Rejuvenated

PARIS--(MARKET WIRE)--Jul 25, 2007 -- At a June 2007 meeting in London, ADDAC and WheelTug plc agreed to form an alliance to promote the development and certification of the WheelTug® system for the Airbus 320 family and seek the cooperation of a European airline A320 operator.

Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070725/0282294.html

rahosi

I was also at that meeting in London, being part of the WT business development team. It is one of many equally technologically advanced products that the parent company, Borealis Exploration Ltd, are working on. WheelTug® is a great product that will be an obvious choice for airlines to equip their fleet with. On a flight of less than say 1½ hours, typically now an aircraft runs its engines longer on the ground than in the air!

The operational savings using the system will be huge AND it is one of the few things the industry has to offer to the green lobby as it will mean far less emissions / pollution & noise on the ground, besides the likely reduction in 'flight' times. For the first time it will give pilots TOTAL control over their flight from gate to gate!

You can read about the proof of concept test we ran with Boeing in 2005, and see it here.

On P11 of this week's (31 Jul-6 Aug) Flight International magazine There is an article - "WheelTug seeks European airline partnership"

ralfp

How boring.

WHBM

What a ridiculous statement. The captain of an aircraft always has full responsibility and control of his aircraft, even with the tug attached. That's why there is a microphone link between the two, for the captain to give commands to the tug.

There are also plenty of airports where tugs are not used at all.

Do you have the faintest idea about handling an aircraft ?

rahosi

Evidently more than you or these pilots and/or tug drivers.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...harles-de.html
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1171294/L/

Responsibility yes. Control, most of the time, but evidently not all of the time.
And how does an aircraft currently back away from the terminal without the use of a tug? Aircraft at most airports dis/embark passengers at a terminal, thus requiring a reversing manoeuvre to depart.

There is about $10B worth of tug damage done every year. That is besides the huge fuel savings that can be made using WheelTug.

Delta & quite a few others believe in WheelTug too.

Besides being part of the Business Development Team, I am also a shareholder......

MisterNice

I know absolutely nothing about aircraft tugs but $10B appears to be a lotta damage.

MisterNice

rahosi

Perhaps I should have been more specific. The damage done to aircraft involves all ground vehicles. However tugs are the predominant cause. This isn't a new issue. The problem is well known in the industry.

There is nothing new in the idea of a powered a nose wheel. Its just that until WheelTug, powered by our Chorus Motor, solution came along, it remained just that. An idea.

Besides there is the issue of FOD that is avoidable by not starting the engines until approaching the runway.

Some of the figures in the docs below are historic, don't include countries like China and don't include the military. Thus the $10B is realistic today.
http://www.flightsafety.org/ao/ao_sept_oct00.pdf
http://casa.gov.au/fsa/2002/jan/34-38.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ntal-tug_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6923629.stm
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1652587.ece
http://www.abtn.co.uk/Delta_goes_for...Tug_innovation


Yes we do have much more than a faint idea about what we are up to. So do many senior industry figures. As evidence of the magnitude of this problem try Googling TUG ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT. It scores 225,000 hits.
WT will not be boring. Wait and see.

However WT makes stand alone financial sense purely on the running cost savings. The savings made by avoiding accidents are a SMALL bonus on top....

docmonkey

It sounds great to me, but why aren't Airbus and Boeing already building this into their new planes?

WHBM

If you scrutinise the AAIB reports you find many mentions of damage done by ground vehicles (all of which have to be reported). However tugs are a small minority of these. The bulk appear to be by other ground servicing vehicles.

One of the most recurring incidents is aircraft striking vehicles unattended and parked. I can't find a single one of these where a tug was the vehicle, it is invariably baggage dollies, mobile steps, etc.

Do come to London City sometime. Or the many others with this configuration.

MisterNice

I scanned some of your references and I still dont see a valid reference $US10B per year damage by the tugs. I did see a $3B number without any details. I have read or heard from pilots of aircraft running into jetways, trucks running into aircraft, aircraft running into aircraft, birds fling into aircraft etc but never damage by tugs. Of course it happens but it must be kept very very quiet. Adding electric motors to aircraft will certainly not eliminate the damage I mentioned earlier........perhaps MORE damage will occur because less eyes are on the scene. Lastly the added electric motors, control gear, wiring, power generation equipment will definitely add weight to the aircraft and reduce the airborne operating efficiency.

Hey it may be a wonderful idea but I would like to get some opinions from qualified neutral technical sources along with the info from employees stockholders etc before I invest in this venture. Good luck.

MisterNice

WHBM

I don't hold any brief one way or the other on this, but there are a number of FTers who will dislike the over-commercial hyperbole of some of the comments above.

Just to balance things up the downsides of this approach, as far as aviation is concerned, include the following key points :

1. When pushing back from a jetway gate the pilots cannot see behind them, in fact their view is very restricted. The person best placed is of course the tug driver who is facing rearwards (where the aircraft is going) and can see round the aircraft. On many current jets the pilots cannot even see the wingtips, and wingwalkers (the crew who walk backwards at the wings at many tight gates) signal not to the pilots who they cannot see but to the tug driver who is looking straight at them. Replacing all this with the pilots doing it is a nonsense, and the piloting world believes damage would skyrocket.

Only this week we have had a ground collision at Heathrow between two aircraft, one pushing back with a tug and another on the taxiway. If this can happen with a tug driver ideally placed for visibility, think about it where the aircraft is being backed away by pilots who cannot see where they are going. Do you notice how those Boeing tests were done on a wide open and empty ramp, not like a major airport at all ?

2. The dead weight of the powered wheel systems is counter to all efforts to minimise aircraft weight. In addition to the actual weight of the system (yes, flying the whole thing thousands of miles to save one mile on the ground of engine power), its location on the nosewheel at the extremity of the aircraft will be an issue for aircraft weight & balance. It's not only the motor itself; for electric drive without engines running you are going to need some extremely heavy duty batteries, you can imagine the battery weight needed to generate electricity to move a say 200 ton aircraft a mile or two to the end of the runway. Interesting to see how they charge the batteries back up as well. In flight ? that will take substantial extra fuel. On the ground in a 25 minute turnround ? Hmmm.

Now I'm really trying not to be negative here. I mentioned above London City airport. If you want to see an example of a really busy terminal, no tugs, no pushing back, no electric motors on wheels, no wasted ramp space, nothing like that, here's how to do it. Enjoy the movie !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86neRH7zFGI

rahosi

LCY is not in the category of 'most airports'. Besides small planes frequently don't have an APU which is fundamental to WheelTug. However I know little about LCY, although the 9th largest in UK, or the planes licensed to use it. I note the A318, ERJ 135/Legacy 600 & the 605 have been granted approval for LCY. Looking at London City Rush Hour2, I very much doubt WT would be of benefit there.

Our first model is likely to be for the 737.

I'm surprised you can't find a single one of these incidents where a tug was such an accident vehicle. Try either of my 2 links, incidents I picked at random, in my post here at 7:06 on 7th Aug. Your views are at odds with many of the airlines, airports, and engineering shops, manufacturers, associations etc that speak to us.

You are right in that there is a move within the industry to remove ALL vehicles from the taxiways etc as these are all potentially an accident waiting to happen. (Underground services).

The $10B. The $3B figure was many years old and as I said excluded many countries & the military. It is not only the actual damage but the consequential loss the airlines suffer, putting passengers up, finding a plane to fill the damaged planes slot, staff wages etc.

IATA Statement - Collaboration between ground handlers, airports and airlines on an airport-by-airport basis. That will be key to the success of IATA’s Ground Damage Prevention Programme (GDPP) which was launched earlier this year with the goal of reducing the staggering US$4 billion annual cost of damage by 10% in 2005 and 50% by the end of 2010.

I never said anything about a change in the employment of wing walkers, who are the people best placed to avoid a collision. Not that I have anything against the ground crew, but pilots are definitely more highly trained. There have also been communication issues with language / diction between the flight deck and ground crew.

The Boeing tests were done under various arduous conditions, including extreme heat and inclines. The results met with Boeing's (and the Air Canada's pilots') broad approval. That test was done with a non retractable, proof of concept (I call it v0.1) model. By the time WT goes into service, it will be with twin hub motors and retractable. It is unreasonable to expect such a test to have been conducted at a busy airport. It is quite easy to simulate obstacles. I'm fairly certain Boeing defined those aspects of the test, not WT.

We know weight (balance and a few others) is an issue for WT; but not a big issue. We have other weight saving tricks in mind too. However, I'm told one aircraft has a balancing weight in the nose....
There is a financial benefits calculator on the WT website. Obviously there is a benefit trade off. WT will be more suited to shorter haul, higher cycles per day, routes. Maybe future versions will have wider appeal.

I recently flew Ryanair, Luton Dublin. During the 3 hour delay... I chose to observe 2 tugs at random for 1½ hours. Each was only used once, One with a 2 man crew for 25 minutes the other a one man crew for 40 minutes. That's EXPENSIVE!

We know WT has real potential. The response we get from the industry tells us so. I am not an employee of the company, but am a shareholder. Yes I do have a vested interest in WT, but I did not start posting here without disclosing same.

Most questions can be answered from the WheelTug web site.

Ripper3785

The pilot can be a highly trained and skilled, but he's still not going to have visual acuity of the aircrafts immediate environment from the flight deck.


Were the tests done in low temp and reduced traction situations? Isn't there some mechanical advantage to the tug being quite heavy?

I think the technology is interesting, but I share the same sentiments as WHBM re: hyperbole.

rahosi

To clarify. I am not suggesting that wing walkers be dispensed with. Only the tug.

The test was conducted in a hot climate. There is need for weight over the traction wheels, whether it be a tug or aircraft, so that there is sufficient friction to avoid wheel spin. As far as reduced traction situations, this would similarly affect tugs. In seriously reduced traction situations, either the aircraft should not be taking off / landing, or the pilot has the option to revert to traditional methods of motive power.

We are well aware of the parameters required for a successful system.

WHBM

Possibly therefore you can explain what the wingwalkers do when they can no longer signal to a tug driver (who is not there and driving the pushback any longer), and how the pilots can know what they are doing going backwards when they cannot see the wingwalkers.

Aviation is full of innovation and good ideas coming along all the time, it is just that some of us here do actually have a bit of practical experience of them over time. Winglets are a good example. They sound like they are a benefit to fuel consumption. In fact they are either marginal or actually a disbenefit (which is why Boeing after the 747-400 with winglets moved on to the 777 without them). Who would have believed that ? The devil is in the detail.