Airbus Investigates Flying in Commercial Formation - FlightAware

← Back to Squawk list

18

Airbus Investigates Flying in Commercial Formation

送信時刻：大体一ヶ月前

To save fuel. The idea - act like a flock of birds. Severa spoke city’s (London Paris Madrid) rendezvous and fly formation over the Atlantic before reaching NYC. This will save fuel on the flight.... they’re gonna have to get a lil better with on time performance to make this work..lol (www.cnn.com) さらに...

29 人のメンバーからのコメント

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ken McIntyre 大体一ヶ月前 5

So, several large jets have to circle until the formation can be made. How would that save fuel?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

royalbfh 大体一ヶ月前 11

So, we just had a story about two high time commercial airline pilots that could not fly an ILS and now we expect them to fly close enough to reap the airflow benefits? cool.....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

airuphere 大体一ヶ月前 4

Yeah no doubt...lol. In the test program they’re talking about eventually having flight cpus similar to the ata refueling ones to do this procedure. Would be between 1.5-3 nm off the vortex.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Michael Stansfield 大体一ヶ月前 3

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with this plan?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Tim Eichman 大体一ヶ月前 1

Bah, Airbus computers will handle it all...

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

James Cross 大体一ヶ月前 1

I totally missed that – do you mind linking to the squawk?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

James Y 大体一ヶ月前 2

The article quoted Dr Sandra Bour Schaefer, CEO of Airbus’ fello’Fly:

"They will be 1 1/2 to 2 nautical miles away from the leading aircraft, and slightly offset, which means they are on the side of the vortex. It's no longer the vortex, it's the smooth current of rotating air which is next to the vortex, and we use the updraft of this air."
Taking advantage of the free lift in this updraft of air is called "wake-energy retrieval." Bour Schaeffer says that upcoming flight trials using two A350s could prove that on long-haul flights, fuel savings of between 5% and 10% may be achieved, "which is an enormous number. This is the reason why we want to accelerate it. It is not a product today, but it is something we strongly believe in."

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Harry Hallstrom 大体一ヶ月前 0

Ya, especially when a vortex is invisible not unlike published procedures and gps points of an ILS approach.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Ed Chapman 大体一ヶ月前 4

Sounds like somebody needs to be drug-tested.....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Harry Hallstrom 大体一ヶ月前 3

So tell me..........
Is the risk verse reward worth the price???
IMO NO !!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Chris B 大体一ヶ月前 4

I swear this is one of those ideas that comes out every so often.....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

royalbfh 大体一ヶ月前 5

remember the article about "circular" runways to reduce airport footprints?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Robert Cowling 大体一ヶ月前 2

This does make some sense, but isn't that the whole idea of 'airways'? I've zoomed out on the Aviation Weather site that shows planes in the air, and many ARE following each other. They aren't 'in formation', but aren't hundreds of miles apart either. But why not use larger planes? That would seem to make more sense?

I imagine, as climate change gets more severe, planes in formation hitting severe turbulence and needing to divert, or change altitude or speed, will make it dicey to have groups of planes following each other over long distances. Taking a train might be safer than being in the middle plane of a string of planes crossing storms and severe weather.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

FlaminSquirrel 大体一ヶ月前 2

"But why not use larger planes?"

I'm guessing because airlines will already pick the most efficient aircraft type to fly a specific route anyway.

This would allow aircraft heading in the same general direction, but that are not necessarily heading to/from the same location, to fly even more efficiently (e.g. flights across the Atlantic).

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

ToddBaldwin3 大体一ヶ月前 1

It seems like I've read about this idea before. It's an idea that keeps coming back.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

ToddBaldwin3 大体一ヶ月前 1

I knew I had read about this before.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a9257/vortex-surfing-formation-flying-could-save-the-air-force-millions-on-fuel-15703217/

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

airuphere 大体一ヶ月前 1

Should add... It’s called “fello’fly”.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Andy Bowland 大体一ヶ月前 1

It is more of an internal fact finding mission...as opposed to "Investigating Formation Flying"

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Laurent FRUTIN 大体一ヶ月前 1

nice..

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Greg77FA 大体一ヶ月前 1

We all know what turbulence can do to a plane in wake turbulence. With computers and experienced pilots maybe it could be ok. Otherwise, I the only resemblance to a bird are some nice swan dives occurring over the Atlantic with last minute recoveries.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

ADXbear 大体一ヶ月前 1

Never happens by humans, maybe computer flying.. so many risks.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Ric Ben 大体一ヶ月前 1

If Aircraft manufactures really wanted airliners to fly in formation, like geese, they would have installed horns instead of TCAS.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

bbabis 大体一ヶ月前 1

Too risky for the fuel savings with human pilots. This will most likely come about after commercial aircraft are autonomous and the lead aircraft precisely controls the others in the formation.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Raleigh Truitt 大体一ヶ月前 1

These responses show the depth of ignorance of non-flyers of aviation! It has been pointed out that the 1 ½ to 2 mile distance between planes with the trailing plane at a different flight level and offset to the side doesn’t come close to “formation flying.” It’s more like the “same way” “same day” type of flying. I’d speculate that some special station keeping equipment (SKE), such as the C-130 has had for over 40 years, would do the job nicely and quite safely.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

patrick baker 大体一ヶ月前 -5

this is astonishly ill-advised, for unless the pilot used to be a BlueAngel or THunderbird demonstration pilot, what could go wrong with close formation flying? Maybe the pilot flew tanker aircraft or used tankers to refuel- again, what could possible go wrong ????? Don't expect an autopilot to make this a safe operation. Whoever seriously pitches this catastrophe-in-waiting should walk the plank into being fired.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Mike Bogue 大体一ヶ月前 9

Why bother reading the article before responding to it?

"It's very, very different from what the military would call formation flight. It's really nothing to do with close formation,"

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

SkyAware123 大体一ヶ月前 1

They are 1.5 to 2 miles away. That's HARDLY Blue Angel or Thunderbird territory. But hey, reading is hard....

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

Raleigh Truitt 大体一ヶ月前 0

These responses show the depth of ignorance of non-flyers of aviation! It has been pointed out that the contemplated distance of 1 1/2 to 2 miles with the trailing plane at a different flight level and offset to the side hardly constitutes "formation flying." It is more like "same way, "same day" type of flying. I'd speculate that some special station keeping equipment (SKE) hooked up to the autopilot, such as the C-130 has had for over 40 years, would do the job nicely and quite safely.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Roy Bentley 大体一ヶ月前 1

SKE was originally used to keep ships (Boats) in formation. Boeing has developed FFS (formation flying system) to better keep aircraft in formation (3 dimensions to include altitude) Would work for heavy airlift flying in formation with Brigade airdrop capability.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Parent•Report

ログイン

当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。

閉じる

FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか？

広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.

閉じる