I found this article and it was quite interesting. www.blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/gps-navigation.html
It would be if it existed.
Or we need new glasses.
Take out the www: blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/gps-navigation.html
If at all possible, copy-and-paste the link in don’t type it.
Bonus: Identify the airline and aircraft shown
Airbus A320-231 with the dual tandems, Indian Airlines.
One gallon jet fuel produces 23.88 lbs CO2 according to Earthlab
WTF??? Somebody help me out here… THAT’s got to be a typo!
I know that 100LL avgas is roughly 6 Lbs per gallon. I suppose kerosene could be somewhat heavier than avgas, but I dunno. I doubt it’d be much more than a pound or two heavier at the most…
So, assuming kerosene is 8 pounds per gallon, HOW could burning something that weighs 8 pounds create 23.88 pounds of waste??? It just doesn’t add up.
based on needlenose’s findings below, I’ve retracted part of my posting. However, the rest still remains:
CO2 is a necessary gas. Without it, we would have much less vegetation. I have seen studies that indicate increased CO2 actually increases vegetation growth. For those of you who don’t know, plants take in CO2 and “exhale” oxygen.
By the way, the trend now is to call it “climate change” instead of “global warming.” That way, they can get their money and APPEAR to be truthful no matter which way the climate goes.
Hmmmmm… Okay… found the answer here: slate.com/id/2152685
Warning, this involves chemistry
Jet A weighs 6.84 pounds per gallon (assuming no prist, normal temp, etc.). I think the way they are getting to 6.84 pounds of jet A producing 23.88 pounds of CO2 is that each carbon in the fuel combines with 2 oxygen molecule from the air to produce CO2. Carbon has a molecular weight of 12, while oxygen has a molecular weight of 16. So CO2 has a weight of 48. The carbon from the jet A is only 12 of the 48, or 1/4. So, in theory, the CO2 produced by burning jet A would weigh 4 times as much as the the carbon in the fuel did. So if jet a was all carbon and 100% of it was oxidized/burned to form CO2, one gallon = 6.84 pounds would produce 4 * 6.84 = 27.36 pounds of CO2.
However Jet A is a complex mix of hydrocarbons (chains of carbon with hydrogens sticking off the side). The average length hydrocarbon in jet A is 12 carbons, which means that it has 12 carbon atoms and 26 hydrogen atoms. That means that is has a molecular weight of 170, of which 144 is from the carbon. So that 1 gallon of jet A weighing 6.84 pounds contains 5.79 pounds of carbon and 1.05 pounds of hydrogen. 5.79 * 4 = 23.18 pounds of CO2 per gallon of jet A. The difference in this number and their 23.88 probably comes from using the actual mixture of hydrocarbons rather than the average C12H26 that I used. They also forgot to adjust for the fact that not 100% of jet fuel is burned.
To make the system works, all aircrafts flying over the North Atlantic are required to be equipped with the ‘ADS-B Out’ equipment to broadcast its location and altitude.
I feel it is difficult to implement Airbus’ GPS Navigation System as some aircrafts flying over the North Atlantic don’t equipped with the equipment.
Two days ago, I wrote an article in my blog “Aviation In Focus” about the subject matter. Your comments are welcomed.
Allowing ADS-B routing is a great idea. But, and there always is, it will only be feasible if every aircraft is equipped with the ADS-B equipment.
The primary reason we still maintain VOR(TAC) NAVAIDs is because a great many IFR certified aircraft throughout the world do not have a GPS and none is required.
A mandate from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) would be required for these changes - and you think the UN is slow.
ICAO is very adept at screwing up a lot of things. For instance try to read and understand the new METARS observation and compare it to the good old hourly observation 
. Give me SCT, BKN, and OVC any day! And for good measure I’ll take an 1800 ft RVR. Make that to go. 