Aviation and GHG

The aviation industry is the gung ho gang (GHG) in it's attempt to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Aircraft manufacturers, industry groups, and trade publications are all touting the need for the aviation industry to reduce it's so-called "carbon footprint".

From AIN Online:

"The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), along with IBAC’s member associations, today announced they are teaming on an “aggressive strategy” to further mitigate the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions."

This makes everybody feel warm and fuzzy and lines the pockets of the rent seekers but is it necessary?

There never was any evidience that said yes. Only computer models. Now the evidence is increasingly saying no. First there was Al Gore being discredited when errors were found in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Now there are the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (Norwich, England). It seems that "scientists" with a stake in the outcome have been manipulating the data and distorting the peer review process.

So businesses that are expending enormous amounts of money to try and jump through all the green hoops are doing so based on false information. This is a disservice to their shareholders and their customers.

What's in it for them if it's such a bad idea? Suppression of competition. Those who are best able to handle the costs of green compliance will prospers while their less liquid competitors fall by the wayside.

"When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation." [Frederic Bastiat]

If they want to help the world I think the big players in aviation need to educate themselves and adjust their policies according to the facts rather than the rent seeker's scaremongering.

"Blue Skies and Tailwinds"

That's how my friend and former flying partner, Dana van Loan (a farmer turned professional pilot) signs his emails. It's also the title of the book he wrote chronicling his adventures as a pilot. He carries a notebook with him and each night records the day's happenings. The result is Blue Skies and Tailwinds, with an introduction by Tom Brokaw. Yes, that Tom Brokaw. Mr. Brokaw was a frequent flier with the jet charter company that employed Dana and I. After a couple of flights with Dana Mr. Brokaw requested that Dana be on all the flights.

A reviewer at Amazon describes the book better than I can:

"Blue Skies And Tail Winds by Captain Dana L. Van Loan (Learjet Captain for JetDirect Aviation) is the life story of a professional pilot. Bringing the sight, sound, and feel of being aloft and controlling a massive vehicle as it hurtles through the air at immense speeds, Blue Skies And Tail Winds tells stories of near-tragedy, humor, sudden panic, and the quiet joy of just being in the sky. A candid and highly enjoyable glimpse of a pilot's life, especially recommended for aspiring pilots and anyone else curious about the greatness and the downfalls of dedicating one's professional life to the skies."

You can get it here.

Disclosure: I own a little Amazon.com stock so please buy this book.

Travel Tip

If you go to India bring an umbrella. It rains a lot. You don't want to get wet.

Crew Resource Management

CRM is a subject frequently discussed in flight training but seldom practiced in flight. The reason is that most of the discussion revolves around unusual situations or critical decisions that seldom occur. We are given scenarios such as low fuel, inclement weather, and systems malfunctions. Suggestions are made as to how to work together to handle the situation. Months may pass before we are able to apply the learning so it is never really ingrained.

I think resource management can be practiced on a daily basis during routine flights. It's nothing more than being aware of the resources you have and using them for routine situations. It's not necessary to wait for an emergency to practice these skills.

All that is needed is a sense of teamwork. This may sound too rudimentary but it is something I have found lacking on many flight decks. I have flown with pilots that seem to want to do everything themselves. Reaching across the cockpit to perform a function not assigned to one’s position is akin to a basketball player grabbing the ball from a teammate and racing down the court. Each person should play his own position and backup the other players as they play their positions.

I suggest that SOPs be written specifying the duties assigned to each seat in the cockpit and those assigned to the PIC and SIC. Then the crew performs their assigned tasks while monitoring the other crew members to ensure that they are performing theirs.

When someone misses something that was assigned to his position the other crew-member should point it out to him rather than do it for him. This way one is immediately made aware of their lapse and can devise a method to avoid repeating it.

"Boring" Holes at 500 mph

"Oops! Captain, I think we missed Minneapolis". Or words to that effect were probably voiced on the flight deck of Northwest Flight 188.

What happened? The crew says they were distracted by too much talking. Others think they fell asleep. Maybe they were talking in their sleep. Only the crew knows for sure.

There is much speculation about how airline flying in general and that flight’s cockpit activities in particular may have contributed to this occurrence.

One observation is that with modern, automated flight decks there is not enough activity to keep the crew alert. From Cnn.com:

When cruising over great distances, "it's very easy to be distracted because there's not a whole lot going on," said Emilio Corsetti III, a 30-year commercial pilot with American Airlines who has written numerous magazine articles about aviation. An airliner's entire flight can be programmed; once that program is activated, "the plane will fly to its destination without any input from the pilot at all," he said.

Patrick Smith, aviation writer, at Salon.com disagrees:

Even the most routine and "automated" flight remains subject to countless contingencies and a tremendous amount of input from the crew. Yes, tremendous.

Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have flown 20 Series Lear Jets at 45,000 feet for hours without a functioning autopilot (ahhh . . .those wonderful freight dog days. The wonder was that we survived.). THAT required “a tremendous amount of input”. It was exhausting! I have also flown fully automated aircraft from the U.S. to England. That involved flying for hours with NO input to the flight control systems and little contact with ATC. It was boring!

So yes, it’s true, the airplane will fly itself to the destination with no input but in actuality this rarely happens. There are unanticipated routing changes, altitude changes, and temporary headings required by ATC. There is also occasional record keeping to be accomplished. All these things help to keep the crew alert but I would not characterize this as a “tremendous amount of input”.

It’s easy to blame the automation for the boredom but at least the crew has some control over whether or not they will be bored. But anything done to relieve the boredom is by definition a distraction. Conversation is one of the best means of keeping all crewmembers alert. It keeps the mind active but breaks in the conversation allow for more situational awareness than reading or sleeping. As long as you keep the radio volume up.

Without the automation the crew can become more tired than with it and this they have very little control over. Once you’re tired, you’re tired. (Fighting to stay awake while preparing for a circling approach in a snowstorm at 2AM is not fun).

So did they fall asleep or were they in a “heated discussion”? Both explanations are plausible and both have holes.

Pilots do fall asleep, sometimes unintentionally. But this is rare. If it is believed they fell asleep one must believe that two pilots fell asleep, at the same time, for a full hour, at a time when they wouldn’t normally be sleeping. Not knowing anything about their duty day prior to the incident if one assumes their “body clocks” were on San Diego time that means that to them it was about 6 PM when they overflew Minneapolis and 5 PM when they allegedly fell asleep. Even if they had begun their duty day in Minneapolis that morning it is still not what I would call an extremely long tiring day. I am currently in a position where I am on duty 10-12 hours a day, five or six days a week. By Friday evening my week’s flying time amounts to about 40 hours. (We’re on a government contract, i.e. we are a “public use” operation, therefore no rules including flight/duty limitations). We manage to stay awake but it requires distractions.

On the other hand if you believe they just lost track of time you must believe that it was a very long discussion. This is possible. Long discussions I have seen. If they both had laptops open taking notes or looking up information this further occupied their minds and possibly blocked the flight displays depriving them of important information. Turning down the radio volume to facilitate these discussions also occurs. Missing handoffs due to being on the fringe of radio reception I have seen. It can take a while to realize that you are hearing only one side of the radio chatter. If you are distracted by conversation that one-sided reception in the background may give you a false sense that you are still in communication with ATC when in fact you are not.

I think they lacked the professionalism required to discriminate between enough distraction to avoid boredom (resulting in sleep) and too much distraction resulting in loss of situational awareness. In any case they were shirking their duties.

“. . . at the length truth will out.” [Launcelot, The Merchant of Venice, 1600]