I think this whole situation is being handled in an incredibly inept manner.
Some airlines are going to go bust pretty soon. Cargo is rotting in warehouses... Stranded passengers are going to make huge claims on their insurances.
Nobody seems to be collecting data on where the stuff is and what (if anything) it does to engines. The Met Office quite obviously hasn't got a clue. The CAAs are totally lawyer-bound. And there isn't anybody else.
Somebody is going to have to get a lot more realistic pretty soon... but that's not the "European way" of doing things.
Eventually, airlines will collect some data and threaten legal action against the regulators. Then things will change fast.
I'm pretty sure that unless one flies through the plume of the volcano, flying through the dispersed cloud won't be a safety-of-flight issue. It's a maintenance issue, and so IO540's right - once the cost of lost business is greater than the increased cost of extra maintenance, the airlines will want to get flying again. Guess that's what KLM and Lufthansa have been up to this weekend.
Have NATS / The Met Office / Eurocontrol got it horribly wrong?
Simon Calder, travel editor of the UK newspaper the Independent, says the airline Ukraine International is planning to resume flights at 1000 BST as they believe "the skies are safe". They have reportedly carried out a test flight and are happy with the results.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines says it has already carried out a test flight from Amsterdam to Dusseldorf and plans eight more throughout the day.
"I got a call from somebody, a very senior figure in the British travel industry - saying the only time aircraft have actually suffered is when they've basically flown right through a volcanic plume as the volcano was erupting."
Is there a growing suspicion that the risk may have been misunderstood?
The essential thing about an eruption is that it is UNPEDICTABLE.
The amount of gunk it is spewing out at this moment may indeed be minor, (although I don't think I should like this stuff flowing through MY engines and sand-blasting their insides,) however at a moment's notice it could decide to erupt big-time again, when aircraft are actually in the air not too far away.
I suppose they could reduce the size of the no-fly zone to some extent. But I feel it is safest to let it die down completely, because only then will we have any reasonable certainty that it will remain safe.
SOAP stands for Spectromatic Oil Analysis Programme. Its a system where by oil samples are taken from engines and checked on a regular basis to predict wear and/or imminent component failure. I used it in the FAA on Lynx engines.
The present generation of GA light aircraft pilots were probably in their cradles when stubble burning was in vogue a couple of decades ago. For weeks at a time any high pressure system trapped the products of combustion below the inversion level which could go up to FL100 on rare occasions. Visibility in the murk was miserable and there was much solid material in the form of ash that coated the surface of any aircraft whether on the ground or in the air. We endured and survived our excursions into the murk. Why not now.....????? I fear the current risk averse society and ridiculous H&S legislation brings the need to warn of the danger we are exposed to by being alive never mind getting into the sky in a light aircraft. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If the CAA does not get you then EASA must.
Cheers,
Reaper 69
PS - I renewed my DA on Thursday in a Magister at Old Warden and flew a low level aerobatic display practice last evening at Leicester in our Skybolt. Sheer unadulterated pleasure.
Last edited by G-KEST; 18th Apr 2010 at 10:02.
Reason: spelling
I agree, especially for low level flights. Went to Pwk from Reading area and return yesterday, VFR of course. Managed to get up to FL 100 for short time (SE turbo-Prop). Not a cloud or sniff of ash to be seen. As for the refusals of S/VFR in the London Zone, it defies logic! No ash, no airlines, no cloud and unlimited vis. Health and Safety gone mad.
Last edited by cessnapete; 18th Apr 2010 at 10:44.
Reason: spelling
G-Kest, bad comparison. The ash you're talking about is essentially soot - material that has already been burned and won't burn again easily. And if it burns it burns rather clean.
What comes out of the vulcano now is SiO2, which is very akin to glass. It will not burn, but rather melt under high pressure and temperature, and when it cools down it will form a glass-like layer on the inside of your engine.
The essential thing about an eruption is that it is UNPEDICTABLE.
And as such, it would be very wise not to be within say 150 miles downwind and 50 miles other directions as it might beltch up a think cloud ... but this cloud needs to disperse, and over a moderately long distance it is going to be the wind (predictable) and diffusion (slow). You are not going to be surprised by a sudden cloud of ash over Surrey!
It is a stupid lawyer-ish over-reaction. I am sure there is zero risk to any aviation anywhere in Europe - so long as the plume coming out of the volcano is avoided (which is easy; everybody knows where that is).
The amazing thing is that the airspace owners have been able to shut everything down without having evidence of the risk to aircraft and without even making an apparent effort to find out. I reckon they are going to get sued big-time by the airlines. I hope they do get sued.
Indeed, but how can you get significant harmful particulates when the horizontal vis is tens of nm?
Quote:
oil samples are taken from engines and checked on a regular basis to predict wear and/or imminent component failure. I used it in the FAA on Lynx engines.
Oil analysis is done by most higher-end GA owners. I do it too. It's a good tool but I wouldn't say it forecasts imminent component failure - for that you look in the oil filter and if you find 10% of your camshaft in there....
