Pace,
I am here to talk about volcanic ash, not to engage in repartee, but it seemed there was an implicit query in your last contribution as to why I and others don't simply accept your point of view. It might thus be worthwhile to tell you, just this once.
You suggest that you and sabenaboy and «most of the ATPs [whom you] know» think there is no hazard associated with flying «as usual» in the ash clouds.
To perform any risk analysis of the situation, one must do the following: (a) assess the chances that this is right; (b) assess the deleterious consequences that will follow (the «damage»; here we may take it that there is none); (c) assess the chances that this is wrong; (d) assess the damage in this case. Then one multiplies (a) by (b), and (c) by (d), and adds the results. We may take it that multiplying (a) by (b) yields zero because (b) is zero. So your assessment of risk is equal to (c) times (d).
That is the way it's been done for 299 years, and it seems to work. But far from attempting to estimate (c) and (d) in any way, you have mostly just disparaged people who have attempted to do so here. I conclude you know nothing about risk analysis. (Let me assure you further that the risk analysis of rare events is a tricky, indeed specialist, subject, to which I don't have the space here to do justice.)
So the answer as to why I, and others, do not accept your point of view is that you haven't attempted to perform the required analysis, so there is nothing yet to accept. It's as simple as that.
BTW, I made a conditional statement «if A then B», and you highlighted «B» and took me to be asserting it. We used to have fun with people who did this in school as follows. We used to say «if your nephew is a monkey then YOU ARE A MONKEY'S UNCLE! It's TRUE! Go ask teacher.» The victim would go ask teacher, who would then agree, yes it's true. And explain. Victim would thereby learn something. It seems schools have changed since then. Pity.
PBL