Priligy online now, save money

SEP 17

Recent Comment

"Its Air New Zealand not Airways New Zealand ;)..."

View all Comments

Simple Measures Save 1,200 Gallons of Fuel Per Flight

Recently we wrote about how a UK railway is telling its engineers to viagra effects on the penis shut off one of their engines while coasting downhill and to close doors sooner on cialis buycialis onlin tardy passengers. Now the FAA is looking at simple ways to reduce fuel use as well.

Last week, FAA officials at San Francisco International Airport were monitoring a Boeing 777 Airways New Zealand flight from Auckland to check on how many more efficiencies can be obtained through control and monitoring of viagra viagra the flight using satellite-based GPs rather than ground-based radar.

The project is an attempt by FAA to streamline trans-Pacific flights and the flight was the first of its kind for the airline. The Airways New Zealand pilot said the flight saved 1,200 gallons of jet fuel, avoiding 12 tons of carbon from being emitted into the cialis daily air. A bonus was passengers arrived five mines earlier than anticipated.

The coordinated use of GPS by the pilot and air traffic control personnel allowed planes to take a more direct and fuel-efficient flight route.

Robert Sturgell, the FAA's acting administrator, said the new flight navigational technology means the skies are like a town with no need for traffic signals because all of the car movements are synchronized. The new technology will improve safety, decrease delays and lower fuel costs, says the FAA.

“With jet fuel going for three to four dollars a gallon, and more people than ever wanting to fly, we need to lost cost levitra do everything we can to ensure that aviation remains a safe and efficient means of getting there,'' said Sturgell.

The GPS-enabled technology monitored every aspect of cialis australia no prescription the flight from taxiing on the ground, climbing to cruise altitude and canada meds viagra finding the most direct route before applying the smoothest and most gradual descent approach available.

The program, which will cost taxpayers $16 billion to $22 billion, will gradually be introduced across the country, with nationwide conversion to satellite-based air traffic control by 2025. Using the program, said the FAA, could FAA's NextGen program is gradually being introduced across the country, with nationwide conversion to satellite-based air traffic control expected by 2025.

Via Economic Times and Associated Press and the FAA

Hits: 13572
Comments (8)Add Comment
written by John C. Randolph, September 17, 2008
Somebody's math is way off. 1200 gallons of jet fuel weighs about 3.3 tons. You don't make 12 tons of CO2 by burning 3.3 tons of a hydrocarbon fuel.

written by Dan, September 17, 2008
Maybe not - but most of the mass of CO2 is from the O2 not the C. Also you have figure in the transport of the fuel to the airport, etc, etc. Just a ballpark estimate - 3.3 tons of fuel should DIRECTLY produce around 10 tons of CO2
its correct
written by haichen, September 17, 2008
The density is pfizer viagra online ~0.7. So the weight seems to sale viagra be correct. The lightest hydrocarbon in the gas mix is butane. It's mol. weight is 58g and it burns to 4 molecules CO2. -> 4* (12 (2*16))=176g CO2.
3,3*176/58=~10 tons CO2 out of 3,3 tons Butane.
And it must be more because its not only butane but also heavier hydrocarbons.
this is awesome
written by ron, September 17, 2008
This is just amazing. I hope they will turn this into a global effort, because just the US is not enough.
written by DDK, September 17, 2008
If this saves the non generic cialis airlines money, why are taxpayers paying for it? Shouldn't taxpayers be underwriting a loan instead, to be paid back by dollar value of the the fuel savings?
NextGen not just for saving airlines mon
written by Yoshi, September 17, 2008
DDK, I don't think the point of the program is just to save fuel, but rather to improve air safety and better coordinate air traffic. I think the improved efficiency is just a nice side effect.
written by Karkus, September 17, 2008
2025 ! what's taking them so long???

Also, it might not seem fair to have taxpayers pay for it, but we should also benefit in the long run, with fares that won't be quite as high as they would be (and perhaps a tiny bit less global warming and lower gasoline prices).

The article must have assumed burning 3.3 ton straight carbon (12g/mol), which turns into CO2 (44g/mol). 3.3*44/12 = 12.1 tons. However, they didn't take into account the hydrogens in the hydrocarbons. Since most carbons in hydrocarbon chains have 2 hydrogens (2g/mol), it should be 3.3*44/14=10.4 tons.
written by Rufus, September 18, 2008
Its Air New Zealand not Airways New Zealand ;)

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles