1. Is the deviation purely horizontal, or can the plane avoid making contrails by changing altitude? Avoiding contrails in 3D may be a lot easier than avoiding them in 2D. However, the modelling and forecasting would be more complex.
2. In crowded areas such as over Europe, planes follow strict routes from way point to way point. There is no scope to deviate from the route. That keeps air traffic control relatively simple, and safe, and allows it to be split across national boundaries. The planes avoid other planes in the 3D space. To allow regular route deviation would require much more sophisticated ATC systems and specifically algorithms.
There have been proposals for making ATC dynamic and forward looking, so each plane is given a unique flight path and this is checked to avoid all other flight paths. In effect, the planes avoid each other in both 3D space and in Time. So the plane from London to Milan may be in the exact same space as the plane from Barcelona to Berlin, but 60 seconds later.
I think in crowded airspace, contrail avoidance would need more advanced ATC; but equally, contrail avoidance would be built into the ATC system.
The point is, current ATC treats planes like cars on a motorway, each in its own lane, with a mandated separation. Where "lanes" have to cross, they do so at different altitudes.
A smart ATC system would treat the whole area like cars on an enormous expanse of motorway, covering most the continent. Each would go one a set trajectory at motorway speed, but be programmed to avoid each other - or their vortices.
The thesis still holds, but the computer then just treats a plane as a zone of forbidden space several km long.
Alex: -- the existing standards of 10 minutes between aircraft / 5 miles difference horizontally / and 1000 feet vertically - has been put in place for one reason: to prevent flying into what is called "wing-tip vortexes" - produced by a previous commercial aircraft in that space of air.
Your car-lane anaology is correct on the fact that they are in-place -- but that is as far as your analogy goes - because you obviously are not a commercial pilot, espeicially
Generated wing vortexes can tear a smaller GA aircraft apart, and also make for a really violent ride for any aircraft that fly into them -- and they are always generated.
Aircraft are controlled today - by the pilots in those aircraft - or by computer- for safety: and until a way is developed where wing-tip vortexes are drastically reduced - fore safety for everyone -- the present spaceig has to be maintained - because no land based vehicle distrurbes the air - and in the way, or to the extent - that a wing of a commercial jet does - at cruiising speed.
Great article Hannah. Thanks for the valuable summary.
Every few years, the aviation industry comes out with an amazing product (wide wing aircraft, catapults, solar flight etc.).
It's greenwashing. Nothing more.
The obvious barrier here, as others have mentioned, is that ATC is built on radio technology from the 1950s. You cannot just "divert" as you want (You can deviate for storms, but this is manual workload for controllers). I don't know which regulator is going to advocate for "more work" (sure, the bros will shout "AI" from the sidelines).
*All* projections from airlines and aircraft manufacturers envisage *more* flights, not fewer. Any savings made here would be eaten by more flights.
Once again, we're talking about new untested solutions when we have affordable, viable, tested and reliable solutions on the table.
(I can just imagine the meeting, "Guys, we need to fly less", "Wait, wait, what if, what if, we reduce new contrails in, say, maybe 5 years from now?", "Great, let's do that")
Agreed on ATC tech being a huge hurdle. I wonder if there's a way to utilize SWAP routes (or at least the concept) for something like this. If they're used to avoid severe weather, couldn't they, in theory, be used here?
Contrails look superficially similar to the geoengineering technique of "stratospheric aerosol injection". There are quite a few differences in practice, but I would love to know which differences lead to the latter having a cooling effect while the former has a warming effect.
Basically, you get some powder or liquid (most commonly sulfur dioxide, but other things like calcite have been proposed) and spray it from a plane into the stratosphere. These particles reflect a small amount of sunlight back into space, which slightly cools the planet, compensating for the warming from greenhouse gases. It's not widely done (yet) but it certainly could be.
There's plenty of controversy around whether it's a good idea, but as far as I'm aware the basic idea that it would _work_ is generally accepted.
I'm confused by this "The proposed detours typically result in a 1% shift (and again, this is only for a small percentage of flights). That means increasing fuel use and flight time by around 1%." Don't planes use much more fuel in the take off than in normal flight? So fuel use and time are not coupled right? Like, if the increase in fuel use is 1%, the increase in time should be significantly more; or if the increase in time is 1%, the increase in fuel use should be significantly less. What am I missing?
A fascinating article that reaches the ubiquitous conclusion that environmental policy requires government enforcement.
It is lack of trust in government that is causing push back on environmental policy. More effort is required to persuade companies of the reputational benefits of sustainability.
Falling back on government enforcement may have the unwanted effect of creating more opposition to environmental policies in general.
“To pre-empt the critics: this solution does not mean the aviation industry can ignore the CO2 impacts of flying. Tackling contrails would not absolve them of responsibility for finding low-carbon alternatives to jet fuel. It’s not a substitute, but an addition.”
What a bizarre world we live in where this paragraph exists.
Why on earth shouldn’t it substitute? Why on earth would anyone criticise an alternative climate change solution because it doesn’t involve releasing less CO2?
Are there really people out there who care about CO2 reduction for its own sake, and not as an instrumental tool for reducing climate change?
Why is it that invisible CO2 causes warming, but invisible H20 does not? There is still the same amount of greenhouse H2O coming out the exhaust, the only difference is the state of the water. In one case it is water vapour and in the other it is ice particles. Has anyone actually made laboratory measurements, or id this hypothetical science?
Your kidding right - about rerouting commercial flights! do y0u or the people that came up wiht this have any idea just how rediculas that is? If you did, and had any grip on reality - why would you even consider it.
Also -- your conclusion that it will be expensive to get the CO2 out of the contrails - is corrrect - as long as there is any combustion associated with the burning of anything in those engines that keep them in the air.
The funny thing about it - is that "combustion" doesn't have to be a part of Flight.
But as long as the "I know better people "think that it is -- then it will remain.
Hubris is a humna trait - and has nothing to do with what is actually true about what is actually available as a power source for all aviation.
Because I a former private pilot and have flown back-seat / F-4 Phantoms figher-jets in the US Navy off the USS MIDWAY, CVA 41:
so I know "a little" about what is possible, what is necessary to be safe in the skies, and what is an obviously "totally uneducated to the situation" - pipe dream.
The "World-wide" system as it is presently set up -- is for one result -- passenger / crew / and aircraft safety.
The "proven over time" minimums and maximum aircraft spacing that have to be maintained at all times - has overwhelmingly proven their value as being correct.
And just because some "idea" comes up concerning "contrails, and what they protend for the future -- is not debatable":
--- because it is not viable - for anything.
for instance someone suggested spacing every 60 seconds - as if there was no residual effect from a commercial aircraft passing through a space.
What each commercial jet generates off each wing-tip as it travels through the air - is called a wing-tip vortex - and let me give you a fact:
--- if a small plane flew into a wing tip vortex 60 seconds after it was developed - it most likely would not survive as an aircraft, i.e., ie would be torn apart.
The standard spaceing for commercial jets in non-radar covered areas - is 10 minutes / minimum of 5 miles horozontal / and 1000 feet either way vertically.
These are proven safely factors that time has proven to be correct - for safely's sake.
Finally - with all of the commercial aircraft now in the skies - and more coming -- you just don't wave a magic wand and make a change that the article author proposed. - unless you want to kill an awful lot of people.
Great knowledge Scott thanks for the contribution. Not sure any of that explains how minor changes to avoid con trail producing conditions necessarily compromises separation of aircraft.
As I understand it, routes are already routinely varied to avoid or join the jet stream to improve journey times and fuel efficiency. How do these variations avoid compromising air safety?
Hi David, the problem is that the simple way to get the CO2 out of contrials - is to electrify the eingines - which can be done - for both types; -- internal combustion engines and or hi-bass jet engines.
In order to keep the designed in mass-weight of the aircraft - if it's ICE powered- there now exists sealed electric motors from YASA and other manufacturers that could sit inside the engine block(s); situated on a straight ouput shaft instead of a "crank-shaft".
For the Hhi-bypass jet - just replace the "fuel-air combustion buckets" with ones made out of Tungsten - and "heat up the air inside to them from a "stand-alone" solid-state electic power source.
- whihc just happens to be under privately funded development for both vehicular / domestic / commercial / and industrial use.
Some "who think they know better" will say that "such a power supply is impossible".
What they don't know is that the World has been using the exact same electric circuit, used exactly the same way - in the billions of AM and FM RAdios manufactured after Nikola Tesla invented and US Patented the Radio in 1900.
It's always better to elimonate a pollutant than try and put a band-aid on the problem it produces, i.e., - the CO2 in the contrail itself.
The contrails will still be there - butr:
--- they won't have any CO2 in them caused by burning any fuel;
--- the aircraft won't be carrying any fuel - thus can carry more payload;
--- the atmosphere will become cleaner as both commercial and general aircraft are retrofitted-repowered, World Wide.
To answer your question concerning mass: actually -- the mass and weight of aircraft is reduced - because the aircraft is not carrying, or burning the fuel required in "standard" jet engines.
Please understand that modern hi-bypass jet engines are called up to 80-20 % unit's meaning that unlike early jet engines that didn't have the multiple / big diameter / "fans in front" - modern day fan jet engines do -- and up to 80% of the thrust "pulling the aircraft forward is generated by those fans.
The actual "jet" part of the engine; where the fuel is combined and burned in the multiple "combustion buckets" positioned toward the back of the engine; supplies only 20% of an 80-20 hi-bypass jet engine.
The fuel is burned - to the air up - which causes it to expand - and the onpyut place it can go - is out the tailpipe.
As I stated - if those standard combustion buckets were replaced with electrically heated Tungsten buckets - the thrust output would be the same - without burning any fuel, and the plane would be appreciably lighter in weight - at takeoff where the strain on the aricraft is maximum.
Your next qustion might be -- "...Where does the 'energy' to power the jet engines come from..." - and here is where it gets into -- what is "belief" - and what is "fact".
I'm going to place here - 3 US Patents:
1.) US 511,916 / Electric Generator / Jan. 2nd. 1894;
2.) US 645,576 / System For Transmission For Electric Energy / Mar. 20th. 1900, and
3.) US 5,146,395 / A Power SUpply Including Two Tank Circuits - with regenerative feedback / Sept. 8th. 1992.
The first two Patents were granted to Nikola Tesla - the first Patent for his invention of the "tank circuit", and is discovery of "resonance". - with the second being for him combining the two, i.e., the tank circuit and resonance as the "receiver circuit" included in his invention and Patenting of the Radio:
--- found in the billions of AM and / or FM Radios manufactured since 1900 - so the circuit works.
When a resonanting tank circuit is combined with "regnerative feedback" - which is common place in the semiconductor world of elecronics, where a portion of the ouput power is routed back to the input power - because every resonanting tank circit sine 1894 has operated in the manner described below: - once it is started from an exernal electric power source:
--- that external power source is ellectrically shut off, andd the system continues to be powered by the regenerative feedback power - while always developing the following simultaneous operating conditions.
The resonating tank circuit
1.) always internally develops it's:
--- "...absolute maximum developed power..." -while
2.) always "electrically reducing" the input power level connected to the tank circuit - to it's:
--- "...absolute minimum power level...".
This "absolute maximum power level" to "absolute minimum power level" ratio - which is what it actually is - is
3.) always:
--- "...more than '1'..." with "1" signifying "unity" -- with is the absolute masimum developed output power level.
This does not violate / break / bend / or "even get close to" any Laws of Classic Physics / Thermodynamics / Conservation of Energy Theory / Perpetual-Motion / or Sustained-Action - contrary to what Classic Physics and ELectical Engineering Academia - and thus a whole lot of "misinformed", i.e., incorrectly taught individuals "believe" today.
Here are the Historical facts as to the origin of what is called "energy" is today - and the "belief" that it is a commodity that can be taken away from a circuit. and then "added back in".
This is based on the Ancient Greek philosophy / "belief" that everything in the Universe had a "force" - which they named "...energie..."
Next: - "Thales of Miletus" / 600 BCE / is attributed to being the first that "observed that when Ampber was rubbed with fur:
--- a "charge" would be developed "on the surface of the Amber.
The Greek name for Amber - is:
--- "...Elektron...".
Next: - Thales "came to 'believe' " that because a "spark" would always jump from the charged Amber to either an uncharged entity or person:
--- the charge had to be "...positive...".
Next: - "it came to be 'believed' " that because the spark moved:
--- it had to be a "...fluid...".
Next: - "it came to be 'believed; " that because the spark was a fluid:
--- it had to have a "...current...".
This continued through Ben Franklin's sstorm kite experiment - where he got shocked when a spark jumped from the key he had attached to the wet kite string tpp his knuckles.
All of this should have ended in 1897 - when British Physicist J. J. Thomson discovered the "electron":
--- and that it had a natural negative magnetic value;
--- that it could be "influenced" by other magnetic fields:
--- or "voltage".
At that time -- Electrical Engineering Academia tacitly agreed that:
--- it was the electron, with it's "negative-to-positive" movement in an electric circuit;
--- and not their "positive charge, with it's "positive-to-negative" movement:
--- that constituted "electricty".
But they immediated decided to continue their now incorrect and backwards curriculum - and the World is where it is because of it.
Finally - in the 1850s - Classic Physics Academia "stated" their position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce moe output power than input power...". - way before Tesla discovered the multi-phase AC ower system used around the World today.
And they sure haven't "gotten the memo" concerning the three patents above - or that the electron discover totaly eviscerated the Electical Engineering's curriculum.
So - if any of this makes you wonder what is going on - and why we're still burning fossil-based fuels to develop our electricity and power our vehicles:
--- along with the constant drum beat of "Drill, Baby, Drill" from the Oil and Gas Industry - the responsibilithy lies with the two namecAcademic groups:
--- because we've had the information on how to "electronically develo all of the clean electricity the World would ever need:
--- for over 1125+ years -- and "Richard" (reference the 3rd. Patent) is my legal first name -- but as a full blooded Scotsman - I prefer "Scott".
Scott McKie’s substack profile states that he holds a patent on an “over unity” electric power source, which physics pretty clearly prohibits. While that does completely discredit his ATC takes here, I’m taking them with several grams of salt.
I want everyone I know to read this and lobby their favorite airlines. I have two questions: which flights are that 80% and shouldn't we encourage a focus there? And what is China doing? Seems such an obvious win for any country that wants to be seen as a climate leader.
Karen - Airlines are not going to consider this -- because it deosn't have any validty -- and anything like is being talked about - is coming from people wh have no idea what is involved in safely spacing of commercial aircraft.
I am surprised by this. As I recall, following 911, when all aircraft were grounded for several days there was a temperature spike because of the lack of contrails - suggesting a net cooling effect?
I was curious about this and asked Claude about it:
The grounding of flights after 9/11 provided scientists with a unique natural experiment to study aviation’s effect on climate, particularly through contrails (condensation trails).
**Key findings:**
During the three-day period when nearly all commercial flights were grounded in the U.S. (September 11-14, 2001), researchers observed an **increase in the diurnal temperature range** (DTR) - the difference between daytime high and nighttime low temperatures.
The DTR was about **1.1°C (2°F) larger than normal** during those three days. This happened because:
- **Daytime temperatures rose slightly** - without contrails blocking some incoming sunlight, more solar radiation reached the surface
- **Nighttime temperatures dropped more** - without contrails trapping outgoing heat, more infrared radiation escaped to space
**What this revealed:**
Contrails have a complex effect on temperature:
- They reflect some incoming solar radiation (cooling effect during day)
- They trap outgoing infrared radiation (warming effect at night)
- The net effect typically leans toward warming, especially at night
This brief grounding period gave researchers rare data showing that aviation’s impact on local and regional temperatures through contrail formation is measurable, though the effect on *global* temperature is much smaller and harder to detect. The study was significant because it provided real-world evidence of aviation’s climate impact beyond just CO2 emissions.
I am not doubting for one moment - that Jason has the total right to have an opinion on this - as do I.
I would also think that almost everyone on this topic has an opinion.
All I am saying, after being beat on for over 60 yeaers for some of my " beliefs" which happen to coincide with the facts of the matter, is -- I do not know of any consensous of academic and scienticallhy based analhysis that in this case,i.e., the days that the planes were grounded definitively caused the change in the temperature / weather.
I also fully concede that I have not looked into it - as it didn't register on my radar.
But - in the scientific world - one entry / position - does not make an agreement.
Scott - you may not have been aware of this effect but your simple off the cuff response ( without thought or consideration) is just the typical smart alec response.
I think that was totally uncalled for. I think that you are showing your true colours and you are the one who looks bad. Oh, and I have reported you. Have a nice day
Thanks for bringing attention to this topic. I was also completely unaware of the effect of contrails on global warming and assumed that almost all of aviation's impact comes from the CO2 emitted through burning jet fuel. To discover that up to half the climate effects of aviation is down to non-CO2-effects changes the equation a lot. The way you describe it, it really is hard to understand why this has not been done and adopted for a long time, since it seems to be a very simple solution in order to reap an outsized benefit.
Hannah if you support the CO2 fallacy & AGW I'm out of here. The definitive voice on contrails & chemtrails is unquestionably Jim Lee of Climate Viewer. I see you are also attracting the uninformed who think Chemtrails are a conspiracy. To discount these limited knowledge followers, quote Jim Lee where appropriate. His depth of research & knowledge is staggering.
Another advantage of talking about the scientific reality of contrails is to preempt the lunatics who spread the “chemtrails” conspiracy theories… 😎
Very interesting, two thoughts come to mind:
1. Is the deviation purely horizontal, or can the plane avoid making contrails by changing altitude? Avoiding contrails in 3D may be a lot easier than avoiding them in 2D. However, the modelling and forecasting would be more complex.
2. In crowded areas such as over Europe, planes follow strict routes from way point to way point. There is no scope to deviate from the route. That keeps air traffic control relatively simple, and safe, and allows it to be split across national boundaries. The planes avoid other planes in the 3D space. To allow regular route deviation would require much more sophisticated ATC systems and specifically algorithms.
There have been proposals for making ATC dynamic and forward looking, so each plane is given a unique flight path and this is checked to avoid all other flight paths. In effect, the planes avoid each other in both 3D space and in Time. So the plane from London to Milan may be in the exact same space as the plane from Barcelona to Berlin, but 60 seconds later.
I think in crowded airspace, contrail avoidance would need more advanced ATC; but equally, contrail avoidance would be built into the ATC system.
Alex - a good thesis - but if you run it by any commercial pilot -- it's a total no go.
Do you know what "wing-tip vortex generation" is?
Check up on that - and the add in just how much distance a commercial jet travels in 60 seconds - at speed.
There goes your thesis. -- sorry.
Fine, make it three minutes then.
The point is, current ATC treats planes like cars on a motorway, each in its own lane, with a mandated separation. Where "lanes" have to cross, they do so at different altitudes.
A smart ATC system would treat the whole area like cars on an enormous expanse of motorway, covering most the continent. Each would go one a set trajectory at motorway speed, but be programmed to avoid each other - or their vortices.
The thesis still holds, but the computer then just treats a plane as a zone of forbidden space several km long.
Alex: -- the existing standards of 10 minutes between aircraft / 5 miles difference horizontally / and 1000 feet vertically - has been put in place for one reason: to prevent flying into what is called "wing-tip vortexes" - produced by a previous commercial aircraft in that space of air.
Your car-lane anaology is correct on the fact that they are in-place -- but that is as far as your analogy goes - because you obviously are not a commercial pilot, espeicially
Generated wing vortexes can tear a smaller GA aircraft apart, and also make for a really violent ride for any aircraft that fly into them -- and they are always generated.
Aircraft are controlled today - by the pilots in those aircraft - or by computer- for safety: and until a way is developed where wing-tip vortexes are drastically reduced - fore safety for everyone -- the present spaceig has to be maintained - because no land based vehicle distrurbes the air - and in the way, or to the extent - that a wing of a commercial jet does - at cruiising speed.
Great article Hannah. Thanks for the valuable summary.
Every few years, the aviation industry comes out with an amazing product (wide wing aircraft, catapults, solar flight etc.).
It's greenwashing. Nothing more.
The obvious barrier here, as others have mentioned, is that ATC is built on radio technology from the 1950s. You cannot just "divert" as you want (You can deviate for storms, but this is manual workload for controllers). I don't know which regulator is going to advocate for "more work" (sure, the bros will shout "AI" from the sidelines).
*All* projections from airlines and aircraft manufacturers envisage *more* flights, not fewer. Any savings made here would be eaten by more flights.
Once again, we're talking about new untested solutions when we have affordable, viable, tested and reliable solutions on the table.
(I can just imagine the meeting, "Guys, we need to fly less", "Wait, wait, what if, what if, we reduce new contrails in, say, maybe 5 years from now?", "Great, let's do that")
Agreed on ATC tech being a huge hurdle. I wonder if there's a way to utilize SWAP routes (or at least the concept) for something like this. If they're used to avoid severe weather, couldn't they, in theory, be used here?
Jonathan -- it would have been avaludable sumnary if anything in it had any validity - -which it doesn't.
Well, such is the nature of existence that some people disagree with each other.
Hannah presents a good overview of what we know and don't know about the subject. I'm grateful that she wrote the piece.
This is not a matter of disagreement as a matter of principal.
The idea put forward by Ms. Richie - does not address the fact that to do anything like was suggested, or other comments on this thread:
--- would create a totally unsafe situation, not only for the local area - but for the entire systsem -- because it is all interconnected.
Contrails look superficially similar to the geoengineering technique of "stratospheric aerosol injection". There are quite a few differences in practice, but I would love to know which differences lead to the latter having a cooling effect while the former has a warming effect.
Hi Ben, what is "stratospheric aerosol injection"?
Basically, you get some powder or liquid (most commonly sulfur dioxide, but other things like calcite have been proposed) and spray it from a plane into the stratosphere. These particles reflect a small amount of sunlight back into space, which slightly cools the planet, compensating for the warming from greenhouse gases. It's not widely done (yet) but it certainly could be.
There's plenty of controversy around whether it's a good idea, but as far as I'm aware the basic idea that it would _work_ is generally accepted.
A really good (opinionated) explainer: https://climate.benjames.io/someone-is-going-to-dim-the-sun/
More info on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection
Apologies for the scare quotes, I wasn't sure how best to delimit the phrase :)
Thanks, for one moment I thought it was related to the Chem-trail nonsense 🙄🙄
I'm confused by this "The proposed detours typically result in a 1% shift (and again, this is only for a small percentage of flights). That means increasing fuel use and flight time by around 1%." Don't planes use much more fuel in the take off than in normal flight? So fuel use and time are not coupled right? Like, if the increase in fuel use is 1%, the increase in time should be significantly more; or if the increase in time is 1%, the increase in fuel use should be significantly less. What am I missing?
A fascinating article that reaches the ubiquitous conclusion that environmental policy requires government enforcement.
It is lack of trust in government that is causing push back on environmental policy. More effort is required to persuade companies of the reputational benefits of sustainability.
Falling back on government enforcement may have the unwanted effect of creating more opposition to environmental policies in general.
“To pre-empt the critics: this solution does not mean the aviation industry can ignore the CO2 impacts of flying. Tackling contrails would not absolve them of responsibility for finding low-carbon alternatives to jet fuel. It’s not a substitute, but an addition.”
What a bizarre world we live in where this paragraph exists.
Why on earth shouldn’t it substitute? Why on earth would anyone criticise an alternative climate change solution because it doesn’t involve releasing less CO2?
Are there really people out there who care about CO2 reduction for its own sake, and not as an instrumental tool for reducing climate change?
This is the sh!t I never lose sleep over.
Why is it that invisible CO2 causes warming, but invisible H20 does not? There is still the same amount of greenhouse H2O coming out the exhaust, the only difference is the state of the water. In one case it is water vapour and in the other it is ice particles. Has anyone actually made laboratory measurements, or id this hypothetical science?
Would the IATA-OACI be the preeminent aviation organization to lobby for making these adjustments?
Your kidding right - about rerouting commercial flights! do y0u or the people that came up wiht this have any idea just how rediculas that is? If you did, and had any grip on reality - why would you even consider it.
Also -- your conclusion that it will be expensive to get the CO2 out of the contrails - is corrrect - as long as there is any combustion associated with the burning of anything in those engines that keep them in the air.
The funny thing about it - is that "combustion" doesn't have to be a part of Flight.
But as long as the "I know better people "think that it is -- then it will remain.
Hubris is a humna trait - and has nothing to do with what is actually true about what is actually available as a power source for all aviation.
Why you do not agree with the rerouting suggestion?
Because I a former private pilot and have flown back-seat / F-4 Phantoms figher-jets in the US Navy off the USS MIDWAY, CVA 41:
so I know "a little" about what is possible, what is necessary to be safe in the skies, and what is an obviously "totally uneducated to the situation" - pipe dream.
The "World-wide" system as it is presently set up -- is for one result -- passenger / crew / and aircraft safety.
The "proven over time" minimums and maximum aircraft spacing that have to be maintained at all times - has overwhelmingly proven their value as being correct.
And just because some "idea" comes up concerning "contrails, and what they protend for the future -- is not debatable":
--- because it is not viable - for anything.
for instance someone suggested spacing every 60 seconds - as if there was no residual effect from a commercial aircraft passing through a space.
What each commercial jet generates off each wing-tip as it travels through the air - is called a wing-tip vortex - and let me give you a fact:
--- if a small plane flew into a wing tip vortex 60 seconds after it was developed - it most likely would not survive as an aircraft, i.e., ie would be torn apart.
The standard spaceing for commercial jets in non-radar covered areas - is 10 minutes / minimum of 5 miles horozontal / and 1000 feet either way vertically.
These are proven safely factors that time has proven to be correct - for safely's sake.
Finally - with all of the commercial aircraft now in the skies - and more coming -- you just don't wave a magic wand and make a change that the article author proposed. - unless you want to kill an awful lot of people.
Great knowledge Scott thanks for the contribution. Not sure any of that explains how minor changes to avoid con trail producing conditions necessarily compromises separation of aircraft.
As I understand it, routes are already routinely varied to avoid or join the jet stream to improve journey times and fuel efficiency. How do these variations avoid compromising air safety?
Hi David, the problem is that the simple way to get the CO2 out of contrials - is to electrify the eingines - which can be done - for both types; -- internal combustion engines and or hi-bass jet engines.
In order to keep the designed in mass-weight of the aircraft - if it's ICE powered- there now exists sealed electric motors from YASA and other manufacturers that could sit inside the engine block(s); situated on a straight ouput shaft instead of a "crank-shaft".
For the Hhi-bypass jet - just replace the "fuel-air combustion buckets" with ones made out of Tungsten - and "heat up the air inside to them from a "stand-alone" solid-state electic power source.
- whihc just happens to be under privately funded development for both vehicular / domestic / commercial / and industrial use.
Some "who think they know better" will say that "such a power supply is impossible".
What they don't know is that the World has been using the exact same electric circuit, used exactly the same way - in the billions of AM and FM RAdios manufactured after Nikola Tesla invented and US Patented the Radio in 1900.
It's always better to elimonate a pollutant than try and put a band-aid on the problem it produces, i.e., - the CO2 in the contrail itself.
The contrails will still be there - butr:
--- they won't have any CO2 in them caused by burning any fuel;
--- the aircraft won't be carrying any fuel - thus can carry more payload;
--- the atmosphere will become cleaner as both commercial and general aircraft are retrofitted-repowered, World Wide.
Interesting. Assuming that we're not adding significant mass, how does the power output compare to existing jet engines?
Hi David,
To answer your question concerning mass: actually -- the mass and weight of aircraft is reduced - because the aircraft is not carrying, or burning the fuel required in "standard" jet engines.
Please understand that modern hi-bypass jet engines are called up to 80-20 % unit's meaning that unlike early jet engines that didn't have the multiple / big diameter / "fans in front" - modern day fan jet engines do -- and up to 80% of the thrust "pulling the aircraft forward is generated by those fans.
The actual "jet" part of the engine; where the fuel is combined and burned in the multiple "combustion buckets" positioned toward the back of the engine; supplies only 20% of an 80-20 hi-bypass jet engine.
The fuel is burned - to the air up - which causes it to expand - and the onpyut place it can go - is out the tailpipe.
As I stated - if those standard combustion buckets were replaced with electrically heated Tungsten buckets - the thrust output would be the same - without burning any fuel, and the plane would be appreciably lighter in weight - at takeoff where the strain on the aricraft is maximum.
Your next qustion might be -- "...Where does the 'energy' to power the jet engines come from..." - and here is where it gets into -- what is "belief" - and what is "fact".
I'm going to place here - 3 US Patents:
1.) US 511,916 / Electric Generator / Jan. 2nd. 1894;
2.) US 645,576 / System For Transmission For Electric Energy / Mar. 20th. 1900, and
3.) US 5,146,395 / A Power SUpply Including Two Tank Circuits - with regenerative feedback / Sept. 8th. 1992.
The first two Patents were granted to Nikola Tesla - the first Patent for his invention of the "tank circuit", and is discovery of "resonance". - with the second being for him combining the two, i.e., the tank circuit and resonance as the "receiver circuit" included in his invention and Patenting of the Radio:
--- found in the billions of AM and / or FM Radios manufactured since 1900 - so the circuit works.
When a resonanting tank circuit is combined with "regnerative feedback" - which is common place in the semiconductor world of elecronics, where a portion of the ouput power is routed back to the input power - because every resonanting tank circit sine 1894 has operated in the manner described below: - once it is started from an exernal electric power source:
--- that external power source is ellectrically shut off, andd the system continues to be powered by the regenerative feedback power - while always developing the following simultaneous operating conditions.
The resonating tank circuit
1.) always internally develops it's:
--- "...absolute maximum developed power..." -while
2.) always "electrically reducing" the input power level connected to the tank circuit - to it's:
--- "...absolute minimum power level...".
This "absolute maximum power level" to "absolute minimum power level" ratio - which is what it actually is - is
3.) always:
--- "...more than '1'..." with "1" signifying "unity" -- with is the absolute masimum developed output power level.
This does not violate / break / bend / or "even get close to" any Laws of Classic Physics / Thermodynamics / Conservation of Energy Theory / Perpetual-Motion / or Sustained-Action - contrary to what Classic Physics and ELectical Engineering Academia - and thus a whole lot of "misinformed", i.e., incorrectly taught individuals "believe" today.
Here are the Historical facts as to the origin of what is called "energy" is today - and the "belief" that it is a commodity that can be taken away from a circuit. and then "added back in".
This is based on the Ancient Greek philosophy / "belief" that everything in the Universe had a "force" - which they named "...energie..."
Next: - "Thales of Miletus" / 600 BCE / is attributed to being the first that "observed that when Ampber was rubbed with fur:
--- a "charge" would be developed "on the surface of the Amber.
The Greek name for Amber - is:
--- "...Elektron...".
Next: - Thales "came to 'believe' " that because a "spark" would always jump from the charged Amber to either an uncharged entity or person:
--- the charge had to be "...positive...".
Next: - "it came to be 'believed' " that because the spark moved:
--- it had to be a "...fluid...".
Next: - "it came to be 'believed; " that because the spark was a fluid:
--- it had to have a "...current...".
This continued through Ben Franklin's sstorm kite experiment - where he got shocked when a spark jumped from the key he had attached to the wet kite string tpp his knuckles.
All of this should have ended in 1897 - when British Physicist J. J. Thomson discovered the "electron":
--- and that it had a natural negative magnetic value;
--- that it could be "influenced" by other magnetic fields:
--- or "voltage".
At that time -- Electrical Engineering Academia tacitly agreed that:
--- it was the electron, with it's "negative-to-positive" movement in an electric circuit;
--- and not their "positive charge, with it's "positive-to-negative" movement:
--- that constituted "electricty".
But they immediated decided to continue their now incorrect and backwards curriculum - and the World is where it is because of it.
Finally - in the 1850s - Classic Physics Academia "stated" their position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce moe output power than input power...". - way before Tesla discovered the multi-phase AC ower system used around the World today.
And they sure haven't "gotten the memo" concerning the three patents above - or that the electron discover totaly eviscerated the Electical Engineering's curriculum.
So - if any of this makes you wonder what is going on - and why we're still burning fossil-based fuels to develop our electricity and power our vehicles:
--- along with the constant drum beat of "Drill, Baby, Drill" from the Oil and Gas Industry - the responsibilithy lies with the two namecAcademic groups:
--- because we've had the information on how to "electronically develo all of the clean electricity the World would ever need:
--- for over 1125+ years -- and "Richard" (reference the 3rd. Patent) is my legal first name -- but as a full blooded Scotsman - I prefer "Scott".
Scott McKie’s substack profile states that he holds a patent on an “over unity” electric power source, which physics pretty clearly prohibits. While that does completely discredit his ATC takes here, I’m taking them with several grams of salt.
Coming to an airline near you: “Contrail surcharge: “.
I want everyone I know to read this and lobby their favorite airlines. I have two questions: which flights are that 80% and shouldn't we encourage a focus there? And what is China doing? Seems such an obvious win for any country that wants to be seen as a climate leader.
Karen - Airlines are not going to consider this -- because it deosn't have any validty -- and anything like is being talked about - is coming from people wh have no idea what is involved in safely spacing of commercial aircraft.
I am surprised by this. As I recall, following 911, when all aircraft were grounded for several days there was a temperature spike because of the lack of contrails - suggesting a net cooling effect?
I was curious about this and asked Claude about it:
The grounding of flights after 9/11 provided scientists with a unique natural experiment to study aviation’s effect on climate, particularly through contrails (condensation trails).
**Key findings:**
During the three-day period when nearly all commercial flights were grounded in the U.S. (September 11-14, 2001), researchers observed an **increase in the diurnal temperature range** (DTR) - the difference between daytime high and nighttime low temperatures.
The DTR was about **1.1°C (2°F) larger than normal** during those three days. This happened because:
- **Daytime temperatures rose slightly** - without contrails blocking some incoming sunlight, more solar radiation reached the surface
- **Nighttime temperatures dropped more** - without contrails trapping outgoing heat, more infrared radiation escaped to space
**What this revealed:**
Contrails have a complex effect on temperature:
- They reflect some incoming solar radiation (cooling effect during day)
- They trap outgoing infrared radiation (warming effect at night)
- The net effect typically leans toward warming, especially at night
This brief grounding period gave researchers rare data showing that aviation’s impact on local and regional temperatures through contrail formation is measurable, though the effect on *global* temperature is much smaller and harder to detect. The study was significant because it provided real-world evidence of aviation’s climate impact beyond just CO2 emissions.
Thanks for the detailed response. Very helpful.
John -- having two things happen in sequence - does not means that they are connected.
Scott - read Jason's thoughtful response above. There obviously WAS an effect.
Claude’s thoughtful response anyways. I’m just the messenger.
Hi John,
I am not doubting for one moment - that Jason has the total right to have an opinion on this - as do I.
I would also think that almost everyone on this topic has an opinion.
All I am saying, after being beat on for over 60 yeaers for some of my " beliefs" which happen to coincide with the facts of the matter, is -- I do not know of any consensous of academic and scienticallhy based analhysis that in this case,i.e., the days that the planes were grounded definitively caused the change in the temperature / weather.
I also fully concede that I have not looked into it - as it didn't register on my radar.
But - in the scientific world - one entry / position - does not make an agreement.
Scott - you may not have been aware of this effect but your simple off the cuff response ( without thought or consideration) is just the typical smart alec response.
John - only a juvenile bottom feeder makes unprovoked personal attacks.
You must be having a bad hair day - so go find your mommy so that she can get you something to make you feel better.
I think that was totally uncalled for. I think that you are showing your true colours and you are the one who looks bad. Oh, and I have reported you. Have a nice day
Thanks for bringing attention to this topic. I was also completely unaware of the effect of contrails on global warming and assumed that almost all of aviation's impact comes from the CO2 emitted through burning jet fuel. To discover that up to half the climate effects of aviation is down to non-CO2-effects changes the equation a lot. The way you describe it, it really is hard to understand why this has not been done and adopted for a long time, since it seems to be a very simple solution in order to reap an outsized benefit.
Hannah if you support the CO2 fallacy & AGW I'm out of here. The definitive voice on contrails & chemtrails is unquestionably Jim Lee of Climate Viewer. I see you are also attracting the uninformed who think Chemtrails are a conspiracy. To discount these limited knowledge followers, quote Jim Lee where appropriate. His depth of research & knowledge is staggering.