You are trying to do a risk analysis on something which to date statistically has shown NOT to be a risk.
PBL
Did I misunderstand? NO
The piece I placed above still does not use the word ZERO which is very different to a statement saying "has not shown to be a risk".
low level ash has NOT shown itself to being a risk to life to date! that may change although I very, very, very, much doubt it.
It may shorten engine life and as such increase costs but I challenge you again to name one situation in the whole history of aviation where there has been a situation where entry into low levels of ash have caused a situation where life could have been threatened?
We are probably both being pedantic in our use of the word risk and probably both have differing interpretations of the word risk?
Mine is more differentiating between a known and proven risk and a feared percieved risk which is not yet proven.
Because the one is proven while the other is not it does NOT mean the other is zero risk (if you get what I mean
There is a much higher known risk of being downed by birds what are you doing to close down coastal based airports and chopping off huge blocks of airspace in the migration season as has happened over light ash?
There is a saying that no one ever built a statue to a committee yet there have been too many committees involved in all of this and all with their own agendas again if you understand what I mean
Pace