To all the doom forecasters:
Have any of you actually been up there this last week? Are any of you actually airline pilots?
I'm not 'forecasting doom'!
Just the potential for massively-increased engine maintenance costs, which will inevitably and eventually hit YOU straight in the pay-cheque!
What difference does it make make whether you've flown through ash, flown in an EPZ or even just 'flown'?
I thought it was generally agreed that in many situations, even CAVOK, it was possible, even likely that flight-deck crew will see NOTHING on instruments or outside the aircraft that will give any clue AT ALL of the presence of ash! If you've got an instrument that images diffuse ash-clouds, you're sitting ona gold-mine!
Is it not a better idea to spend a relatively small amount of money on post-flight detection of an ash encounter than to risk millions on engine overhauls and spares that may not even be do-able on a reasonable timescale? (eg. repairs to all 4 engines on the NASA DC-8 after 8 MINUTES flying through ash at night: $3.2million)
PS
It's interesting that there WERE symposia and publications (eg. by USGS) after Pinatubo in the early 90s but not much got done about it! Much easier to justify activity and expenditure after a major event that cost LOTS of money. Much harder after the dust has settled
Well - here we are again!