Task One – Air Operator Consultancy
Regional Airline
The regional airline market remains competitive, with manufacturers increasingly introducing new aircraft types. However, I recommend a turboprop aircraft for shorter, low-capacity regional flights across New Zealand. Unlike jets, turboprop aircraft are more desirable and flexible. Their engines are lighter and more efficient during take-off and landing and when flying at low altitudes. The other advantage of turboprop aircraft is that they can operate on rough surfaces with shorter runways (Hayward, 2021). Besides, they are also relatively cheaper to operate and maintain. The Bombardier Q400 is an excellent example of a turboprop designed for short-distance flights, with 76 seats and front and rear boarding doors. It features two pilots and 2 flight attendants with a 1,114 nm range and 32.9 m length. The Q400 has a typical cruise speed of 414mph, 25,000 ft maximum cruising altitude, and a small wingspan of 28.4 m (Alaska Airlines, 2021).
As hinted above, I would suggest a turboprop engine for the operation. It is an optimized jet engine with a propeller instead of a fan. Unlike a turbofan engine, a turboprop’s design does not include a cowl, and the propeller requires adjustments to spin at the pace of the turbine. Mechanics can feather the propeller to reduce drag in case of an engine problem, allowing the aircraft to safely make an emergency landing with fewer risks of injuries (NOVAJET, 2021). Turboprop engines use the same principles as turbojets, incorporating a compressor, turbine, and combustor inside the gas generator. However, a turboprop features additional turbines, a reduction gearbox, and a power shaft for driving the propeller. The engines are available in several variants, but they offer high efficiency at lower flight speeds, consuming less fuel per seat mile. Turboprop engines require significantly fewer runways for take-off and landing than turbofans or turbojets of similar sizes (SKYbrary, 2017). A turboprop engine offers more outstanding performance and cost benefits over short flights, making it the best suited for operating a regional airline.
The Civil Aviation Act 1990 would be the most relevant rule for operating a regional airline in New Zealand. The legislation contains several parts, but the assignment will focus on Parts 1,2, 4, and 5. Part 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 deals with entry into the civil aviation system. It stipulates the requirements for aircraft registration and aviation document. The section also details the criteria for fit and proper person tests and the rights of persons affected by the proposed decisions (Parliamentary Counsel Office, 2021). Part 2 of the legislation outlines the functions, powers, and duties of the civil aviation system participants. It stipulates the general requirements for airline operators and the responsibilities of the pilot-in-command. Part 2 also specifies the power of the Director to suspend, impose conditions or revoke aviation documents. It also discusses the Director’s Authority to detain an aircraft, seize aeronautical products and impose requirements or prohibitions.
Part 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 deals with the fees levied on airline operators by the Authority. It details all the relevant prescribed charges with the relevant dates of payments. The section also offers the conditions for suspension or revocation of aviation documents due to unpaid fees. On the other hand, the Civil Aviation Act 1990 Part 5 deals with offenses and penalties. It details safety offenses such as endangerment caused by an aviation document holder, careless aircraft operation, and failure to comply with inspection or monitoring requests. The fifth part focuses on a wide range of other offenses covered by the act, including security offenses, infringement offenses, and disqualification (Parliamentary Counsel Office, 2021).
A maintenance program is a primary document detailing an aircraft’s maintenance requirements or tasks to ensure its continued airworthiness. The Operator (AOC Holder) must produce the maintenance program for every aircraft type on their fleet as per the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) and Maintenance Planning Document (MPD). However, the operator must monitor its maintenance programs’ effectiveness through a Reliability Programme. That requires collecting data of item removal rate and failure and analyzing trends or substantiate assumptions. That would facilitate practical corrective actions like amending the maintenance program to change task frequencies (SKYbrary, 2021). A Maintenance Review Board Report comprises the Minimum Initial Scheduled Maintenance Requirement. It is a standardized document for developing scheduled maintenance instructions, ensuring an efficient aircraft maintenance program. The Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) incorporates the industry steering committees and maintenance steering groups’ recommendations for the frequency and scope of scheduled aircraft inspections. They then submit the data to the aircraft manufacturer to develop appropriate maintenance planning documents (MPDs) for the airline operators. Small private aircraft operators usually rely on the manufacturers’ inspection and maintenance guidelines. However, commercial airline operators use the MRBR and MPDs to create an FAA-approved Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Programme (CAMP) (Mohammad, 2007).
Task Two – Airport Consultancy
The following diagram illustrates a recommended layout for a new airport with three parallel runways.
Approach
The recommended airport layout will comprise two terminal buildings and satellite buildings. I recommend 4 km long and 60 m wide runways, accommodating all types of aircraft operating at total capacity. The runways 1, 2, and 3 should have 2.2 km spacing between them, allowing simultaneous aircraft take-off and landing operations. The flights should approach the runways from the West, reducing cross-landing to a minimum. The airport would also commodate two parallel taxiways, measuring 4 km and 3 km long. The plan would also accommodate eight connecting taxiways on the entry and exit points, ensuring easy movements to and from the airport (Dav University, 2015).
The linear terminal layout would be the most suitable for maximizing the number of aircraft at the gates without making it difficult for passengers to navigate the airport terminal. It is one of the most popular airports terminal designs, accommodating several planes and allowing passengers to board simultaneously through jet bridges. The contractors can expand the design into several concourses or piers connected via underground passages and internal transit lines. The linear plan stipulates parking aircrafts adjacent to the terminal, allowing large passengers to maneuver the area. The building’s lengths are limited to about 800 meters (Suchi, Drogermuller & Kleinschmidt, 2012). Linear terminals’ primary goal is to eliminate the long distances between the aircraft and places of arrival, allowing passengers to be driven up to the aircraft gates. The linear configuration comprises roads on one side and planes on the other. However, the terminal design requires separate check-in and baggage handling facilities at or next to the aircraft positions. That significantly increases the personnel and equipment requirements for serving passengers. Unlike in centralized terminals, the maximum distance from one end to the other is longer in a linear terminal layout. Some of the most popular airports using the linear terminal configuration include Fort Worth, Dallas, and Kansas City (Neufville, 1975).
FOD and wildlife hazard management on or near airports is not usually straightforward. The processes involved could be quite diverse, including habitat manipulation, predators to repel wildlife, and lethal wildlife control mechanisms. The main types of wildlife hazards include birds, reptiles, and mammals. The FAA argues birds, reptiles and mammals contribute to 97%, 1%, and 3% of the reported strikes, requiring unique management procedures. Nevertheless, I recommend habitat deterrence as one of the primary procedures for managing FOD and wildlife hazards at the new airport. The recommendation is subject to the assumption that improper landscaping can attract wildlife to the airport and impact safety hazards while proper landscaping can deter them (Federal Aviation Administration, 2020). It would be best to avoid some plants that offer food and shelter for dangerous wildlife. Habitat deterrence creates an unattractive environment for potentially hazardous animals in and around the airport. Thus, it would be best to understand and control possible animal habitats at the airport, significantly reducing the risks of wildlife strikes. The FAA provides comprehensive information about habitat modification and other processes for controlling dangerous wildlife at airports. Airport planning is also essential to reducing bird strike hazards at airports. Proper planning helps with recognizing the land uses on or near the airport that could attract wildlife. The notable land uses that often attract wildlife include putrescible-waste disposal, wastewater treatment facilities, dredge spoil containment areas, and wetlands. Controlling those land uses can reduce wildlife strike hazards caused by gulls, waterfowls, deer, and raptors.
The airport should also conduct a continuous risk assessment, surveying the wildlife numbers, locations, species, and the frequency of their occurrence. That is important because most wildlife species are highly adaptive to changing environmental conditions. The procedure also involves analyzing the past and current cases, such as wildlife strike rates and their impact on aircraft operations at nearby airports. The continuous risk assessment would enable the airport operators to create the most effective and efficient initiatives for FOD and wildlife hazard management. Larger airports with high volumes of operations need a formal wildlife control program. In comparison, smaller airports could manage the tasks through warning procedures and communications to advise pilots about unusual wildlife activity (MacKinnon, 2021).
RESAs is an acronym for Runway End Safety Areas, which refer to symmetrical areas that extend the runway centerline towards the end of the trip. Its primary focus is reducing the risk of damage to an aircraft overruling or undershooting the runway. RESAs are formal mechanisms for limiting the consequences when planes overrun or undershoot the runway during landing or rejected take-offs. RESAs provide cleared and graded areas, enhancing aircraft deceleration without hindering the maneuverability of rescue personnel and other emergency response activities. The International standard, ICAO, currently stipulates a 300 feet (90m) RESA from the runway strip’s end. Besides, they also recommend a 240m RESA beyond the given dimensions (SKYbrary, 2021). While constructing RESAs would impact additional financial obligations, they offer more incredible potential safety benefits. Thus, it would be best if the airport invested in RESAs since safety always comes first.
Tower and approach/ departure controllers coordinate the flight movements, keeping them at safe distances from each other and directing pilots during take-off and landing. They also direct aircraft around bad weather, ensuring the smooth flow of air traffic with minimal delays. The new airport will have its air traffic control tower, handling all the aircraft take-off, landing, and ground operations. The pilots will inspect their planes and file flight plans with the tower controllers at least 30 minutes before take-off. They review the weather along the designated routes and file the flight plan, including airline name and flight number, aircraft type and equipment, intended airspeed and cruising altitude, flight route (airport of departure, destination airport, and the centers where they would cross during the flight). The tower controller, a flight data person, will review the weather and flight plan data before entering them into the airport’s host system. That would generate a flight progress strip shared amongst controllers during the flight (Sheffield School of Aeronautics, 2019). The document contains all the necessary information for tracking the plane during flight, with constant updates. The flight data person will issue a clearance delivery to the pilot after the flight plan’s approval then transfer the flight progress strip to the ground controller. Ground controllers regulate all ground traffic, including aircraft taxiing from the gates to the take-off runways and vice versa. The ground controllers will also monitor the airport’s taxiways, using ground radar to track all the aircraft and ensure planes do not cross active runways or interfere with ongoing ground operations. They communicate with pilots via radio, giving instructions on taxiing and the runways to use for take-off. They then pass the strip to the local controllers as soon as the aircraft reaches the intended runway. The local controller watches the skies over the airfield and tracks the aircraft, maintaining safe distances between planes during take-off. They issue the final clearance for take-off and pass on the new radio frequency for the departure controllers but keep watching the plane until it reaches five miles from the airport.
The pilot will then activate a transponder device inside the plane after take-off. It detects incoming radar signals, broadcasting amplified and encoded radio signals towards the detected radar waves. The transponder signal will notify the controller about the aircraft’s altitude, airspeed, destination, and flight number. The departure controller uses radar to monitor the plane and observe safe distances between ascending aircraft. They instruct the pilot about the recommended heading, rate of ascent, and speed, following regular ascent corridors. The departure controller then hands the aircraft to the center controller, with an updated flight progress strip. At least two air traffic controllers will monitor an aircraft entering the ARTCC airspace. The radar controller handles all air-to-ground communications, maintaining safe distances between the aircraft within the sector and coordinating activities with other sectors. They monitor the airspace at high altitudes exceeding 24,000 ft and low altitudes below that figure. The local controller at the airport tower will constantly check the runways and skies for safety before giving the pilot clearance to land (Freudenrich, 2021).
The first navigational aid for the airport would be a Non-directional Radio Beacon (NDB). The low to medium frequency radio beacon relays non-directional signals, allowing aircraft to determine bearings. They operate in a frequency band of 190 to 535 kHz, transmitting a continuous carrier with 400 or 1020 Hz modulation. NDBs have very long-range transmissions, making them an excellent option for airports located in remote areas. However, they are susceptible to night and shoreline effects (Boldmethod, 2021). I would also recommend a VOR for the new airport. They are among the most popular navigational systems, primarily due to their distinctive advantages. They offer 360 courses to and from the ground station, with greater accuracy and limited interference. They provide more precise bearings from the station to the aircraft, considering the aircraft’s orientation and wind (Cochran, 1965).
Task Three – Case Studies
The Midwest Flight 5481
The Midwest Flight 5481 was a commuter airline that crashed into a hangar on January 8, 2003, killing all the 21 people on board. The flight reportedly pitched up immediately after take-off to 54 degrees, with its nose up before stalling and falling from the sky. Air Midwest flight 5481 departed from Charlotte, North Carolina to a regional airport in South Carolina, Greenville-Spartanburg. Although airline personnel typically conduct weight and balance checks before loading the plane, distributing passengers’ weight and baggage in small planes like the Air Midwest flight 5481’s Beech 1900 is tricky since even a slight extra weight would throw it off balance (Admiral_Cloudberg, 2019). However, the airport personnel only used estimates of average weights. They then passed on those figures to the pilots, who determined the aircraft’s total weight to be 7,724 kgs with 37.8% COG, within its 7,765 kgs recommended take-off weight limit and 40% MAC. However, they did not realize they used the wrong figures. The personnel would have discovered the plane’s actual weight was 8,028 kgs if they weighed all the passengers and baggage. That extra weight switched the plane’s COG towards the rear to 45.5% MAC, exceeding the stipulated limits, making it pitch up, climb steeply and lose airspeed. The lack of proper balance and weight checks was the main issue that caused the fatal crash. The case study proves airlines must conduct weight and balance checks before clearing a plane for take-off. Estimates can be misleading since some people and baggage usually exceed the theoretical limits. For instance, the ramp agents said two of the bags were unusually heavy, with estimated weights of 70 and 80 pounds but, they failed to mark them as such (Sez, 2016). Weighing the passengers and baggage would have enabled the airport personnel to discover the excesses, allowing the pilots to calculate the plane’s COG accurately. That would have enabled them to distribute the weight evenly or remove the extra baggage on the plane before take-off, avoiding the crash. The incident proved even slight mishaps in weight and balance checks could be fatal.
The Midwest Flight 5481’s crash also highlighted that limiting the movement of control surfaces can adversely affect aircraft performance. Investigators established the aircraft’s elevator control system had been rigged during routine maintenance, limiting it to 7 Degrees nose down (Zoetewey & Staggers, 2004). The Raytheon Aerospace Quality Assurance inspector advised the mechanics to skip some steps in the complete rigging procedure, contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions. Thus, they inserted the rig pin incorrectly, hindering the control column from locking into a neutral position as required (Admiral_Cloudberg, 2019). Midwest Flight 5481’s maintenance personnel failed to follow the manufacturer’s instructions for the elevator control system rigging procedure, missing a critical step that would have enabled them to detect the mis-rig and prevent the accident. The incorrect elevator rigging and excessive aft COG made it impossible for the pilots to control the plane’s pitch axis during take-off. The mechanics skipped critical steps, assuming they were irrelevant and failed to re-calibrate the pitch sensor. This procedure would have enabled them to realize the elevators would not move beyond 7 degrees nose down, contrary to the manufacturer’s standard. That indicates limiting the movement of control surfaces could adversely affect an aircraft’s performance. The problems may not immediately show, as in Midwest Flight 5481 but, would eventually impact the aircraft’s performance (Sez, 2016).
The Delta Flight 191
The Delta Airlines Flight 191 crashed at Dallas/ Fort Worth International Airport on August 2, 1985. The National Transportation Safety Board ruled the accident was caused by violent wind-shear associated with an intense thunderstorm at the northern end of the airport on runway 17 Left (Sez, 2012). The Lockheed L-1011’s crew flew into a thunderstorm with heavy rain and lightning since several aircrafts had safely landed in such conditions. However, the storm suddenly intensified on the plane’s final approach to the runway. As the crew struggled to fight the phenomenon they hardly understood, the plane bounced through the air, slamming down far from the runway. It hit a car, bounced again across the airfield, and rammed into an airport storage tank, killing one hundred and thirty-seven people.
Experts did not clearly understand the weather phenomenon then, but it has become known as a microburst (Philips, 2005). It is caused by a shaft of cold air that descends from the atmosphere to the ground then disperses towards different directions, often accompanied by strong winds and thunderstorms. Experts say a microburst is a downburst that affects an area of 4 km or less in diameter. They could be powerful, with vertical winds of 6,000 ft per minute. Microbursts are hazardous to aircraft, especially during take-off and landing. The plane would encounter a strong headwind, increasing its indicated airspeed, prompting the pilot to reduce power. However, that is dangerous since the wind turns into a strong tailwind as the plane passes the downburst, limiting its lift and dragging it down rapidly. The strong downburst could force the plane into the ground or make it lose significant height, causing accidents (SKYbrary, 2020).
One of the FAA’s countermeasures for preventing such incidents was implementing the Classify, Locate and Avoid Wind Shear (CLAWS) project. They directed the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to use the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) to protect airports. The radar system could detect precipitation and measure the wind speeds within a weather cell. Meteorologists used the system to issue microburst advisories and daily microburst probability forecasts. The FAA also implemented the Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) in 2001. The tool integrates various meteorological instrumentation to support aircraft and airport operations. It can detect low-level wind shear and lightning associated with microbursts, diagnose and extrapolate wind shift lines, allowing flight and airport operators to plan safer runway configurations (National Weather Service, 2015).
The Asiana Airlines Flight 991
The Asiana Airlines flight 991 was a Boeing 747-400F cargo plane that suffered a main-deck fire and crashed into the sea off Jeju Island, South Korea, on July 28th, 2011, killing all the two crew members on board. It carried 58 tonnes of cargo, including 0.4 tonnes of potentially risky materials like paint, lithium batteries, synthetic resin, and amino acid solutions. The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) determined the accident resulted from a fire near the pallets with dangerous goods. They did not find the cause of the fire but, it rapidly escalated into a large flame, separating parts of the fuselage from the aircraft mid-air and causing the crash (Aviation Safety Network, 2011). Apart from the improper loading of flammable materials, the crew also failed to contain the fire due to the lack of an active fire suppression system. While cargo planes can carry dangerous goods, strict adherence to the rules for carrying such products is critical to safety. Doing so would have enabled the airport personnel and pilots to take the necessary safety precautions when loading dangerous goods into the plane. Strict adherence to the rules about carrying dangerous items on planes would have also let pilots know the most effective fire suppression systems in each cargo compartment.
The Asiana Airlines flight 991’s crash prompted the authorities to intensify the regulations on lithium-ion batteries on flights. The incident proved lithium-ion batteries are hazardous and could easily short circuit and explode on board airplanes. It also showed the fire produced from the explosion of lithium-ion batteries is so intense that the standard halon extinguishers cannot suppress it. The explosion of a single lithium-ion battery can rapidly propagate fire into various onboard devices and other cargo (Fowler & John, 2017). Thus, loading them into the cargo hold is highly hazardous.
The Aeronaves De Mexico Flight 498
The Aeronaves de Mexico Flight 498 was a scheduled commercial flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles, California, with several stops. On August 31st, 1986, a Piper PA-28-181 clipped the McDonnell Douglas DC-9’s tail section, crashing it into the Los Angeles’ Cerritos suburb, killing all the 67 people aboard both planes and fifteen others on the ground. The investigations found no fault on the DC-9’s crew but blamed the US Federal Aviation Administration and Piper’s pilot (Swopes, 2018). The incident mainly highlighted the importance of distinguishing a VFR from IFR to maintain separation between aircraft. VFR stands for Visual Flight Rules, while IFR in whole means Instrument Flight Rules. Pilots can choose either of the two rules based on the weather conditions. Flying VFR requires maintaining Visual Meteorological Conditions, allowing pilots to observe safe distances. It also allows pilots to choose any flight path. However, the rules mainly apply to smaller low-flying aircraft. They also limit the pilot’s options due to the lack of visual navigational aids.
On the other hand, IFR rules permit flights through zero visibility conditions from take-off to landing. However, IFR flights operate within controlled airspaces, and their pilots must file flight plans before take-off. The pilots have no discretion to choose the routing and must use the established airways and waypoints (Thole, 2019). The Piper’s pilot had filed a VFR flight plan, which directed him towards the southeast Long Beach Airport. However, he failed to follow the planned route, flying directly to the east and entering the Los Angeles Terminal Control Area without ATC clearance. That hindered the pilot from maintaining a safe distance, clipping the McDonnell DC-9’s tail section.
There are different types of airspaces designated for different operations. The main classification includes Class A, B, C, D, and E for controlled airspaces and Class G for uncontrolled airspace. Class A is for IFR flights only, and the pilots receive air traffic control service and maintain separation from each other. Class B, C, D, and E permit IFR and VFR flights but with different air traffic instructions and control services (Morris, 2019). Nevertheless, the classifications are essential to guiding airport operators and pilots on navigating the skies and avoiding accidents safely. In the above case study, Piper’s pilot blatantly violated the FAA regulations that would have enabled him to evade the Aeronaves de Mexico flight 498’s flight path, resulting in the collision.
Task Four – Special Topics
Solar-powered and Electric Aircrafts are a Practical Long-term Solution to Reducing the Carbon Emissions from Aviation
Ritchie (2020) argues the aviation industry accounts for about 2.5% of the entire world’s carbon emissions. Most flights use jet gasoline, but some also run on biofuels, which produce carbon dioxide when burned. Despite the seemingly low carbon footprint, the aviation industry’s carbon emissions have doubled since the 1980s. The industry’s overall contribution to climate change is much higher since travel affects climates in complex ways. The International Civil Aviation Organization estimates aircraft-induced carbon emissions could triple by 2050. That has raised concerns from environmental experts, government bodies, and stakeholders over the aviation industry’s increasing impacts on climate change (Moua, Roa, Xie & Maxwell, 2020). Those statistics and concerns have prompted aviation experts to come up with unique ways of decarbonizing the industry. Solar-powered and electric aircraft are some of the most practical long-term solutions to reducing the aviation industry’s carbon footprint. The following essay will discuss the findings of recent studies and other industry reports to support the claim.
A recent feasibility study explored the fuel and battery configurations and energy lifecycle to determine the trade-offs required to deliver the most significant reductions in carbon emissions. The researchers compared the relative carbon dioxide emissions produced per kilowatt-hour for every state across the U.S. They configured the model through a propulsion system that uses a 50% electricity-powered drivetrain and a battery with an energy density of 1,000 watt-hours per kilogram. The study estimated that configuration produced 49.6% less lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions than a modern conventional plane (University of Illinois College of Engineering, 2019). Thus, they concluded it is a viable option for environmentally conscious aviation. However, the researchers pointed the need for further battery improvements to create lightweight batteries with enough power to run commercial planes. The study revealed a battery with 400 to 600 watt-hours per kilogram could realize the dream of a fully electric commercial airplane.
Many leading aircraft manufacturers have explored the viability of electric aircraft, with huge successes. A good example is the e-Genius, an all-electric-powered aircraft built by the University of Stuttgart engineers. The two-seater plane set new world records, climbing over 20,000 feet in less than two minutes, with speeds of 142 miles per hour. It flew non-stop for 300 miles, consuming just about 25 kilowatts of electricity. That was just about a fifth of the energy that a fuel-powered two-seater plane uses over the same distance. Besides, the e-Genius produced no carbon emissions since it was entirely powered by electricity. That shows how electric-powered aircraft can significantly reduce the aviation industry’s carbon footprint, replacing petrochemicals with cleaner energy. Boeing, Airbus, Safran, and Raytheon have announced plans to re-conceptualize their modern planes. Airbus recently unleashed a battery-powered recreational aircraft, known as E-Fan, with plans for creating commercial planes in the next 20 years. Another example, the Taurus G4, built by Pipistrel, has proven that electric aircraft are green and have better performance. The plane requires less runway and climbs faster than similar models powered by fuel. Analysts project the electric aviation market could hit over $22 billion in the next fifteen years (Reuters, 2019).
Electric aviation is constantly growing, with many airline operators increasingly taking notice of the revolution. In July 2021, the Modesto Airport became acquainted with that reality when a solar-powered plane landed on its runway. The Pipistrel Alpha Electro runs on electricity from batteries, which the pilot recharged through a portable solar array. It only had two passenger seats but, the weight was quite heavy due to the batteries. The aircraft flew at about 125 miles per hour, consuming just about a tenth of the energy that a fossil fuel-powered plane would have used. The pilot quickly pointed out that electric aircraft also have meager operational costs, making them viable for transforming the aviation industry. The plane belongs to the cities of Mendota and Reedley in Fresno County, one of the partners in the Sustainable Aviation Project that aims to install airport chargers across the Valley (Holland, 2021). Those actions indicate the tremendous potential of electric and solar-powered planes in reducing the aviation industry’s carbon emissions and facilitating the move from environmentally destructive fossil fuels. The report concludes that all aviation would switch to electricity, and the industry is already taking baby steps towards that goal. However, it also reiterated the concerns raised in previous studies, the batteries used to power the aircraft are heavy and need constant recharging for efficiency. Today’s batteries allow a range of about 400 km but, future improvements could enable manufacturers to create more powerful and lightweight batteries to run commercial planes effectively.
According to Plumer (2016), the Solar Impulse 2 is a fantastic engineering concept. The solar-powered aircraft has made several trips across the Pacific Ocean and worldwide without using a drop of fossil fuel. It is a true testament to the advancement in solar technology and aviation’s commitment to suppressing its carbon emissions. The plane has 17,000 solar cells on the wings and four lithium-polymer batteries for electricity storage but, the power can only support a top speed of 43 miles per hour and 2 tons of weight, including one passenger. Nevertheless, electric-powered planes contribute to a significant difference in energy density that would prompt commercial airliners to shun jet fuel for batteries. The breakthroughs realized to date prove solar and electric-powered planes could offer practical long-term solutions to reducing aviation carbon emissions (Seley & Rakas, 2020). However, there is still a need for further research and development to find better ways of harnessing sufficient electricity and solar energy for running larger commercial planes.
