Is the future here?

From control centers around the U.S. the military can attack targets with impunity anywhere in the world. Bomber pilots are becoming obsolete. Fighter pilots will probably be next. Here's a video of a (simulated, I think) drone attack executed from somewhere in Nevada: We could probably eliminate airline pilots as well. The only obstacle is money and public acceptance. I am hoping that lacking the latter I can stay employed.

This Day in Aviation History

Dec. 23, 1986. Voyager completed its flight as the first aircraft to fly around the world without refueling. Piloted by Dick Rutan and Jeana Yeager, the airplane was aloft for 9 days.

And I thought 3 hour trips were too long!

Haul Gas!?

Or not.

Most people look at the cost of fuel at their departure point and if it's cheaper than the cost at their destination they load up. But it's not always that simple. It takes more fuel to carry more fuel which negates much of the savings.

I developed the following charts for the Boeing 737-300. Your mileage may vary. I had our flight planning service (Air Routing) show how much extra fuel (in pounds) we burned for each 1000 pounds of extra weight we carried for each trip. Over the course of a few weeks I was able to come up with Chart 1. This shows that there is a direct correlation between distance flown and extra fuel used. This is expected. There were more data points than shown here which were scattered along the trend line. This was due to different winds on different days but I think the results are close enough to be useful in making fueling decisions.

I then calculated the break even point for a given amount of fuel at arbitrary prices for origin and destination. I kept getting inconsistent results as I varied the fuel prices. After much number crunching I discovered that the break even point varies with the extra fuel burn andthe departure point fuel price. Chart 2. Not quite so intuitive but it does make sense. If you want to carry a lot of extra fuel you need a greater savings per gallon to pay for it.

Enter Chart 1 with the mileage for the next leg. Go up to the line and to the left to find the extra fuel burned per thousand pounds of extra weight.

Enter Chart 2 with the fuel cost at the departure point. Go up to the line for extra fuel burn for the next leg. Note that the legend on the right is in inverse order from the chart. This is the way my spreadsheet wanted to do it and I did not feel like arguing. Interpolate if necessary. Go to the left to find the fuel savings required to break even. Any savings above this justifies tankering. Naturally, if the destination fuel is cheaper then you do not want to tanker fuel.

By using these charts we are tankering less fuel than we used to which makes our home base FBO happy.

If anyone sees a flaw in my reasoning or calculations please let me know. Meanwhile maybe you can save your company money by not tankering.

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.