Archive for RCCGB FORUM Message Board for Members of the Roller Coaster Club of Great Britain to discuss club events and all things theme park related.
|
Death
|
Aviation interests and curiosities...Hail All! 
As many of ye know, I'm a man who loves tinkering about with just about anything technical or otherwise engineering orientated, and recently I've been giving a lot of thought to the art of aviation (Laymans: Aircraft and flight) and a few things related to it. 
Now I know that we have a few aviation enthusiasts within the Club, and at least one holder of a CAA pilot's licence...So I thought I'd start a thread on the subject and see if it gets anywhere.
To start the ball rolling, there are a couple of things relating to the subject that I'm personally curious about and would like to discuss with those who are more "in the know". 
1: The over-complication of air travel:
One thing that I cannot help but remark on is why air travel has to be such a massive kerfuffle of rituals and procedures from the passenger point of view. Although I can fully understand (And am glad of) the extra security checks and measures bought in following the 9/11 atrocities, it still strikes me that air travel is far more complex than one may like, as I now demonstrate:- When catching a bus (Local or intercity), all I have to do is arrive at the stop before it does. Although in some cases (Usually with intercity routes) I can buy my ticket in advance if I wish, I can always just turn up, stow my baggage myself, and buy my ticket from the driver or conductor.
Generally speaking in my opinion, catching a bus to anywhere requires next to no hassle or time at all!
. - When catching a train, I generally have to purchase my ticket before travel...But that can also be done upon the spot up to 30-seconds before the trains arrival, or (In certain situations) on board the train itself. Either way, all I have to do then is walk to the platform and wait for a short amount of time for the train to arrive, and then board normally with my baggage.
Total time required being five minutes or less as a rule, depending on baggage and the size of the station in question.
. - So why then when taking a flight do I have to purchase my ticket several months in advance (Ye can buy on the day, but it's always VERY expensive!), arrive at the airport no less than an hour before departure, leave my baggage in the hands of people that I do not know and trust (As opposed to loading the bag onto the aircraft when boarding), spend a good hour plus sitting in the departures lounge waiting for my gate number, sitting around for the best part of an hour at the gate itself, then waiting at least 30 minutes after all passengers have boarded for the aircraft to leave the stand and taxi for take-off?
 
Even with my very fast pace and way of conducting things, I normally have to allow at least two hours before departure to pass through the airport and whilst waiting for my flight, I am a captive audience for the many heavily overpriced concessions in the departures lounge! 
Couldn't airports be built more like the average bus station with the addition of a security shed? After all, I'd much rather be able to turn up at the airport about ten minutes before my flight departs, go through security (Where I, my ticket/passport, and my baggage would be inspected) into a secure waiting area, then walk to the aircraft once it's ready and throw my bag into the hold myself just before boarding, where my ticket and passport would be inspected again by a host(ess) - A much more reasonable time investment of 5-15 minutes!
2: Use of gas turbine (Jet engine) technology on aircraft:
One thing that I've never been able to get my head around is why the conventional passenger aircraft design requires the use of a number of "hair-dryers" (My derogatory expression for "jet-engine") that require the burning of immense amounts of Kerosene to function at all. Surely the way that they work is very wasteful - Not to mention directly harmful to the environment and everything within Natures loving care? 
A thing that I have been thinking over the past year or so is that insted of the conventional gas-turbine arrangement, surely aircraft could insted be fitted with a large diesel (Or even electric) engine inside the centre of the aircraft, which could rotate the fans inside the turbine through the use of a high-speed hydraulic system.
Such an arrangement would not only be more economical and environmentally friendly in my view, but would require a much lower volume of Diesel compared with the Kerosine needed for a similar flight, and would be safer in the event of an emergency as Diesel is far less volatile than Kerosene!
Plus I have a personal preferance for Diesel traction as not only do ye get a nice, Metal-esque growl from the engine, as opposed to the annoying - Borderline suicide-inducing - Emo-kid "whine"...But (If Diesel powered trains are anything to go by) ye'd also get a cool amount of "clag" flowing from the exhausts on take-off, which is surprisingly less harmful to the environment compared with Kerosene emissions!
So - Given that we now have the technology to run cars off of the Sun, Biomass (Compost-generated Methane gas) and even Water - Why on Earth do all rapid aircraft (Those with hairdryers fitted) still rely on archaic and wasteful technology that was developed long ago in the 1950's?
Also - Knowing that one of the board members owns a propeller-hauled Cessna - How does the fuel consumption of a traditional propeller aircraft compare with that of a similar sized jet aircraft on the same flight?
Although I fully understand and accept the necessity of top-level security in the wake of 9/11, I still don't see why the average public airport has to be such a large, overcomplicated and overpriced place!
I may be known for being an experienced budget airline (Ryanair) passenger...But even if my usual airline was United or British scAirways, I'd still be happy to just go through a security shed and have the flight work like a scheduled bus service if it meant that I'd only need spend up to 15 minutes catching my flight!
After all: Aircraft may be very dangerous vehicles in the wrong hands...But I know full well that one could cause far more havoc and destruction with a 15-ton double deck bus, if they were in a mind to do so! 
Yet, having airline-style security on buses (Even just Intercity ones) would simply be impossible to implement, as it proved bad enough when the Metropolitain Police tried it on the London Underground!
Farewell...
>> Death <<
|
Wozza
|
Re: Aviation interests and curiosities... | Death wrote: | arrive at the airport no less than an hour before departure, leave my baggage in the hands of people that I do not know and trust (As opposed to loading the bag onto the aircraft when boarding), spend a good hour plus sitting in the departures lounge waiting for my gate number, sitting around for the best part of an hour at the gate itself, then waiting at least 30 minutes after all passengers have boarded for the aircraft to leave the stand and taxi for take-off?
After all, I'd much rather be able to turn up at the airport about ten minutes before my flight departs, go through security (Where I, my ticket/passport, and my baggage would be inspected) into a secure waiting area, then walk to the aircraft once it's ready and throw my bag into the hold myself just before boarding, where my ticket and passport would be inspected again by a host(ess) - A much more reasonable time investment of 5-15 minutes!
|
Ok having worked at Manchester airport in passenger services I'll try and answer some of the above.
From my experience, most aircraft arrive on the stand with an average turnaround time of approx 1hr (some cases less some more). The gate agents (usually the same staff who have checked you in) are not told which gate the flight is departing from until approx 1hr before scheduled departure time. Try to imagine a busy airport with flights arriving and departing every few minutes and the job of allocating gates - imagine a plane the has a technical delay so is still occupying the stand and the next aircraft has landed, it has to be found a place? This is why sometimes your gate number will change.
Passengers are normally advised to be at the gate 45 mins prior to departure - for those of you who wonder why this is, there are certain procedures and announcements that have to be done by law and also other annoucements regarding the boarding routine for the flights so it is important to be at the gate on time!
So, you check in and go through security - what's happening then?
Your bags are in transit through the handling system, sujbect to further security checks and then loaded on to the trolleys ready for when the gate number is allocated.
When check in closes the no of passengers on board, the weight of the bags and any cargo on board, the weather conditions, type of aircraft and so on is used to calculate the amount of fuel needed for the flight (an average weight is used for each adult male, female and child on board plus handluggage allowance).
So .... the plane arrives at the gate the incoming passengers and their baggage has to be offloaded, the cleaners and catering staff go on board and do their job, the aircraft has to be visually checked over, the re-fueling tanker has to come and fuel up, the crew arrive on board, when the despatcher is ready he will tell the gate staff to start boarding (just think a Boeing 767 with over 300 passengers on board, who have to be in their seats and ready to go and we usually had about 20-30 mins to do that!!) Once everyone is on board, and all the checks are done and air traffic control give the go ahead then the aircraft can depart.
So you see an awful lot has to be done in a short time and it is really not possible for airlines to operate like buses and have you just turn up 15 mins before hand, throw your bags on and go.
Re the passport check, this again has to be done at check in especially as a number of European countries are now operating the APIS system (Advanced Passenger Information Service) this is where the passengers' data is taken and forwarded to the country of destination prior to the aircraft departure thus allowing customs/immigration/security of said country to know who is arriving on the flight and giving them the opportunity to refuse entry (before you've even boarded your flight) or if you've been naughty to 'nick' you as soon as you get off the plane 
I have a friend who is a Cabin Services Supervisor for BA and another who was a Ba pilot for 31 years and now runs his own aviation training business as well as a company which provides help and support to people with a fear of flying (of which I am a member). There is loads of info on his website - pm me if you would like the link - that goes for anyone else who suffers from a fear of flying and would like help and support.
Hope my little bit of information helps, it is only given from the point of view of working in passenger services - I did check in, boarding, arrivals and lots of other things!!
|
Death
|
Hail Wozza!
Cheers for posting the info mate! I knew that there were some background procedures (Such as aircraft route/altitude planning etc.) that were done on the ground before the flight began, but at the same time I did wonder that if aircraft were operated like buses and did a more "multi-point" journey schedule, then the route plan could be simply formulated at the airport (Read as "Bus station"!  ) where the aircraft would originally start out from!
I'm also curious as to what ye just said about calculating the fuel requirements for the flight, as I always thought that it worked on the relatively simple "If we've got enough to do the journey fully-laden plus 15% on top for emergencies, then we're OK!" principle.
I'm guessing that the old practice of filling the tank completely at every opportunity (Like many of us do with our cars) is avoided to reduce the amount of fuel involved in an emergency situation (Less for the pilot to dump before an emergency landing)...Is that correct, or is there another reason?
By the by...Do ye know what the "average" weight for adult male and female passengers is? I've always had a stand-by practice in place that means if my baggage was ever over limit by up to 20Kg, then I'd basically say to the airline "I've bought a seat for an average weight 90Kg passenger (115Kg gross weight*) and my own body weight is 60Kg - Therefore as I still have 55Kg gross passenger allowance left after my body weight is deducted, the excess weight of my bag can and should be offset against my less than average body-weight!"  
Would such a policy actually work in practice - Especially with Ryanair? After all, if I'm paying for carriage of 90Kg of passenger, then surely I should be allowed to take advantage of the 30Kg shortfall that my body-weight leaves!
(* - 115Kg total weight including normal Ryanair limits for one item checked (15Kg) and one item hand (10Kg) baggage.)
Thinking back to what I know of Ryanair's practices (Including the Dispatches documentary about them that I possess) I know that they aim for a 20-minute turnaround, and I've seen them turn a plane around at Lübeck Blankensee in just ten minutes before now!
Having said that though, Ryanair do save a lot of time by not cleaning the aircraft or emptying silage tanks until the aircraft is done for the day. Not something that many passengers might be happy about knowing, but I'll simply say that Ryanair's once a day cleaning practice is better than the apparent once a month practice used on First Great Western Link trains!
Incidentally - Apart from spot-cleaning any sign of airline sickness - Is it really neccessary to clean an aircraft after every flight? As each aircraft IIRC has to have a thorough daily inspection by CAA regulations, couldn't cleaning be done once a day around the time of that inspection, thus saving loads of time on the stand?
Edit 0x01: And come to think of it, I've never had a fear of flying at all (Indeed, I'd love to try flying an A-380 or Lancaster someday! ) but one of my good friends is afraid of flying, but only when journeys over water are involved. Maybe your friend's website could be a good thing to take a peek at?
(I'm sure the RCCGB board admins won't mind ye posting such a link here as it is contextually relevant to the topic, and it's not exactly spamming after all! )
Farewell, and thanks again!...
>> Death <<
|
Wozza
|
Hiya Death
I'll speak to my BA captain friend and see if I can find out more about how they calculate the pax weight for flights. I'm sure it's not as cut and dried as I made it sound and possibly different airlines apply different methods but my understanding of things (and I am not an aviation expert, like I said, I am only going on what I learned from my job) when check-in closed and the total on board figure was known this would be part of the calculation for the amount of fuel needed - all done by computers not some poor person in an office somewhere in the terminal LOL!!!
I'll pm you the link to Keith's site - there is absolutely loads of info there. He has a converted fuselage (near Alton in Hampshire) which is fitted out internally just as a modern aircraft would be but with state of the art audio so his fear of flying courses allow people to 'experience' being in an aircraft as closely as they can do without ever leaving the ground. There are also lots of video and audio clips as well as a forum where nervous flyers can ask questions, get support etc. There is so much there - even for someone like yourself who is ok about flying well, you might find the info and the video stuff interesting (if you do some searching around on the site you'll find my contributions )
|
krusty_the_clown
|
to clarify the fuel situation.
American (and i assume the airlines) went through a rigirous cost saving excersise post 9/11 and they found that one of the biggest costs of the flight was the cost of the fuel. the more weight on board the more fuel yoiu'll need. fuel weighs a lot so by reducing the amount of fuel on board you will then reduce the amount of fuel that you use (if that makes sense) they also decided that every bit of equipment that wasnt needed wasnt carried. ie they went threw every thing. a lot of the paperwork in the cockpit was removed, the inflight magazine now has to take in the cost of the weight of it flying on a flight into the cost of producing. etc etc. some airlines have even gone as far as removing the sick bags and only having a few that can be handed out by steward(esses)
|
Wozza
|
Before I met Keith (BA)I used to think that they just filled the fuel tanks and off the plane went and never knew how many things were taken into consideration LOL!
| Death wrote: | | I've always had a stand-by practice in place that means if my baggage was ever over limit by up to 20Kg, then I'd basically say to the airline "I've bought a seat for an average weight 90Kg passenger (115Kg gross weight*) and my own body weight is 60Kg - Therefore as I still have 55Kg gross passenger allowance left after my body weight is deducted, the excess weight of my bag can and should be offset against my less than average body-weight!" |
Death, I wish I had £1 for every passenger that I had that discussion with!!! Boy, did we used to get into some humdinger arguments about that one!
At least the airline I mainly worked on allowed passengers to 'group' the luggage allowance so for example instead of 4 pax at 20kg each we allowed a total of 80kg between them which at least allowed a bit of give and take but I know of other airlines where once your bag went above that 20kg you paid excess no matter even if your fellow passenger only had for example a holdall weighing 9kg.
|
bluea61
|
The Jet Engine is actually a very fuel efficent piece of technology. Yes on a flight it may expell a large amount of pollution but you need to look at it comparatively.
The A380 is muted as one of the most fuel effiecent planes on the market, which is impressive for its size. Currently they burn 3.5litres per 100 passenger Km. The aim for Airbus and Boeing is to get the A380 and B787 Dreamliner to average 3litres per 100 passenger km. This will be the same comparatively as a small car.
|
Magic
|
The other thing to remember about carrying excessive amounts of fuel is that the more you carry the heavier the plane is and the more fuel you actually burn to fly. Take off is excessively inefficient and uses considerably more fuel than just flying, so a heavier plane will burn even more fuel in take off. Apart from the increased financial cost of doing this there will also be greater emmisions.
As for operating like a bus with multiple stops, again since take off uses so much fuel this would be impractical because multiple stops would require multiple take offs and therefore result in massive fuel bills. I very much doubt any increased revenue from multiple stops would cover the icnreased fuel bill, so airline tickets would go up.
As for why do you have to book so far in advance. Well there are a limited number of flights per day to a limited number of destinations. Therefore not many tickets available. Where as there are several buses and trains serving the same stations throughtout the day, therefore lots of tickets available. Demand means you need to buy in advance to ensure you get the ticket you want.
|
Death
|
Hail All!
Well, I've already spent a load of time online tonight, and all of this discussion about flying just reminded me that I ought to pack my bags soon as I'll be flying off to Germany on Monday night...So this reply will be a bit cut to the quick I'm afraid! | Krusty the Clown wrote: | | American (and i assume the airlines) went through a rigirous cost saving excersise post 9/11 and they found that one of the biggest costs of the flight was the cost of the fuel. the more weight on board the more fuel yoiu'll need... |
Aye, that's true...Id've never though that the pilot's notes and in-flight magazine would have been a target for weight reduction, mind!
Thinking of aircraft physics again for a minute: I know that there is a limit to the wingspan that an aircraft can have, so doubling the wingspan wouldn't be a practical way of giving the aircraft more natural "lift" and saving fuel...But what about two pairs of wings mounted close to each other, or a single wide-wing?
Both would double the aircrafts natural lift, and would probabally cut the fuel bills by a good 40% or so! | Wozza wrote: | | Death, I wish I had £1 for every passenger that I had that discussion with!!! Boy, did we used to get into some humdinger arguments about that one! |
Ahh...I never realised that so many people try using that gambit! Suppose the answer to using it is a "Nay" then, which is a pain as I normally travel alone...
One thing with Ryanair is that they strictly prohibit passengers from pooling their baggage allowances, so I warn any group that I'm in to be careful and we always aim to have no more than 13Kg (2Kg "fudge" limit to allow for the fact that bathroom scales aren't nearly as well calibrated as airport ones!) in each checked bag.
In practice at Stansted though, we normally just wander over to the Easyjet side of the departures hall, borrow the scales at one of the unused check-in desks, and swap the load around bags as appropriate before we get anywhere near the Ryanair desks! | Blue A61 wrote: | | The A380 is muted as one of the most fuel effiecent planes on the market, which is impressive for its size. Currently they burn 3.5litres per 100 passenger Km. The aim for Airbus and Boeing is to get the A380 and B787 Dreamliner to average 3litres per 100 passenger km. This will be the same comparatively as a small car. |
I must admit that I don't quite understand the expression Litres per 100 passenger Km...Is this referring to the amount of fuel required to carry 100 passengers one Kilometre, or does it refer to the distance the aircraft travels on that amount of fuel per 100 passengers?
As for the jet-engine being fuel efficient: I know that jet engines burn almost 100% of the fuel that is supplied to them (As opposed to a normal car where the burn efficiency can be as low as 50%!) but it's more the idea of burning such vast amounts of fuel to just make the thing work that I'm not too keen on.
Now I know that once an aircraft has reached altitude and is cruising at it's normal 550mph, the fuel consumption of an aircraft is very low as it only needs to keep the fans rotating at a little over the current speed of air passing through the engine. In a very limited and specific view, an aircraft could probabally fly about 250 miles for every ten litres of fuel consumed, as opposed to most family cars that would use up to four times that for the same distance at motorway speeds.
However, one of the biggest problems with aircraft fuel usage is more about moving the aircraft along the ground. As aircraft do not - To my knowlege - Have any form of drive system built into the landing gear, the aircraft can only build momentum for taxiing by revving up the engines and blowing out a lot of hot air.
Surely having some form of hydraulic drive on the aircraft's landing gear would allow it to go from the stand to the runway more efficiently?
(If nothing else, it would mean that aircraft could taxi in reverse, and would do away with tugs at least! ) | Magic wrote: | | The other thing to remember about carrying excessive amounts of fuel is that the more you carry the heavier the plane is and the more fuel you actually burn to fly. Take off is excessively inefficient and uses considerably more fuel than just flying, so a heavier plane will burn even more fuel in take off. Apart from the increased financial cost of doing this there will also be greater emmisions. |
I'll fully agree with ye about the take-off! That and the amount of check-in/boarding time required at most airports is the reason that I travel by rail wherever possible!
If the fuel consumption on take-off could be reduced or eliminated, then aircraft would only work out as environmentally damaging as a normal Diesel-powered bus. If sone alternative form of take-off system could be found (Goodyear Blimps, maybe? ) then it'd reduce further emissions damage to Nature at a stroke!
On that same subject...Does anyone know if Intamin have considered applying a version of their rocket-coaster technology to launching aircraft?
It would seem unusual at first, but a gas/hydraulic launch system could be electrically powered and would be designed to catapault the aircraft to at least 20,000 feet or more. It would mean that all the pilot would have to do is glide up, then fire up the engines for the last 10,000ft of climb. As the aircraft would already be moving, it'd save a lot of the damage caused to Nature by the overuse of Kerosene...And I'm sure that she'd thank us all from her heart if we did!
Farewell...
>> Death <<
|
bluea61
|
Could you imagine the amount of power that would require to thrust a plane up to that height! And you just couldn't guarentee the reliability!
|
krusty_the_clown
|
Hmmmm unfortuntley if the engines then dont start that wouldnt be good at 10,000 feet!
No roll backs there!
|
Death
|
Hail all!
Just some annoyingly monosybillic replies here as I'm desperate for a smoke and I've been at this PC for a good few hours now! | Krusty the Clown wrote: | Hmmmm unfortuntley if the engines then dont start that wouldnt be good at 10,000 feet!
No roll backs there! |
Isn't that what wings are provided for? Birds have 'em too, and they don't have engines unless they're GMO...
| Blue A61 wrote: | | Could you imagine the amount of power that would require to thrust a plane up to that height! And you just couldn't guarentee the reliability! |
Four words: Margaret Thatcher's knicker elastic! That stuff is capable of launching just about anything!...
Farewell...
>> Death <<
|
|