about 69 percent from a year ago, according to the Air Transport Association. Total fuel costs for UPS for all its vehicles, including planes, through the first quarter of 2008 was $950 million, up 54 percent from last year. Starting on July 7, the company will impose an additional fuel surtax of 32.5 percent per package, up from the current 28 percent. Passenger airlines have begun charging passengers for carry-on baggage; start-up airlines are going bust, and smaller cities—more than 30 last year—are seeing their service cut, all because of fuel costs.

In January, the Federal Aviation Administration gave UPS, the world's largest package carrier, the green light to begin testing the new landing procedure at the Louisville facility, which handles some 100 cargo planes per night. One or two of those flights a week use the new technique, says Mark Giuffre, a UPS spokesman in Louisville. Tests over the past few months indicated that each landing using the continuous descent system saves an average of 50 gallons of jet fuel, or about $200 per flight. "That adds up, especially these days," says Giuffre. Indeed, the company estimates it will save $400 million on jet fuel costs each year for its entire fleet of planes.

In a traditional landing, pilots glide the plane through a series of predetermined elevations in their approach to the runway. This practice makes noise and uses more fuel as planes rev their engines to level off at each of the elevation intervals. Think: moving down a series of steps.

With continuous descent, the airplane relies on GPS guidance to essentially coast on idle in a direct line from its cruising elevation to the tarmac. Think: sliding down a ski slope.

The GPS system that makes continuous descent possible is part of the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, nicknamed NextGen, which also enables planes to fly in straight lines rather than following the twisting paths of the current radar-based system—another fuel saver. In addition, NextGen allows planes to fly closer together, land more planes in quicker succession, and be rerouted more quickly. With some 7,000 planes aloft over the country at any one moment, the new system should also ease congestion and flight delays. The FAA has approved allowing continuous descent tests in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City.

But the GPS systems aren't cheap. Every plane needs reprogramming of its onboard computers and other systems, putting the cost to refit some older planes at $300,000. There are ground GPS units too, though at $200,000 per unit (several are needed for each airport) they are still a bargain compared with million-dollar radar units.

While the FAA and trade groups estimate that NextGen could reduce fuel consumption by more than 10 percent, it is unlikely to be in place until 2025 because of cost and technology issues. Meanwhile, Congress and the airlines are still bickering about who will foot the bill for the new system, expected to cost perhaps as much as $20 billion to implement. The airlines are clamoring for tax credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Legislation to address the problem has stalled in Congress and probably won't be addressed for months.

Yet while fuel savings and the decline in carbon dioxide output are important to the shipping company, the residents of Louisville are most likely to notice something else: a reduction in noise. Because airplanes using continuous descent need not rev their engines, the noise output is 30 percent lower than that of a traditional landing.



Last edited by selecta on Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammyk
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 2719
Location: Austin, TX

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UPS always seems to be doing research about saving fuel for all their vehicles. Even years ago it when fuel was cheap they used to have ads on TV about how they cleaned their aircraft often so that they could save fuel. Recently I read that they have told their drivers to make right turns only so they don't sit idling at a light waiting for a left turn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
stealthpilot
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2325
Location: BLR, DXB

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we could do them, we would do them all the time. No one likes constant level offs, but in today’s ATC environment there are always altitude/heading/speed changes etc. Airbus (and I assume Boeing) aircrafts would love a long continuous stabilized descent. This is all part of the new air traffic/ CNS system that needs to come thru.
_________________
eP007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
selecta
Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 813
Location: ORD

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

added the graphic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammyk
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 2719
Location: Austin, TX

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice of them to keep the Pan Am spirit alive!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
flightgearpilot
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 711
Location: VOBL

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sammyk wrote:
Recently I read that they have told their drivers to make right turns only so they don't sit idling at a light waiting for a left turn.


Well they could switch off their engines at traffic lights. The fuel used to start a car is no more than what is used in about 10 seconds of idling. If they need to wait more than 10 seconds, it is better to switch the engine off.

If they turn right as a rule whenever they need to turn left, there is no guarantee that they are going to get a U-turn nearby and/or would not have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear (idling in the meantime) when doing a U-turn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Karan69
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1334

PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flightgearpilot wrote:
sammyk wrote:
Recently I read that they have told their drivers to make right turns only so they don't sit idling at a light waiting for a left turn.


Well they could switch off their engines at traffic lights. The fuel used to start a car is no more than what is used in about 10 seconds of idling. If they need to wait more than 10 seconds, it is better to switch the engine off.

If they turn right as a rule whenever they need to turn left, there is no guarantee that they are going to get a U-turn nearby and/or would not have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear (idling in the meantime) when doing a U-turn.


That right turn system that sameer is talking about refers to the efficiency in the logistics networking where in the routes are planned so efficiently that the drivers rarely need to take a left turn.

If you can get your hands on Nat geos program Superfactories----UPS superfortress. [or something similar], where they even speak about the landing

Karan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
flightgearpilot
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 711
Location: VOBL

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karan69 wrote:

That right turn system that sameer is talking about refers to the efficiency in the logistics networking where in the routes are planned so efficiently that the drivers rarely need to take a left turn.

If you can get your hands on Nat geos program Superfactories----UPS superfortress. [or something similar], where they even speak about the landing


Ah I see.. Should have a look at this program. I wonder how efficient such planning would be in Indian traffic, where being adaptive is so central.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Airliners-India.com Forum Index -> Tech/Ops All times are GMT + 5.5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com