Diverted Flights & Battery Aircraft
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
This incident raises serious questions about the prospect of battery powered aircraft:
From EDP:
An aeroplane flying from Scotland to Norwich was forced to abort its landing and divert to another airport amid strong storm winds.
Loganair flight LOG53H was on approach to the city airport following an hour-long journey when it was diverted around 6.15pm.
Images from the flight-tracking website Flightradar show the aircraft circling the runway twice before peeling off and heading south towards London.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24016198.loganair-flight-norwich-airport-diverted-amid-high-winds/
Incidents like these are commonplace, and so are occasions when planes have to circle airports many times for various reasons.
What would happen if a battery aircraft was low on power?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I guess flying will be limited to days when air balloons can be used. Trouble is, the Air Balloon pub at the top of Birdlip Hill on the A417 has just been demolished as part of the work to improve the road, so there goes air traffic control …
As I understand it ,by law an airliner must carry enough spare fuel for 30 minutes extra flying time for a jet or 45 minutes for a prop driven aircraft .
So very few battery powered aircraft would have 45 minutes spare power left when they get to wherever they are going .
Yes, as well as the Final Reserve Fuel you mention, there are several other categories of fuel required as explained in the link. I guess the regulation for electric airliners will insist on similar reserves in addition to that required for the planned journey.
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/fuel-emergencies/
One of the problems pilots face is pressure from the company to carry the minimum legal fuel. However, the Captain is required to take into account the likely weather forecast at destination, often a 10 hour flight away. Experience of the likely weather and the destination airport facilities can be very valuable. So for a B777, if you wanted to hold for an extra 60 mins at a destination 10 hours away you need to load approx 7 tons of fuel to give yourself the required 5.6 tons of holding fuel. It takes fuel to carry fuel.
With a battery version, I guess you would charge to the max each flight, but in conditions as above the range would have to be curtailed if you need the required extra holding time.
Perhaps a battery plane would have to circle to dump fuel…./s.
And if it hadn’t enough electrons to make it, an air-to-air ‘tanker’ could lower an extension lead…../s
I seem to remember reading an article relating to battery powered aircraft where it was pointed out that conventional aircraft are designed such that the reduction of weight as fuel is used up in flight allows the landing gear to cope with the forces on landing (i.e. a much lighter aircraft than took off!!) Aircraft making emergency landings often have to dump fuel to make a safe landing. This is not going to be possible with battery powered aircraft as the weight on landing is the same as the weight on take off!! Wonder how that will pan out?
Dumping fuel in an emergency is often done – but it depends on the emergency. e.g. if the landing gear fails to retract then dumping is an obvious choice. The dumping area has too be carefully chosen as per the operations manual but there are cases where I would not dump under any circumstance such as a fire on board.
It’s alright thanks, I think I’ll walk!!
Before fuel is added the aircraft is at its ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) for the flight (passengers, freight, crew, basic weight etc). The ZFW must be less than MZFW (Max ZFW), which must be less than the MTOW (Max Takeoff Weight). Fuel burn (and load) is calculated to achieve a weight which is less than MLW (Max Landing Weight) at destination after the trip fuel is burned off. If (and I hope it is a BIG if) these ridiculous electric power concepts ever get off the ground (pun intended) then there is no burn off. The TOW (which now equals ZFW) must only be less than MTOW and MLW. Simples.
I think we can write off battery powered aircraft. What I’m interested in is this stupid government’s plans for battery powered lorries. I’ve asked my MP Flick Drummond more than once what is intended to deal with the thousands of huge diesel 12 wheelers that daily flood across the Channel let alone our own. What’s the cost of lugging a large battery around instead of payload? If the reason for EVs is sir purity then fall about laughing. I don’t expect an answer from Flick but I still wonder when we are going to get a date for an embargo on ICE imports. They dare not!! The whole policy is a predictable catastrophe.
There is no MAGIC new battery that will weigh a lot less , which means that no battery powered trucks will be able to carry any full size containers or they will be a lot over the maximum legal weight .
So, just like nearly all of the net zero insanity , it will not work .
I did work out once that a battery powered airliner on a Transatlantic crossing would need 1500 tons of battery .
So it could never take off or land and the whole idea was impossible .
Do you really think they will let battery powered trucks on ferries and through long train tunnels? I think two ships transporting EV’s have already been lost.
I do like your last sentence, most appropriate:
“Pan-Pan, short for “possible assistance needed,” is used to communicate an urgent, but not emergency, situation over VHF radio”
The decadent don’t understand how things work, and they assume whatever exists will continue to exist, whatever they do.
Rush Limbaugh called it a “static view.” I call it a “let them eat cake view.” They create an impossible situation, and when challenged, they give the equivalent of “let them eat cake.”
In this example, you need fossil fuels to power aircraft. Their “solution” is “let them fly electric planes.”
“the weight on landing is the same as the weight on take off!!” A good assumption, I’d think, bar the loos and E = MC^2. Of those two correction terms the loos would dominate.
Having flown this type of aircraft for BMI Regional the predecessor to Loganair I can confirm that diversions of this type were not uncommon especially in winter. I have personally captained aircraft on this exact route and along with fuel for taxiing and the actual flight, the reserve fuels which are legally required to be carried would amount to between 1 and 1.2 Tonnes depending on the fuel required to divert. This is actually the minimum fuel required to legally operate the flight and can be increased at the discretion of the Captain as know doubt it was in this case. I wonder how much leeway the Captain of an electric aircraft will have to play with. I’m glad I am retired.
https://mynorthwest.com/3944051/international-flight-from-london-makes-forced-landing-in-yakima/
Your first thought is: Where is Yakima?
A small town with a small airport, 107 miles SE of Seattle’s SeaTac Airport.
Adding to the fun: Yakima Airport does not have customs or immigration officers — note the word “international” in the URL. Oops! 🙂
There are understandably strict rules concerning fuel for commercial aircraft. Route fuel, holding fuel, diversion fuel and additional contingency fuel. Account must be taken of enroute, destination and diversion weather and forecast winds. When low visibility conditions at the planned destination are in force or when conditions involve high winds it is not at all uncommon for aircraft to be required to ‘take up a holding pattern.’ In some operational situations this holding could be prolonged, subject of course to the above fuel planning criteria. Apply all this to battery powered aircraft and one quickly realised it is a technical and operational impossibility.
Glide along and use a wind turbine to recharge!
Ah , the old dream about perpetual motion .
But the wind resistance from a wind turbine would uses more energy than it can produce .
So a rough calculation shows that would reduce range by about 10 to 20 % .
Not a sensible question because an aircraft carrying a commercial payload cannot be primarily powered by batteries, just can’t. Can’t get off the ground and fly far enough.
Far better to have have high speed electric trains for short haul, that have the ground to keep them up and can be powered by lowest cost nuclear energy.
Methinks you should be banned for bringing common sense into the discussion :<)
Thanks, but common sense is not common. This is a major problem. Most people believe the BS. Because its easier not to question the assertions of authority and many are not educated to question or have the basic formation to check, so its easier just to believe what they are told. In particular this includes our ignorant and innumerate elected politicians (the E in PPE is silent) , almost all are simple fools seeking easy sinecures at public expense by deciding on what they want to do and all agreeing to say the same lies about it to profit the chosen beneficiaries, totally corrupted lobby fodder for the criminals who are really in charge, writing the laws. Quite obvious by what they say and legislate, which is falsifiable in technical fact.
Carl Sagan described this coming problem very well:
“Because its easier not to question the assertions of authority and many are not educated to question or have the basic formation to check, so its easier just to believe what they are told.”
I think that harsh. Most just aren’t paying any attention.
They don’t intend for there to be any fights except for a small elite and these flights will use e-fuels (or just pretend they’re e-fuels). Read the UK Fires Absolute Zero report :
Click to access Absolute-Zero-online.pdf
the same thing that happens when a conventional airplane is low on fuel. Commercial flights rarely take off with full fuel tanks. More fuel than needed for the flight means more weight, which means higher fuel consumption and lower useful load limits, which cost money. Enough fuel to get to destination and about one hour reserve.
According to the zealots you have to break some eggs to make an omelette so deaths in a good cause are acceptable.
Their solution….. stop flying
One small question to the religious mind virus devotees to climatageddon, specifically those in XE and the Olympic standard asininity of followers of the Just stop oil cult.
My question, WHERE DO the plastics which pervade every aspect of electricity usage come from if your asininity pervades……..DOH!