If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Airport worker "injested" into engine of Delta A319 while taxiing to the gate at SAT
Airport worker "injested" into engine of Delta A319 while taxiing to the gate at SAT
Very sad to read of an incident like this occurring again so soon after the previous one. Circumstances are a little different this time. Aircraft was apparently taxiing to the gate when it happened.
Wow, you would think, after Piedmont suffered a whopping $15,625 fine for snuffing out a rampie, that these third-party contractors would take training more seriously.
There are always those souls who are not long for this world, no matter what you try to drill into their heads. There's that too.
Perhaps the next generation of big jets should incorporate electric drive units on the main landing gear, so only the APU needs to be running until they are safely clear of the rampies. The motor tech is getting lighter and more powerful. I wonder if the added equipment weight penalty would 'outweigh' the savings in taxi fuel. I'm sure ATL will love this idea.
It's actually already happening to a couple of existing jets (A320s), though on an experimental basis of course. The original designs did indeed use the APU. However, it seems the more favored approach now is to use a separate fuel cell. Aside from the obvious safety benefits, it turns out there's a solid business case around reduced carbon emissions because the aircraft operator then needs to purchase fewer offsets in order to achieve carbon neutrality. I'm actually surprised that taxiing with the main engines near idle releases such a significant amount of CO2, but I live and learn.
It's actually already happening to a couple of existing jets (A320s), though on an experimental basis of course. The original designs did indeed use the APU. However, it seems the more favored approach now is to use a separate fuel cell. Aside from the obvious safety benefits, it turns out there's a solid business case around reduced carbon emissions because the aircraft operator then needs to purchase fewer offsets in order to achieve carbon neutrality. I'm actually surprised that taxiing with the main engines near idle releases such a significant amount of CO2, but I live and learn.
The fuel cell route could coincide with an APU refit if a viable one can be produced in the near future. That would be a win for the environment. And the APU weight reduction should easily offset the added drive unit weight. But I wonder about the safety concerns if these are hydrogen fueled. There are solid fueled variants also being developed. And a fuel-cell APU still has to provide pneumatic power for engine start and cabin air.
But an existing APU powered route would seem viable today. Just a partial gear refit and some circuitry and controls. And then you still have the APU for engine start when you are nearing the threshold. I would expect the APU on a big jet—which is basically a gas generator helicopter turbine probably generating over 500shp—would be able to generate the electrical power needed with enough gear reduction, but perhaps not.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment