Here we have two groups: Those who got it, and those who will never get it
I wish it were that simple!
There are at least three groups at the Sharp End!
- the certain (but possibly wrong) sceptics who are not supported by the current (or previous) rules about VA;
- the certain
and uncertain 'conformists' who may prefer to go along with whatever's thrown at them rather than appear radical, non-conformist, awkward-squad, etc.;
- the other sceptics who go along with whatever rules are current but are uneasy about the 'certainties' as presented.
Then there are other players:
- regulatory bodies, including some people who seem uncomfortable with any form of risk management. Why such people ever end up working in regulatory organisations where the main activity is essentially risk management defeats me. Elimination of risk will never be an option - if it were, aircraft would never have been developed at all!
- businessmen, accountants and shareholders wanting to make money out of the industry;
- governments who suddenly realize that whole economies will go rapidly down the pan without aviation.
Complete certainty is not an option either - I doubt there ever will be any about VA and its risks.
Regulation based on 'Zero VA' was clearly never based on observational science. It was an easy decision until some VA actually loomed into view, then its weakness became self-evident (and proved by actual experience). The current permitted VA maxima are also a line-holding exercise in the continued absence of real research. The forecasting system is also evidently prone to errors, especially over-estimation of coverage, again presumably due to lack of real data collected by direct observation of the ash clouds.
Somehow or another, the industry must pull together and spend the money, on engine research and on atmospheric observation (
not forecasting / prediction, if certainty about ash location and density is the requirement).
The only element entirely beyond control is the volcanoes.