'kneejerk' raction
@coolguy
The so called 'knee jerk reaction' you allude to is the product of careful analysis of all available data. This is updated every 6 hours, but is being worked on round the clock.
The airlines are being kept in the loop every step of the way and are taking a very active part in the process.
This period of 'knee jerk reaction' has seen SAR helicopters getting airborne in Scotland, flying low level and coming back covered in ash. Do you think it is a reasonable risk for passenger jets to get airborne with that in mind?
I like to think I'm fairly intelligent and can take a balanced view on things - I'm also not averse to taking calculated risks if I know the full picture. However the decision to allow passenger jets to fly in potentially dangerous airspace is well above my pay grade and level of responsibility as it is above, I would suggest, the pay grade or level of responsibility of any of the posters on this thread...
It is right to ask questions and try to push the boundaries of what is or might be feasible, but don't you think it is rather significant that the airline operators are not jumping up and down complaining about the restrictions?
Go to the Met office site that is linked above (post 603) and compare the met graphics that have been released over the past 24 hours. You will see a significant change in the shape of the predicted (note the word) coverage for certain time spans i.e. over 4 graphics the same DTG is covered because of the 6 hourly updates.
Look particularly (in the case of the UK) at the corridor sneaking into the west cost of Scotland. Given the unpredictability of the shape of the coverage, I'd be rather reluctant to make a dash for the west coast of Scotland (in this instance) just because is shows a clear lane in one time period... this does not show what happens the 3 hours either side as the 'lane' opens and closes...
There probably is scope for flying within the forecast area if the particles are below a certain concentration - but until someone comes up with a figure that is deemed acceptable or 'safe' then prudence says stay on the ground.
We all know you can't mitigate against everything, flying always contains a certain amount of 'managed' risk, but at the moment it seems that not enough is known to make that call. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, what this prolonged episode does possibly do, is provide data that can be used in the future to make similar events less restrictive or more manageable.
It is probably fair to say that this incident is occuring in an area where traffic density is much greater than in other previous incidents and thus the effect is much greater.
Unfortunately it seems that the level of data we currently have (collectively on a global scale) for passenger jet flights in areas of Volcanic Ash is sufficiently lacking, such that the internationally accepted advice is - do not fly in it at all.