I keep saying that the volcanic conditions that we speak of today "will" result in some measurable degradation of safety but no more than the typical risk that we operate within everyday for all other causes (risk is never zero but it is managed within acceptable limits)
Most readers have no idea of what risk is allowed to underly each and every flight and the variable contributions of the causal factors versus time. Just because you identify a newly recognized causal factor "du jour" doesn't mean that you have to manage it to zero to justify to keep flying.
Lomapaseo
This is a well written and thought
If you want zero risk DONT Fly.
There are far more PROVEN risky elements to flight than Ash yet ASH has cought the public imagination hyped by the media amd reacted to by a whole host of back watching Burocrats and quangos.
We have had many fatal landing and takeoff accidents in strong winds and shear conditions even within the "accepted operational levels" but do we have a long thread like this one demanding all takeoffs and landings should only be with zero wind?
Ash which has NO fatality record throughout aviation history has been hyped into a monster or bad wolf which is out to get you.
Maybe its becuase aircraft have always avoided flying through dust, certainly when they do, in certain concentrations its got very very expensive and dangerous. And VA is not the same from all eruptions, some, like this, are far more damaging.
Peter We
Volcanic eruptions are nothing new. Jet aircraft 20+ years ago had hardly any sophisticated equiptment and NO fancy computer generated Ash Prediction charts.
Maybe they flew through low level ash concentrations and never knew about it. If you cannot see it it wont hurt you.
Volcanic Ash really isnt a new phenomina!
Our MEDIA HYPE driven, paranoid, liability and blame culture IS!!!
Oh well off to bed so I can dream of shooting and killing a few million birds to save us from Bird flu!
but more likely to save us from ingesting them in our jet engines a real ignored threat.
Pace