New eruption starting in Iceland? (merged)

[Bittair3000]

Here is the link (in Icelandic):
Gos að hefjast i Grímsvötnum - mbl.is (http://mbl.is/frettir/innlent/2011/05/21/gos_ad_hefjast_i_grimsvotnum/)

Grímsvötn are located under Vatnajökull glacier, and have seen 13 eruptions since 1902.

The article sais that definite signs of impending eruption were observed by the Icelandic Meteorology office around 18:00 UTC, and a meteorologist is quoted: "all signs point to an impending eruption in the area."

[Mir]

Looks like something is cooking in the north :

Vatnajökull - earthquakes during the last 48 hours (Preliminary results) | Vatnajökull | Earthquakes - all regions | Seismicity | Icelandic Meteorological office (http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/vatnajokull#view=map)

Better bring a clean pair of underwear on my flight tomorrow :p

[Bittair3000]

I don't think we'll need to worry about similar consequences to air travel as last year when Eyjafjallajökull blasted it's ash towards Europe. Grímsvötn are more active but the eruptions are generally a lot smaller and more touristy.

I remember well the last one in 2004, and it caused little if any trouble to domestic flights.

[cuthere]

It's confirmed. Grimsvotn is erupting:

Scientists: Iceland's Grimsvotn volcano erupting (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/21/international/i131920D24.DTL&tsp=1)

[HeathrowAirport]

That aint no small eruption either, South Iceland | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26486065@N07/5743600287/)

[cuthere]

So it begins:

FVXX01 EGRR 212007
VA ADVISORY
DTG: 20110521/1900Z
VAAC: LONDON
VOLCANO: GRIMSVOTN 1703-01
PSN: N6425 W01720
AREA: ICELAND
SUMMIT ELEV: 1725
ADVISORY NR: 2011/001
INFO SOURCE: ICELANDIC MET OFFICE
AVIATION COLOUR CODE: UNKNOWN
ERUPTION DETAILS: PLUME FROM GRIMSVOTN EXPECTED TO 11000M
OBS VA DTG: 21/1900Z
OBS VA CLD: NO VA EXP
FCST VA CLD +6HR: 22/0100Z NO VA EXP
FCST VA CLD +12HR: 22/0700Z NO VA EXP
FCST VA CLD +18HR: 22/1300Z NO VA EXP
RMK: IMO REPORTED POSSIBLE ERUPTION 201105211900Z. IMO
CONFIRMED REPORT AS AIRCRAFT REPORTS VISIBLE WHITE PLUME
OVER VOLCANO AT 15000 TO 18000FT BUT TURNING BLACK AT
BOTTOM, INDICATING PRESENCE OF ASH. ALSO ON IR AND ASH
SATELLITE IMAGERY.
NXT ADVISORY: 201105212200Z=

[Cheerio]

The Associated Press: Scientists: Iceland's Grimsvotn volcano erupting (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwQ1xIUHnztYlfFc9az8us8v5jDQ?docId=61a1e3f5fef1496d95c aa0df9bbcf6e5)

http://mbl.is/tncache/frimg/360/5/64/564370.jpg

[oceancrosser]

21.05.2011
A-NOTAM no. 0182/11 Volcanic Eruption in Grimsvotn
(A0182/11 NOTAMN
Q) BIRD/QWWXX/IV/NBO/W/000/999/6425N01719W120
A) BIRD
B) 1105211939 C) 1105212359
E) VOLCANIC ERUPTION REPORTED IN VOLCANO GRIMSVOTN 1703-01 6425N01719W ICELAND-S. VOLCANIC ASHCLOUD REPORTED REACHING FL300. AIRCRAFT ON IFR CLEARANCE ARE REQUIRED TO REMAIN CLEAR OF DANGER AREA WICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHIN 120NM RADIUS FROM THE POSITION 64N01530W AND MAINTAIN WATCH FOR NOTAM/SIGMET FOR BIRD AREA. NO IFR CLEARANCE WILL BE ISSUED PENETRATING THE DANGER AREA.
F) SFC G) UNL)

[Nemrytter]

A small amount of plugging here, but this page is worth keeping an eye on:
EUMETSAT IPPS animation - Meteosat 0 degree Ash Iceland (http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSG/RGB/ASH/ICELAND/index.htm)

In the latest 2 images it's quite clear to see the ash. Hopefully this Volcano will cause less issues than the last one.:ok:

[22 Degree Halo]

Very recent sat pix

Weather Europe, Satellite Weather Europe, Weather Forecast, Rainfall, Clouds, Sun in Europe - Source: SAT24.com (http://www.sat24.com/gzoom.aspx?ir=true&region=eu&x=274&y=60)

[22 Degree Halo]

You might like to check and play this Simonpro.

Satellitt: Europa (http://www.yr.no/satellitt/europa_animasjon.html)

21:00 - BANG, up she goes. Worth to play the full sequence.

[Bittair3000]

I flew past it earlier tonight, the ash/steam cloud has a similar shape as a mushroom, and stretches well above 30.000 feet. The wind is Northerly but the cloud appears stationary. It looks a lot bigger than the last eruption in the same area back in November 2004.

[Gudjon89]

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564378.jpg

[Gudjon89]

Live Webcam : Míla í beinni - Jökulsárlón (http://live.mila.is/jokulsarlon/)

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529784&Ref=AR&MaxW=550&NoBorder=1

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529784&Ref=V2&MaxW=550&NoBorder=1

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529786&Ref=AR&NoBorder

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529787&Ref=AR&MaxW=550&NoBorder=1

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529797&Ref=AR&MaxW=550&NoBorder=1

[Gudjon89]

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529782&Ref=AR&NoBorder (http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529782&Ref=AR&MaxW=550&NoBorder=1)

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529785&Ref=AR&NoBorder

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110521&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529781&Ref=AR&NoBorder

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564377.jpg

[skol]

I fly 4 holers but I'd be curious if Keflavik is still open and whether this latest volcano affects ETOPs twin-engine aircraft over the Atlantic.

[Gudjon89]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAsVhIDVdJ0

[proxus]

I fly 4 holers but I'd be curious if Keflavik is still open and whether this latest volcano affects ETOPs twin-engine aircraft over the Atlantic.

Well now they're closing KEF from 0930z.

[1975]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1306043199.png

this is looking familiar, according to a local newsperson, who has seen over 30 volcanos this is the biggest ploom he has ever seen, bigger than the one last year, lets hope for the best

[flying lid]

Pall Einarsson, a geophysicist at the University of Iceland, said the 2010 eruption was a rare event.
"The ash in Eyjafjallajokull was persistent or unremitting and fine-grained," he said.
"The ash in Grimsvotn is more coarse and not as likely to cause danger as it falls to the ground faster and doesn't stay as long in the air as in the Eyjafjallajokull eruption."

BBC News - Iceland volcano: Grimsvotn eruption hits local flight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13489944)

So, wrong kind of ash. Ash is to airlines as snow is to British Rail !!!!!!

[xray one]

Hmmmmm....Thursdays looks interesting for the UK/Europe

Metcheck.com - Atlantic Jet Stream Forecast - [Updated on 22 May 2011 at 16:00] - Weather Feeds - Live Data - Long Range Weather Forecasts (http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/free/jetstream.asp)

[oceancrosser]

The London VAAC are at it again. Severe cavok in Reykjavik all day, northerly winds (Grimsvotn are 200 kms east) and yet they close.

Was nothing learned last year when they repeatedly closed in similar circumstances? And finally when something could be seen here (and felt in your face and mouth, everything was open. :ugh:

Now they say this could reach UK and Danish Airspace on Tuesday.

Why is there a VAAC in London (where nothing has erupted in thousands of years) serving only the British Isles and Iceland, when Toulouse and Montreal could easily split this area between them?

[ImPlaneCrazy]

Latest according to Sky News is that if the plume continues at its current intensity it'll reach northern Scotland by Tuesday, with the rest of the United Kingdom, France and possibly Spain by Thursday / Friday.

Let the fun begin... :E

In all seriousness though, these ash clouds can be pretty devestating for not only the passengers who are affected but also for the airlines, ground handlers and so on. Was there any appearance of insurance policies that covered ash clouds for these? Hopefully this won't become an annual event. :bored:

[Milton1995]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1306068174.png

[Milton1995]

774
fvxx01 egrr 221101
va advisory
dtg: 20110522/1200z
vaac: London
volcano: Grimsvotn 1703-01
psn: N6425 w01720
area: Iceland
summit elev: 1725
advisory nr: 2011/005
info source: Icelantic met office
aviation colour code: Unknown
eruption details: Grimsvotn erupted around
20110521/1900z. At 22/0900z plume height estimated by
radar 15-17km.
Obs va dtg: 22/1200z
obs va cld: Sfc/fl200 n6628 w02308 - n6333 w02607 - n6129
w02319 - n6145 w01421 - n6456 w01014 - n6725 w00834 -
n6519 w01709 - n6628 w02308 fl200/fl350 n6211 w01720 -
n6441 w01026 - n6747 w00619 - n6820 w01048 - n6747 w01252
- n6812 w01850 - n6655 w02201 - n6456 w02522 - n6303
w02053 - n6211 w01720 fl350/fl550 n6420 w01719 - n6602
w01326 - n6814 w01411 - n6834 w01813 - n6824 w02131 -
n6747 w02327 - n6506 w02505 - n6435 w02019 - n6420 w01719
fcst va cld +6hr: 22/1800z sfc/fl200 n6051 w01218 - n6313
w01252 - n7011 w00150 - n6849 w01207 - n6619 w01732 -
n6743 w02246 - n6747 w02855 - n6451 w02641 - n6258 w02940
- n6107 w02714 - n6051 w01218 fl200/fl350 n6222 w01720 -
n7045 w00128 - n7004 w00856 - n6944 w01828 - n6853 w02341
- n6704 w02918 - n6206 w02042 - n6222 w01720 fl350/fl550
n6446 w01709 - n6857 w01325 - n7004 w01828 - n6841 w02607
- n6751 w02940 - n6441 w02138 - n6446 w01709
fcst va cld +12hr: 23/0000z sfc/fl200 n6056 w00856 -
n6610 w01122 - n7228 e01255 - n7107 w00641 - n6921 w01817
- n6905 w02308 - n6751 w03251 - n6343 w03047 - n6007
w02907 - n6023 w00823 - n6056 w00856 fl200/fl350 n6201
w01635 - n6747 w01111 - n7211 e00955 - n7330 e00910 -
n7244 w00704 - n7114 w02042 - n6913 w02641 - n6738 w03121
- n6140 w02201 - n6201 w01635 fl350/fl550 n6422 w01658 -
n6952 w01444 - n7135 w01455 - n7030 w02629 - n6812 w03358
- n6519 w02500 - n6422 w01658
fcst va cld +18hr: 23/0600z sfc/fl200 n5922 w02855 -
n6046 e00023 - n6403 w01337 - n6841 w01004 - n7157 e01114
- n7244 e02740 - n7404 e01458 - n7330 w01444 - n6913
w03302 - n6738 w03432 - n6007 w02952 - n5922 w02855
fl200/fl350 n6145 w01517 - n6713 w01635 - n7301 e00504 -
n7224 e03412 - n7410 e02418 - n7527 w00749 - n7104 w02844
- n6659 w03528 - n6056 w02449 - n6145 w01517 fl350/fl550
n6451 w01602 - n6937 w01658 - n7244 w01410 - n7244 w02545
- n6659 w03816 - n6524 w03358 - n6641 w02556 - n6417
w01839 - n6451 w01602
rmk: Plume clearly visible from imo office in reykjavik .
Plume visible on infrared and ash imagery. Heavy ashfall
reported in areas around the volcano. Ashfall visible on
various webcams in se-iceland. Extreme lightning activity
still detected
nxt advisory: 20110522/1800z=

[Nemrytter]

Was nothing learned last year when they repeatedly closed in similar circumstances? And finally when something could be seen here (and felt in your face and mouth, everything was open.

As you can see by looking at the VAAC forecasts, ash at the surface doesn't mean there's ash at altitude. I'd imagine that ash has less of an effect if you're flying through ash for 2 minutes on the way up/down than if you're flying through the stuff for a prolonged time during cruise - although someone with more knowledge of ash effects upon jets can probably clarify that.

The eyeball is a rather poor sensor when it comes to particles too small to see :)

serving only the British Isles and Iceland, when Toulouse and Montreal could easily split this area between them?

Probably because the UK met office has better quality (and well validated) forecasts for that region of the world. Toulouse and Montreal don't - Iceland is likely to be outside the high accuracy area of their forecasting models.

[oceancrosser]

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110522&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529730&Ref=AR&NoBorder

Well maybe this photo shows better where it is headed.

The eyeball is a rather poor sensor when it comes to particles too small to see

If there is enough of these as in ash, they will be sensed by the eye as... mist or ash!

[Gudjon89]

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564408.jpg

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564428.jpg

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564455.jpg

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564446.jpg

http://mbl.is/frimg/5/64/564437.jpg

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110522&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529712&Ref=AR&NoBorder

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110522&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529711&Ref=AR&NoBorder

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110522&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529717&Ref=AR&NoBorder

http://img.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20110522&Category=FRETTIR01&ArtNo=110529722&Ref=AR&NoBorder

[UN614]

Has anyone got an idea on the density of the ash as most airlines have approvals to operate into areas of moderate concentration (not sure of the exact figures).

I remember our lot saying that had this been in place during the last eruption that we would have only been grounded on one day instead of 7.

There is a good chance that even if the ash makes it this far south it will be in sufficiently low concentrations that we will all keep flying.

[oceancrosser]

I don´t recall the figures, but when it comes close to the limit, the ash is well visible in reduced visibility.

[j4ckos mate]

From what i have been reading the ash is alot heavier and thicker than last time, so hopefully it wont travel as far.
i also read somewhere that eurocontrol did a simulation in april and they could operate 70 percent of flights if eyakacackerflower happened again.


i honestly believe the the media hyped it up out of all proportion last time.

this time they seem a little bit mor reserved. lets hope it stays the case:(


a very worried cargo agent..

[crewmeal]

Has Eric been on TV yet ?

No but the other one has Mr David. Learmount.

Time to check the insurance policies - I'm off to the ME on Thur

[ZOOKER]

As well as pyroclastic material, (ash), there will be a considerable amount of gas up there too.
HF, SO2, CO2, H2S, and HCl are all common volcanic products. Not good if inhaled by flight-crew or pax. The folk who investigate volcanic clouds usually wear breathing apparatus.
Just a thought....

[brownstar]

It will be interesting to see the airline pitch on it this time. The impression I get is that they will push for flights to go ahead, I would guess that pilots will be told to fly. Last time closing the airspace was the right thing to do. Let's hope , if this is required again, the authorities again stick to what is right and don't bow to the lobbying of the airlines.

[EI Premier]

The latest charts from London VAAC, with the general Volcanic Ash Advisory show clearly that all of European airspace will remain free from risk for another 24 hours, with the risk beginning to encroach on the very most northern part of Scandinavia later in the period.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1306084960.png

The latest European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting charts also look extremely favourable for keeping any ash distribution well away from the majority of European airspace from Day 4 - Day 8, taking today as Day 1. The British Isles appear to be most at risk from transient incursions, although all indications continue to suggest that the Weather pattern will remain fundamentally different to that which evolved during the eruption in 2010.

Transatlantic Ops are likely to be disrupted though in terms of a more southerly routing imminently.

[Bearcat]

for the mo, the only disruption on the atlantic will be southerly tracks and longer flight times......better bring my cross word solver!

[BackPacker]

Somebody asked about concentration charts. Here they are:

Met Office: Air ash concentration charts North Atlantic area Public (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/natlantic.html)

There is very little "low" or "medium". It seems to be "high" or "nothing at all".

[adverse-bump]

Looking at th charts everything from leads north wards will be closed by 0600 tomorrow. I best pack extra socks!

[EI Premier]

Looking at th charts everything from leads north wards will be closed by 0600 tomorrow. I best pack extra socks! Where are you reading that from????

The London VAAC charts, updated at 0600 for 0000 on Tuesday indicate that whilst ash contaminated air will enroach upon the outer parts of Scotland and the Atlantic Seaboard of Ireland - these levels will be within the deemed ''acceptable'' limit - apart from potentially the airports of Barra and Benbecula by this time.

This corresponds with a brief surface flow out of the NW as today's depression tracks NE towards Scandinavia. Note that above FL200, the Southward displacement of ash is far less considerable. This surface flow, as well as at upper levels, should back westerly during Tuesday across the British Isles, as a ridge of High Pressure approaches from the south, preventing further Southward progression of Volcanic Ash.

Met Office: Air ash concentration charts North Atlantic area Public (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/natlantic.html)

That approaching ridge should also ensure that the majority of the European continent remains risk free, at least for the moment.

[fireflybob]

Looking at th charts everything from leads north wards will be closed by 0600 tomorrow. I best pack extra socks!

Really? What charts are you looking at to think that?

[Pizzaro]

Am sure there is an act of God clause in the Passenger charter legistlation now ???????????:ugh:

[WHBM]

Although we have had goodness knows how many volcanc eruptions previously, only last year did we even contemplate closing airspace the best part of 1,000 nm from the eruption. It certainly didn't happen, for example, with Mount St Helens in the USA some years ago, where appropriate rerouting and checking of filters allowed things to roll on with an APPROPRIATE level of handling the situation. I wonder what has changed about volcanoes in recent times.

On BBC radio news this morning they had managed to get an interview on the topic with "the expert", probably from the VAAC. The expert immediately prefaced several statements with "we don't know". Well, dear, if we don't know, how can you present yourself as "the expert; this is a description of someone who does know.

WHBM (last year stranded at JFK for a week).

[Agaricus bisporus]

everything from leads north wards

Missing something here. What leads north wards (sic)?




Edited in disbelief upon re-reading the quoted post. Does the poster actually mean from Leeds northwards??????

[EI Premier]

I can recall sitting in a hotel room on the continent during 2010, watching the UK Met Office slowly, unncecessarily colouring the map of Europe. Let's hope that we don't see a repeat of this yet again.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1306151334.png

Irish and Scottish airspace are being listed as being within the risk zone from 0600 tomorrow. However, the projected ash concentration charts will be key.

The latest satellite imagery however, indicates that the level of ash being emitted may be declining.

EUMETSAT IPPS animation - Meteosat 0 degree Ash Iceland (http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSG/RGB/ASH/ICELAND/index.htm)

EI Premier

[avocado737]

Well, looking at this one here, I would say he is right: Everything from Leeds upwards will be closed and I guarantee you, it'll get worse!

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/files/VME06_ASH_CONC_FL000-200DT201105230900VT201105240600IT231200_T018.PNG

[EI Premier]

Well, looking at this one here, I would say he is right: Everything from Leeds upwards will be closed and I guarantee you, it'll get worse!The latest London VAAC Ash concentration chart is a little more troubling and given the synoptic situation, one has to question as to whether the Southward extent of any ash concentration is being over-estimated.

What is your perogative for being certain of it getting worse?

I've posted the synoptic evolution for 0600 in the top right hand corner also. With that ridge of 1030MB pushing in from the Southwest rapidly during the day, any risk would diminish across Ireland relatively quickly and the bulk of Britain would likely remain clear, as Winds back Westerly. However, peripheral areas of Scandinavia could potentially be affected later by low-medium levels of ash contaminated air, mainly below FL200.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2298/5750290229_d3b619dd64.jpg

EI Premier

[Postman Plod]

Northerlies at the back end of the week - I would imagine that would be a possible indication of it getting worse if the eruption continues, however is a lot more dynamic than last year.

Metbrief - Met Office Analysis and Synoptic Weather Forecast Charts via Wetterzentrale (http://www.metbrief.com/EGRR.html#120)

And don't shoot the messenger. Met Office were proved right time and time again regarding their ash forecasts, regardless of what the doubters and those with a commercial interest in continuing flying were saying, but Met Office (and NATS) weren't the ones closing the air space and they weren't the engine or airframe manufacturers advising no ash.

[22 Degree Halo]

Loganair is cancelling almost all its flights in Scotland on Thursday because of expected disruption caused by the ash cloud. Only inter-island routes in Orkney are unaffected.
A Loganair spokesman said Met Office forecasts indicated that a high density of ash would be present in large parts of Scottish airspace throughout Tuesday, clearing into Wednesday morning.
The UK's air traffic control service, Nats, said volcanic ash was forecast to affect parts of Scotland between 1800 BST and midnight on Monday.
Services may be affected from Barra, Benbecula and Tiree.

BBC News - UK flight disruption cannot be ruled out - CAA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13498477)

[brakedwell]

I hope there aren't too many climate change "experts" advising VAAC :eek:

[Postman Plod]

Silly pointless question, but the answer none-the-less is - none.

[scr1]

Loganair have cancelled flights for tuesday morning

Press Office :: Travel Advice for 23 / 24 May - Loganair (http://www.loganair.co.uk/loganair/press-office/111/travel-advice-for-23-/-24-may)

here we go again

[EI Premier]

Northerlies at the back end of the week - I would imagine that would be a possible indication of it getting worse if the eruption continues, however is a lot more dynamic than last year.

It's all very dependant upon the main thrust of the Northerly flow however, which is not a true northerly in the sense, rather a northerly flow developing as Low Pressure tracks Eastward.

Meteociel - Cartes du modle numrique GFS pour l'Europe (http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=78&mode=0)

As the latest 12Z GFS Operational Forecast indicates, it's quite possible that a southerly flow will be developing over Iceland as low pressure pushes up from the South, whilst the Northerly flow gradually clears the UK and Ireland.

The IAA have also announced that there will be no closure of Irish Airspace for at least 48 Hours.

[Airways B]

UK Airspace WILL NOT close this time. The decision to Fly or not fly will be made by the airline provided they have an approved safety case to operate in designated ash densities.

CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=1996)



Areas of high, medium and low density ash will be identified using information provided by the Met Offices Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre. This is based on data provided from the source of the volcano, satellite, and weather balloons, as well as ground based instrumentation such as radar
Information on the high and medium density zones will be communicated to the aviation industry by means of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)
Any UK airline wishing to operate in areas of medium or high density ash, will need to have a safety case approved by the CAA. Many airlines already have such safety cases in place and agreed for medium density. None has so far submitted a safety case to operate in high density ash.
A safety case sets out the measures airlines will put in place to mitigate the risk of flying through ash. They also include input from aircraft and engine manufacturers. Safety cases have been used by airlines for many years to set out how they will safely deal with other unusual or challenging issues.

[Heathrow Harry]

no - wind related - gusting over 60mph

[Nemrytter]

It certainly didn't happen, for example, with Mount St Helens in the USA some years ago

Different volcanos, different results. As several studies have shown, the ash from (unpronouncable volcano) last year was rather different to the ash from many other volcanos - it was much more likely to cause damage to anything flying through.

The expert immediately prefaced several statements with "we don't know". Well, dear, if we don't know, how can you present yourself as "the expert; this is a description of someone who does know.

I'd be much more wary of the person who says they do know, as they'd almost certainly be lying. As proven by the number of times I've been stuck in a rainstorm with no umbrella, meteorology is not a precise science - we do not know everything and there are uncertainties. A weather forecast is only a 'best estimate' of what will happen, it's not perfect.

Btw, I'd also imagine that everyone involved is unwilling to commit to cast-iron statements. I remember in the thread on here last year about the other volcano a number of people got quite angry when 'experts' gave their opinions...

[RoyHudd]

I hope the "experts" are not referring to these pages. (Not an inclusive remark, but some stuff here is nonsense, which is only to be expected)

[Lemain]

I hope the "experts" are not referring to these pages. (Not an inclusive remark, but some stuff here is nonsense, which is only to be expected)Perhaps, but what is really to be expected is for money to be more important than safety, as happened during last year's disruption. Usually, commercial aviation is comparatively immune to money issues when it comes to safety, but not with ash, eh?

From 'zero tolerance' to 'zero risk to aircraft' in a few days was quite eyebrow-raising!

[nippysweetie]

Well, regardless of what everyone thinks, BA and KLM are cancelling flights to Scotland tomorrow

[BOAC]

Would that be the same BA that declared there was no threat from the last ash cloud? Flew a Jumbo through it, didn't they.........................must be all right. I'm confused.

[golfyankeesierra]

BA and KLM are cancelling flights to Scotland tomorrow
tomorrowmorning

[nippysweetie]

GYS, some early afternoon BA flights affected too. Other airlines monitoring the situation... let's see how the flock react

[Jippie]

The London VAAC is projecting the ash-cloud over Scotland and England for tomorrow. This will probably result in airspace closures. Let's see how everybody reacts, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes quite the same as last years scenario..

[ILS25]

EZY now cancelled Scottish flights.

[UN614]

By 1200z tomorrow the UK will be under an area of ash. Fortunately, most of that will be low or medium concentration which many airlines are now approved to operate within.

I looks like Scotland will be underneath an area of high density ash which may well see a stop to nearly all flying tomorrow although it looks like Edinburgh is clear of the red area by 1200.

Also, the airspace will not be closed like last year. The airlines will be given the information and left to decide whether they want to fly through it.

What happens later in the week is still up for discussion.

[Just a spotter]

Aer Lingus have cancelled flights between airports in Ireland and Scotland for tomorrow;

Aer Lingus cancels flight over ash cloud - RT News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0523/iceland.html)

US President Barack Obama left Ireland tonight, ahead of schedule, for the UK in order to avoid any ash related issues (either that or he wasn't enjoying his new found Irish relations!).

Barack Obama in Ireland - As it happened - RT News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0523/obama_live.html)

JAS

[Count Niemantznarr]

Surely Willie Walsh will go up again to prove that flying in ash is safe?

How could the Met Office and CAA have got it so wrong last year?

[Jippie]

The DFS published a document what they will do in case of ash.
PDF of the DFS. (http://www.dfs.de/dfs/internet_2008/module/presse/deutsch/presse/presseinformation/2011/bekanntmachung_der_allgemeinverfuegung_des_bmvbs_zur_vulkana sche_23_5/allgemeinverfuegung_bmvbs.pdf)
They will close the airspace in case of an ash concentration that is color-coded red on the VAAC charts. I suspect other EASA countries have to follow the same rules.

[racedo]

Not sure about the Ash cloud arriving tomorrow but where I am in darkest surrey it sure looks like a cloud appearing from the north albeit at a very high level in the night sky.

It looks beautiful.

[fireflybob]

Ryanair flight cancellations (http://www.ryanair.com/en/notices/gops/110523-VOLCANIC_ASH_MAY11-GB)

Volcanic Eruption - Flight Cancellations – 24 May

UPDATED: 23:00hrs (Mon 23 May) NEXT UPDATE: 09:00hrs (24 May)

Ryanair have been advised by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) that we may not operate flights to/from Glasgow Prestwick, Edinburgh or Aberdeen until at least 13:00 hrs Tuesday 24th May 2011.

Ryanair strongly object to this decision and believe that there is no basis for these flight cancellations and will be meeting with the IAA on Tuesday morning to have this restriction on Ryanair flights removed as a matter of urgency.

Ryanair believe that there is no safety risk to aircraft on fights operating to and from Scotland and together with other airlines will be complaining to the Transport Minister and Regulatory Authorities about these latest and unnecessary cancellations.

The below listed flights have been cancelled as a result of the volcanic ash.

Imagine there are a few eruptions in Ireland at the moment.

[brownstar]

Ryanair at it already. Everyone else canceling flights and they don't want to. Everyone else not wanting to take the risk but they have a different view.
.
I am a bit confused though. In the risk assessment of flying through volcanic ash was it not the ba aircraft years ago that BA flew through some large particle ash in the far east, which then shut down it's engines, and made the windscreen opaque so the captain had to land looking through a small area at the corner of the windscreen that wasn't affected. What also is the risk assessment for passengers and crew breathing in sharp particles of ash as would be present in the cabin.

Does the forecast chart not show large particle ash over Scotland. Where exactly do Ryanair see no risk in that.
Is it no risk, or no profit!

[peter we]

Ryanair at it already. Everyone else canceling flights and they don't want to. Everyone else not wanting to take the risk but they have a different view.

Then why don't they take the risk and fly through it? Would it be because its easier to blame the 'authorities'?
There is now a clear policy on how to deal with the ash and its up to airlines to deal with it. All decided to cancel flights. Ryanair decide to cancel flights and blame someone else.


BTW, No sign of the second eruption thats due at Hekla although its been noisy over the past year.

Earthquakes - Mrdalsjkull (http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/englishweb/myrjokull.html)

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

Ash/Silicon + Pressure/Temperature = making sort of glass in Engines = poor net performance risk = Gravity considerations.

.......At least, right or wrong, that's a simple way to regard it, and then read Notams and fancy new Met sites....

P.S.
'Brownstar' .....ref your post, a couple above. I was BA 747 fleet, and once, when sitting next to the captain during a routine classroom event, I asked him why they didn't merely avoid the area to start with. Trouble is, that I can't recall what he said. Must have been a reason, I'm sure.

[lospilotos]

Our (Ryanair) IAA approved procedure is pretty clear, Cyan & Grey = OK, Red = Not OK...

ABZ seems pretty clear cut, guess they were arguing that PIK and EDI were right on the border of the red area.

[Noxegon]

Then why don't they take the risk and fly through it?

If the IAA says no, they can't.

[WHBM]

How does aviation manage to carry on everywhere else in the world where there are volcanoes ? I recall in the 1984 eruption in Hawaii there were actually sightseeing flights around it - in fact there were Notams out not to get too close due to considerable turbulence and even a chance of a rock through the windshield. But no fusing of engines. No VAAC predecessors enjoying their fame on the TV news.

[peter we]

If the IAA says no, they can't.

With the full, prior, agreement of all concerned parties, including Ryanair.

[udachi moya]

On Ryanair subject - anyone noticed RYR2T doing high circuits around the highlands on Flightradar24. Standard air test or will we see MOL on TV shortly saying his aircraft flew through cloud and found nothing..... just a few pence worth lol.

[mbar]

Ash/Silicon + Pressure/Temperature = making sort of glass

Let's try that in "Alchemy"!

[Jibba Jabba]

Volcanic ash simply means NO go.

O'Leary is deluded if he thinks he can get his crews to safely fly in the vicinity of volcanic ash, especially at night or IMC.

Run into that stuff in flight and you are in serious trouble.

[Montgolfier]

Ryanair believe that there is no safety risk to aircraft on fights operating to and from Scotland


"but that's enough about our clientele, now about this ash cloud...."

[SWBKCB]

a RYR aircraft has just done a tour round Scotland ex PIK (looked like it got up to the INV area)

[mindsweeper]

Norwegian airports on the west coast are about to shut down, ENZV is cancelling a lot of flights.

[Thunderbug]

There seems to be many comments about airspace closure as per last years event. The big change is that this time around the airlines are responsible for whether they fly or not.

The shakedown after the last occurrence showed that the ATC providers do not have the prerogative to shut down airspace. The airlines are required to submit a risk assessment to the CAA on the levels of ash that they are able to fly through. It would seem most airlines are Cyan - OK, Grey - OK, Red - No Go.

This time around we shall stil have disruption, but a far more fluid situation than last years complete halt. Routes will cease while the threat is present, then reopen.

Another factor is that during the last event, differing forecasting outfits came up with very different results. The UK Met office was deemed to have a very conservative outlook, whilst WSi, which some UK airlines were using, came up with a very different threat level. This year the two forecasts appear to be much better aligned.

Glad I'm on leave though!

[fireflybob]

a RYR aircraft has just done a tour round Scotland ex PIK (looked like it got up to the INV area)

Just interested what sort of level it was operating at?

[mad_jock]

Mates in the Highlands are reporting ash on thier Cars

[EI Premier]

At 0600 this morning, it is clear that the UK Met Office Model has overestimated- by a considerable extent, the Southward progression of highly concentrated volcanic ash. This is shown clearly by the 0600 EU Metsat Imagery.

The CAA have admitted that high levels of concentrated volcanic ash have not covered areas of Scotland as envisaged by the model. Instead, they have stated that the ash clouds has moved ''slower than expected'' - which really is not correct.

The southernmost extent of highly concentrated volcanic ash at 0600 was near to the airport of Barra, Scotland, when the London VAAC / UK Met Office Projections indicated highly concentrated ash immediately off the North Coast of Ireland.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2762/5753731977_6059cb362d.jpg

Safety is of course paramount at all times - however, the validity and accuracy of the UK Met model must be questioned. There has been some decline in the level of output from the Volcano, according to the latest IMO status reports, which is a welcomed development.

[lagerlout]

where do you get the latest IMO reports from?

[Postman Plod]

For what its worth, Kirkwall METAR this morning....
2011/05/24 08:50 EGPA 240850Z 26024KT 3000 VCSH VA FEW008 SCT018 09/06 Q1002 RESHRA

As for the validity / accuracy of the Met Office model, IIRC, other VAAC were requesting access to it after Eyjafjallajökull as it was significantly more accurate than anything they had. However the fact is that forecasting is an inexact science, forecasts will change, and they're based on the best data available at the time of issue, which may not necessarily reflect the actual observations at the time of validity. In other words, forecast does not equal observation. Thats true the world over. In the case of ash, I would imagine it has to show worst case possible spread and concentration - in some places there will be less, in others more.

I'm much more optimistic now than I was yesterday (having not looked too closely at the charts.)

Icelandic Met Office:
2011 | News | About IMO | Icelandic Meteorological office (http://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/2011)

[macdo]

I do wonder at the sanity of some of the posters on here.
Would you prefer that the VAAC model errs on the side of 'Leary and then just hope that no-one accidentally flies through an errant bit of ash?

Old saying," i'd rather be on the ground wishing that I was up in the air, than up in the air wishing that I was on the ground"

[EI Premier]

As for the validity / accuracy of the Met Office model, IIRC, other VAAC were requesting access to it after Eyjafjallajökull as it was significantly more accurate than anything they had. However the fact is that forecasting is an inexact science, forecasts will change, and they're based on the best data available at the time of issue, which may not necessarily reflect the actual observations at the time of validity. In other words, forecast does not equal observation. Thats true the world over. In the case of ash, I would imagine it has to show worst case possible spread and concentration - in some places there will be less, in others more.

Of course, however:

I think that perhaps the industry would be better served right now with dual use of real time analysis and NWP modelling, as opposed to ridigly adhering to the NWP modelling. A mix of both will yield the best outcome, whilst still maintaining safety for all.

Safety trumps all other factors, but it is equally important to ensure that when viable - flight operations should continue.

[Trig71]

I was just surfing the web looking for more info about the current situation on the eruption and I stumbled across this site 'aviolinx.com'.

They offer an application that plots the latest ash cloud co-ordinates and compares it with your days flying program (stored flight plans). Probably quite useful for an Ops department for planning purposes...

[EI Premier]

I do wonder at the sanity of some of the posters on here.
Would you prefer that the VAAC model errs on the side of 'Leary and then just hope that no-one accidentally flies through an errant bit of ash?

Old saying," i'd rather be on the ground wishing that I was up in the air, than up in the air wishing that I was on the ground"

No need to question my sanity at all.

Obviously you didn't read my post properly did you? I said safety is paramount, however operations should NOT remain suspended if Volcanic ash has not entered various areas of airspace as previously envisaged.

I'd prefer the use of the VAAC model combined with real time analysis as above. It was the rigid adherence to the NWP modelling last year that wrought havoc.

[Mr.Bloggs]

I wonder at the professions of many posters who obsess about safety. They are clearly not professional pilots. We who fly for a living do not feel the need to post sweeping generalisations about safety being paramount, BECAUSE WE KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THIS.

As this site is for professional pilots primarily, will the wimps who keep posting the message that it is better not to fly rather than take the slightest risk please shut up? Flying always involves a small measure of risk, and will always be so. We never knowingly take unnecessary risks, whether at the behest of our companies or passengers, or indeed government authourities. This is our creed.

[paulkinm]

What time was this test conducted?

[green granite]

IIRC it was about 0830 and at about 32,000 ft

Current air traffic over the UK:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/aittrafic.jpg

[paulkinm]

Just checked and they have an A320 in the area as well, following the same route although, hanging around the FL280 mark.....

[BARKINGMAD]

Am I missing something here or does it appear that the people who are saying it's ok to fly through reported ash concentrations are desk pilots, who will be around to defend themselves and collect their vast pensions after the Accident Investigation??!!

Even if it doesn't get as far as that, there'll still be sackings when airlines have to shell out for the refurbishing of power plant which have suffered subtle "glassing" of the hot ends and abrasion of the cool ends, which wasn't noticed at the time.

Quite how I'm supposed to assess micrograms of particles per cubic metre whilst whistling through it at 480kts TAS has not yet been clarified. Also as flight crew I'm expected to perform an "enhanced pre & post flight inspection" of my shiny craft and certify same in the tech log, though I can't be trusted to perform minor maintenance tasks which I formerly could do, before the Eurocrats started to pontificate.

Also my B73NG manufacturer sourced QRH says I have to select Wing Anti-Ice on as I assess the 0.004gms/cubic metre is getting too much for comfort, yet several pages later it says don't do this above FL350 as I'll probably get a dual bleed trip-off and lose pressurisation. Can anyone with a hotline to Mr Boeing or Mr CFM cast any light on this?!

Commercial pressure once again dominates and the "Tombstone Imperative" waits to collect more bodies and wreckage. Why does the Titanic keep invading my by now confused thoughts??

But then what do I know about aviation, I haven't got a MBA qualification or some Air Transport degree? 40 years and 18,000 hours since first my sweaty little palm first gripped the column of a Chipmunk does not qualify me even to satisfy HR that I'm able to do aviation maths, understand and occasionally express English and that I'm a jolly good sane person and fit for the job!!!

Ohmigawd, that darkened room beckons again, and it's not even midday yet!!!! :ugh:

[Wellington Bomber]

Is the ash thing up to 20000ft and not the 28000ft the BA thing is doing

[Postman Plod]

Err there isn't a problem above FL200 - its ground to FL200 that is the problem! :ugh: Nice one Ryanair....

[AndoniP]

one green and hoping (post #79)

I seem to recall the pilot mentioning that volcanic ash didn't appear on weather radar, and hadn't been informed of the eruption from ATC.

Because the ash cloud was dry, it did not show up on the weather radar, which is designed to detect the moisture in clouds.

The investigations eventually led to...

It was recognised that there was an issue following the incident in 1982 with the British Airways Flight 9 and therefore the ICAO established the Volcanic Ash Warning Study Group in 1982. Due to the difficulty in forecasting accurate information out to 12 hours and beyond the VAAC were set up by the ICAO as part of IAVW.

[scarebus03]

It's all well and good to fly in the area and take the risk once. Multiple sectors in contaminated areas may prove more complicated due to accumulated damage.
The only way to assess the damage after the flights is to perform borescope inspections on each of the engines, which accounting for cool down time would take 4-7 hours per engine and is obviously not practical after every single flight in these conditions. The first inspections may reveal no damage but after that it's russian roulette, the test flights may prove good PR exercises but in reality the information gathered would be too little to make any kind of accurate assessment based on each type of operation.
Our safety environment is based on reliability (historical data) and preventative actions. We do not have enough data to categorically state that the ash will not bring down any aircraft or significantly damage one so we are left with prevention.
If even one aircraft of the 20000 that operate daily in Europe has an incident or God forbid an accident, the risk would be completely unacceptable and it would not be long before the public lost faith in the airlines. The backlash on the authorities I'm sure would also be something to behold.

Does anybody know if the volcano is still erupting?

Brgds
SB03

[Postman Plod]

EI Premier:
Of course, however:

I think that perhaps the industry would be better served right now with dual use of real time analysis and NWP modelling, as opposed to ridigly adhering to the NWP modelling. A mix of both will yield the best outcome, whilst still maintaining safety for all.

Safety trumps all other factors, but it is equally important to ensure that when viable - flight operations should continue.

You may be right. My suspicion (and I know nothing about this) though is that the VAAC regulations will be worldwide and based on ICAO rules or guidance, and as with so many things, it may be that regulations haven't yet caught up with technology.

The problem though is that you're trying to forecast for extended periods of time to cover total flight durations, and on a 6 hourly issue period - not just one hour to the next.

[Aftershock]

24 May - Volcanic Disruptions Scotland


UPDATED: 11:00hrs (Tues 24 May) NEXT UPDATE: 13:00hrs (24 May)

Ryanair has been advised by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) that we may not operate flights to/from Glasgow Prestwick, Edinburgh or Aberdeen until 13:00hrs Tuesday 24th May 2011.

Ryanair strongly objects to this decision and believe that there is no basis for these flight cancellations and is meeting with the IAA this morning to have this restriction on Ryanair flights removed as a matter of urgency.

Ryanair confirms that it operated a one hour verification flight up to 41,000 feet in Scottish airspace this morning (24th May). The aircraft took off from Glasgow Prestwick, flew to Inverness, on to Aberdeen and down to Edinburgh - all of which according to CAA charts were in the “red zone” of “high ash concentration”.


There was no visible volcanic ash cloud or any other presence of volcanic ash and the post flight inspection revealed no evidence of volcanic ash on the airframe, wings or engines. The absence of any volcanic ash in the atmosphere supports Ryanair’s stated view that there is no safety threat to aircraft in this mythical “red zone” which is another misguided invention by the UK Met Office and the CAA.


Ryanair has also received written confirmation from both its airframe and engine manufacturers that it is safe to operate in these so called “red zones” and, in any event, Ryanair’s verification flight this morning also confirms that the “red zone” over Scotland is non-existent.


Ryanair has renewed its calls on both the CAA in the UK and the IAA in Ireland to reopen airspace over Scotland and allow airlines to operate flights safely when this morning’s verification flight has demonstrated that the UK Met Office’s “red zone” forecasts are totally unreliable and unsupported by any evidence of volcanic ash concentrations whatsoever.

[Postman Plod]

All below 20000ft Ryanair?? Or is that just a publicity stunt you're pulling?

[READY MESSAGE]

MOL is on Sky News now.....he's not holding back!!

[Nemrytter]

Ryanair are being rather misleading there, as far as I can tell none of their flight was conducted in the altitudes with high ash concentration.
They weren't in the "red zone", they were above it.

[Ivor Fynn]

O'Leary is spouting on Sky news!! Having flown the test aircraft all over Scotland at 41 000 ft spouting that there is no ash, 'been in the red zone - no ash, blah, blah! The charts don't show ash at 41k it is all down at surface to 20k. O'Leary is a t!t. :ugh::ugh:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Sweet, O'Leary says it's safe so it must be. Pillock.

Mates of mine in Jockistan have got ash on their cars so shut it you numpty.

[Postman Plod]

and no journo will have the capacity to ask those questions - they'll just take MOL at his word, and give the authorities an undeserved kicking. (Not that they don't sometimes deserve a good kicking...!)

[BEagle]

I'm no great fan of O'Leary; however, there is a school of thought which considers that, ever since the infamous "There won't be a hurricane" event, the UK Met Office has become overly conservative.

So on this occasion, I certainly don't blame him for speaking his mind.

[Postman Plod]

Beagle, that was 24 years ago, and we've had an overly optimistic Barbeque Summer since then, as well as lots of accurately predicted and no so accurately predicted weather. Which way do you want it? Besides, isn't aviation an inherently conservative occupation?

[BARKINGMAD]

I just woke up from my nap having had a dream that airlines were "test-flying" their precious assets to prove a point with the authorities.

Then I look at Prune and find out it apparently wasn't a dream.

What's left of my brain raised the query "What are the insurers thinking as this goes on. Who picks up the bill at the end for clearing the smoking hole or rebuilding the engines which are eroded/glassed???"

Oh well, off to complete my rest.......... :confused:

[FlyingOfficerKite]

... nevertheless:

'Ryanair flies a plane through high concentrations of ash over Scotland and the aircraft is unaffected, it has said.' and;

'Meanwhile RyanAir have expressed its anger at having to cancel all services to and from Glasgow, Prestwick, Edinburgh and Aberdeen until 1pm today.'

1) Did this occur and were the pax given a choice?
2) The 'hurricane event' is one thing but Ryanair allegedly flying in the face of warnings and good practice may give rise to claims of 'profit first, safety last?

[captplaystation]

Basic understanding of the beast clarifies that MOL wants to fly. . . end of.

I would doubt if any aircraft were flown through a zone notified as "Red", over maybe, but through :=
There are one or two numpties in FR, but the overwhelming consensus among even numpties, is that staying alive is fairly vital.
I doubt even MOL at his most brazen, would countenance the insurance implications & political fallout of deliberately operating a commercial aircraft IN (as opposed to adjacent/above) an area promulgated as dangerous.

One of the few sane persons in the UK ? well, debatable, but certainly not THAT mad either :rolleyes:

[Floppy Link]

No sign of ash and no smell of ash.

Just had a call from my other half, out walking the dog in Perthshire, just north of Blairgowrie. Definite smell and taste of ash in the air.

[Thunderbirdsix]

Why all this O Leary bashing, he done a test flight with no pacs yet Flybe are operating in Scotland today with passengers, who is putting lives in danger ??.

[golfbananajam]

looks like the RYR flight might not have done what was thought. This from the BBC live news feed on their website.


1229: Government sources tell the BBC they are questioning assertions from Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary that one of its planes went through the ash cloud.
1230: A source told the BBC the plane did not go through the "red zone", where ash is at its most dense, and did not have measuring equipment on board. Radar tracked the plane which was travelling at 41,000ft.
1237:
More now on Ryanair's claim that its test flight detected no ash cloud over Scotland. Aviation regulator CAA confirms that at "no time did a Ryanair flight enter the notified area of high contamination ash over Scotland this morning".

[Postman Plod]

What aircraft are they operating? I understood that (turbo)prop were more resilient than turbofan / jet...?

[ayroplain]

O'Leary is spouting on Sky news!! Having flown the test aircraft all over Scotland at 41 000 ft spouting that there is no ash, 'been in the red zone - no ash, blah, blah! The charts don't show ash at 41k it is all down at surface to 20k. O'Leary is a t!t.
Not sure if you've ever been in a plane but in order to get to 41,000ft it has to climb from the airport altitude (in this case Prestwick which is currently "out of bounds" to passenger flights according to IAA) and then come back down through all the flight levels to land again. If no ash was found in the air or on the aircraft then there is no ash at any level in the excluded zone.

[Nik_1977]

Government sources tell the BBC they are questioning assertions from Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary

A source told the BBC the plane did not go through the "red zone", where ash is at its most dense, and did not have measuring equipment on board. Radar tracked the plane which was travelling at 41,000ft.

Aviation regulator CAA confirms that at "no time did a Ryanair flight enter the notified area of high contamination ash over Scotland this morning".


A CAA spokesman adds: "Aircraft engines coming into contact with volcanic ash can have catastrophic consequences. That's why there are comprehensive safety arrangements in place."

Edit : Beaten to it!

[macdo]

El Premier, If the cap fits......

Funnily enough, I think last years reaction to an unprecedented event was sober and correct.
This years reaction is much modified and having just read the rules that my airline will be working to, I imagine we will be flying sooner rather than later.

The proof of the pudding is no big holes in the ground (sea) with airliners in them! If anyone thinks this is lack of balls, then they are in the wrong industry and for that matter, forum.:ugh:

[Ivor Fynn]

ayroplain - Yes mate I have been in an aeroplane once or twice. You don't have to climb through the ash cloud to get above, ie climb south out of Preswick based on the 0600 SFC to FL200, then fly over it a 410, which is what the did. Therefore O'Leary won't find any ash on his 73.

For him to claim there is no ash there is correct but he might have been telling a very different story had he trogged around below 200.

Thanks for your input.

[Postman Plod]

and for what its worth, the VAAC have access to more satellite products than just that Metsat RGB dust image which is being used by the media to indicate the extent of the ash.

There are more ash based images available, which to an untrained eye indicate small areas of something over west Scotland and NW England, which, based on the description on the website, indicate ash.

Met Office: Iceland Volcano satellite imagery (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/volcano/iceland.html)
Grímsvötn volcanic ash observations - Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/latest/volcano/plume)

Might not be the massive uninterrupted ash cloud which I would imagine some people have in their minds, but indicates patchy concentrations of ash extending well beyond that of the main band off to the north and east of Aberdeen.

[Mir]

Quite interesting update on BBC's live feed about the ash cloud : BBC News - Volcanic ash disruption (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13519623)



1304:

A different test flight by Glasgow-based Loganair encountered ash, the transport secretary adds.

Hopefully this will get a bit of focus, instead of MoL running around behaving like a little spoiled school boy, who doesn't get his way....

[EI Premier]

Funnily enough, I think last years reaction to an unprecedented event was sober and correct.
This years reaction is much modified and having just read the rules that my airline will be working to, I imagine we will be flying sooner rather than later.

Funnily enough - I think that despite the fact that there was NO direct feed of volcanic ash after three days from Iceland, Central European airspace for example remained closed.

I posted the relevant Satellite imagery with my earlier comments. The CAA themselves fully admitted this morning that the modelling of the Highly concentrated ash was somewhat out. The CAA have already deemed Aberdeen to be ''safe'' for operations once again. This CLEARLY contradicts the earlier VAAC model, in relation to the Highly concentrated ash.

Therefore - less of the vitriol. I never said anything about ''lack of balls'' or anything to that effect. I stated that the Southward progression of the ash as modelled, did not materialise - no more or less.

The certification for Operations to re-commence at Aberdeen is positive - because we are seeing that despite the modelling of the charts, the CAA are taking into account real-time developments, which was the essence of my original point.

[Postman Plod]

Maybe the "bandwagon" = best practice, based on years of experience and trying to correct for unfortunate events and incidents that have gone before? Ever been 10 miles up the road to find the forecast was spot on tilos?

Meteorology is an inexact science, however people expect an exact answer that meets their exact interpretation with no flexibility, and seem shocked and outraged when sometimes it doesn't happen like that.

EI Premier, indeed, it looks like those making the decision regarding airspace availability are basing it on modelled AND observed data, which can only be positive.

[Fargoo]

Is that BA flight some sort of test/sampling flight? I remember last year Easyjet said they would equip a couple of their fleet with sampling devices (filters) but not aware that BA have done it?

Last time we sent a couple of flights up and had before and after shots of all the leading edges, engines etc.. to determine if any damage was being caused.

Could be the same this time?

[Pace]

And in all this usual hype lets not forget that in more than fifty years of aviation not one life has been lost due to ash ingestion. That includes the good old days when there were no computers as such or sophisticated monitoring systems.

The same cannot be said for bird strikes. Funny how the same panic measures are not made in the migration seasons.

[Postman Plod]

I seem to remember BA offering some of their aircraft for sampling last year? Don't know if anything was ever done, or if aircraft were ever instrumented?

[lomapaseo]

It's all well and good to fly in the area and take the risk once. Multiple sectors in contaminated areas may prove more complicated due to accumulated damage.
The only way to assess the damage after the flights is to perform borescope inspections on each of the engines, which accounting for cool down time would take 4-7 hours per engine and is obviously not practical after every single flight in these conditions. The first inspections may reveal no damage but after that it's russian roulette, the test flights may prove good PR exercises but in reality the information gathered would be too little to make any kind of accurate assessment based on each type of operation.
Our safety environment is based on reliability (historical data) and preventative actions. We do not have enough data to categorically state that the ash will not bring down any aircraft or significantly damage one so we are left with prevention.
If even one aircraft of the 20000 that operate daily in Europe has an incident or God forbid an accident, the risk would be completely unacceptable and it would not be long before the public lost faith in the airlines. The backlash on the authorities I'm sure would also be something to behold.


Safe operation in ash has been demonstrated numerous times and confirmed by evidence of erosion on radomes and engine inlets. Unsafe operation of aircraft in volcanic ash has also been demonstrated numerous time >50 via symptoms of EGT and or stall as well as buildup of ash in the aircraft bleeds and sensors.

I would suggest therfore that evaluation of symptoms/evidences after a flight provide room for risk assessment and a way to operate within practical everyday risk levels.

However, I think it prudent not to push the boudaries of visible airborne evidences and attempt to find the boundary of where it`s unsafe.

[udachi moya]

ICE318 KEF-OSL - in descent to OSL - so Iceland is open, erm.... isn't that a bit closer to this volcano than Scotland...

BA A320 seemed to vary speeds quite a lot during his 2 hour loiter.

Not going to pro-Ryanair here but kudos to them for challenging the CAA reports, and bad form from the CAA to discount their findings without so much as "lets see your reports" - yes they flew at FL410 (I think) but so what. BA loitered at much lower levels. Ryanair HAD to climb and descend through the "ash" layer to get in and out of PIK. Must have some credence.

[kazzie]

Another Ryanair test flight ha just departed PIK..
Wonder if they get it right this time...

BBC Reporting that FR are checking-in flight with all intentions of flying. ah well. :ugh:

Also reports of a Loganair Saab encountering Ash.

[10W]

As any spotter with a SBS box can tell you, the Ryanair 'test flight' climbed above the top of High Contamination Temporary Danger Area (the Red Zone)before it set course North from Prestwick over it. It was passing FL210 abeam Prestwick airfield and well above that level when crossing the Danger Area boundary about 20 miles North of Glasgow. It then pottered about at levels up to FL410, and at ALL times above the Danger Area before returning and descending after passing the boundary of the Danger Area (in other words in the clear again). O'Leary is economical with the truth once more. Which is what I think the CAA has already said ;)

The BA flight has also never entered the Red Zone, remaining above FL200.

A SAR Sea King on the other hand encountered ash at low levels in the North of Scotland within the Red Zone, and also reported ash contamination on the ground in Orkney, but that couldn't possibly be true because O'Leary says there is nothing there and it's all a secret plot by the authorities. :ouch:

[10W]

Link below to the Spotters part of PPRuNe. Please feel free to post there all your sightings and screen shots of aircraft flying in the UK, cancellations, etc, etc. :ok:

If a particular flight subsequently generates some Rumours or News which relates to professional pilots, then this is indeed the thread to use.

Spectators Balcony - Spotters Corner (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner-52/)

[READY MESSAGE]

BA cancel all GLA EDI and NCL flights until 1900

[Postman Plod]

Latest charts:
Met Office: Air ash concentration charts North Atlantic area Public (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/natlantic.html)

Janspeed - oooo pretty! And people are complaining that the VAAC are over-egging things! ;)

[paulkinm]

These Austrians seem to have some pretty pictures......


Very nice, looks a bit apocalyptic though! :E

[macdo]

10w is to congratulated for trying to inject some sanity into this thread.

El Premier. sorry, 'balls' comment was aimed at the non -pilots making inappropriate comments, not yourself, with whom I just disagree.

For me, the grounded SAR heli in Shetland says it all. I'm not paid to be someones testpilot and I have no intention of being one. I suggest that all the non-pilots ponder on being a 'test-passenger'.

Ironically, I'm off on holiday to Greece tomorrow, wondering if I'm going to get away or not. And do you know, I'm more than happy to be flying with an airline that has a plan and won't be using me and mine as crash test dummies.

[Back at NH]

And in all this usual hype lets not forget that in more than fifty years of aviation not one life has been lost due to ash ingestion. That includes the good old days when there were no computers as such or sophisticated monitoring systems.

And let's keep it that way.....

[dash6]

If RYR check in flights "Intending to fly" and are then denied clearance,will they still have to compensate their passengers? Jut a thought....:hmm:

[Thunderbirdsix]

According to Ryanair website flights that were due to depart Edinburgh to Tenerife and Malaga today have now been cancelled due to volcanic ash. These were supposed to be the ones they were going to operate despite being told not to.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

According to Flightradar24 anyway. :confused:

Airline: British Airways
Flightnr: BA1312
From: London Heathrow (LHR)
To: Aberdeen Dyce (ABZ)
Aircraft: Airbus A321-231 (A321)
Reg: G-EUXJ
Hex: 4010DA
Altitude: 35150 ft (10714 m)
Speed: 375 kt (695 km/h, 432 mph)
Track: 340°
Squawk: 1401
Pos: 55.61215 / -3.31479

[Thunderbug]

Vortex

The forecast ash is in a band across central & southern Scotland. This leaves ABZ in the clear.

BA have announced services to GLA, EDI & NCL cancelled to 1900. Flights to ABZ are operating.

[Capn Bloggs]

in more than fifty years of aviation not one life has been lost due to ash ingestion.
There's been a couple of close calls though:

British Airways Flight 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9)

KLM Flight 867 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867)

[Sober Lark]

When one thinks of the recent and greater Merapi eruption many airlines continued to operate with no evidence of damage. Indeed the likes of Yogyakarta being only 19NM east of Merapi only closed when ash falls created limited visibility. Other airports in the vacinity such as Solo, Surabaya and to some extent Jakarta suffered cancellations but not a blanket no fly zone. Many did fly and there was no damage to aircraft.

[macdo]

With respect Sober Lark, I know these Indonesian airports pretty well and, as you say, they have to live with the constant rumblings of Merapi and all the other active volcano's in the vicinity.

But, when Merapi erupted last year, it was not on the scale of Iceland and although there was disruption, most of the ash was blown away from the area. In addition, you are talking about some quite small airports in an area of low density overflights.

Finally, the attitude to risk within Indonesian aviation, although vastly improved on the past, is not quite the same as that in Western Europe.

As a western airline working out there for the Hajj season, we took pretty much the same view as people are here. IE don't fly in the red zone on the met chart and know your Volcanic Ash Encounter SOP's well!

[Evanelpus]

I might, just might, consider flying in the affected areas if MoL filled a plane with himself and all his loved ones, then flew round and round and up and down and landed safely. Nah, I wouldn't really.

I'll bet the pilots who flew today were not volunteers, well not in the true sense of the word, volunteer. It was probably put to them that if they didn't undertake the flight, the door would him them on the way out.

Does anyone really listen to anything MoL says?

[ExXB]

If RYR check in flights "Intending to fly" and are then denied clearance,will they still have to compensate their passengers? Jut a thought....:hmm:

Regulation 261/2004 requires the airline to care for and compensate their passengers regardless of the reason the flight was cancelled.

The Regulation does "envision" that nothing in it prevents the airline from seeking redress from third parties. To my knowledge this has never been attempted, nor (obviously) successful with government bodies or NATS. Perhaps Cryanair may do so in this case, and I wish them luck - they will need it.

[Pace]

There's been a couple of close calls though:

I am not disputing there have been close calls but those have been flying into visible ash clouds or not so visible at night.

The fact is in millions of flights over a 50 year period NOT ONE DEATH!
Volcanos are not a new thing!

Compare that to aircraft lost flying into a CB? do we close big chunks of airspace because there are thunderstorms around? No we as pilots deal with them.

Do we ground aircraft in the bird migration season? No we dont yet both hold demonstrable risk.
Ash in invisible form is a percieved risk.

Ok we may have increased the accepeted levels from one thimblefull in a four bedroom house to 20 thimble fulls in a four bedroom house but still very low levels and still levels which would be invisible in ash cloud form.

Well done RyanAir for making a point!

Pace

[cuthere]

Pace, surely if the manufacturers could come up with what is definitively safe (and I'm not talking about what MO'L was saying earlier), then it would take the argument away from the CAA. What's actually happened during the year since the last ash disruption? Seemingly, not a lot.

As for CB avoidance........slightly easier than avoiding barely perceptible by eye amounts of ash. Furthermore, it's much easier for Met authorities to issue SIGMETs/forecasts for CBs than for ash.

[StressFree]

Does your weather radar pick up ash? Mine doesn't but I can see and avoid CB's.........

Honestly, how can you say well done to Ryanair?

Theres more to aviation than profit.

[stalling attitude]

I think MoLs rant just says to the public that while all other airlines are prepared to accept the advice of people who know far more about the subject than an airline CEO, Ryanair would rather just crack on with the schedule and take a chance. He may well be right but how many of us would put our children and partners on a test flight at 25000' over Scotland today. Sadly i feel his outburst just shows what his priorities are.:=

As for the Cb comment, i have never come across a Cb that was over half the size of Scotland. They are easily avoidable with the radar.:ugh:

[StressFree]

Well said sir, absolutely spot on!

:ok:

[Count Niemantznarr]

As a (relatively) young BA 747 co-pilot, we had a pod slung underneath with a spare engine for XH. We dropped it off enroute to Perth.

Next to our glider at Jakarta was a SIA 747 which had also been sandblasted a week or so later.

[WetFeet]

Those quoting EU Reg 261, whether it be the media, govt ministers or forum members saying the airlines have to care for and compensate passengers should read the whole regulation. In particular para 14 which says:

14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

I would suggest the volcanic ash situation is covered by "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight" thus absolving the airlines from having to care for and compensate passengers. One occasion where Mr O'Leary is right to complain?

Doesn't help if you are stuck at an airport away from home, but that is what the reg says.

[Shell Management]

The British CAA say their airspace "is not closed, and it will not be closed" and "all airports remain open".

They go on that an airline could:

..operate a flight in an area judged to be affected by high-density ash if it had submitted a safety case to operate in this type of ash, but no UK carrier has done so.

:ugh::ugh:

Again the travelling public suffer because airlines have failed to implement a safety management system

[macdo]

pace,
you can barrel roll a 737, but we're not allowed to do it, now work out why?:ugh:

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

@S M

I don't think you can conclude lack of a safety management system from a failure to submit a safety case for operations in "red zone" ash.

It may well be that the reason no airline has submitted such a case is that they are unable to do so - because they cannot make the case that it is safe.

[dwshimoda]

Shell,

Why do you hate pilots and airlines so much? Is a pilot goosing your wife? You add nothing to any debate you stick your oar into. You are now on my ignore list, so say what you like, I wont see it.

Edited to add: You praise Ryanair? For putting their pilots, assets and customers at risk? For telling a false story about how it is safe, when they didn't even fly through the red zone. Bravo - the biggest shot through the foot I've seen for a long time!

[pb2]

Wetfeet, you are quoting from the preamble to the Regulation rather than any part of the legislation itself. If you go down to the Regulation you'll see that article 5 paragraphs (1)a) and (3) together with articles 7, 8 and 9 make it explicitly clear that only the right to compensation is waived in the event of 'exceptional circumstances' like the ones you describe.

The right to care, as well as the right to refund or re-routing, persists even under these conditions.

[forget]

SM, :rolleyes: Didn't you read what Mad Scientist wrote?

[Shell Management]

dwshimoda

Your decent into rudeness does you (weak) argument no good.:=

I certainly like Ryanair for using state of the art safety toolkit to fly safe.:ok:

And a safety case is about managing risks not running risks. Perhaps you should read this excellent work;)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1409412113/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1409401650&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0TDHSDN13SHY817BYPM0

[Meeb]

Heard O'leary on the Radio Scotland this afternoon, the reporter was asking all the right questions and he sounded like a money grabbing b@stard, well those of us in the industry know him for what he is.

Since when was an accountant an expert on anything except counting beans? :mad:

The posters on here supporting this idiot cannot be aircrew as everyone I have ever spoken to are concerned for safety, something O'leary cant spell never mind understand.

Some comments on here beggar belief and have to be from stirrers, surely... :ugh:

[AN2 Driver]

Meeb,

unfortunately I know several airline captains of different airlines who have shown their expertise by denying the whole thing. No, there was no ash, no we could have flown, the governments are all w!*?!ers and so on and so on. As a consequence several of the operating airlines these guys fly on are now on my personal no fly list.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

[gone till november]

Shell you're an idiot. Go away and let the bigs boys talk on a serious subject that you obviously have no clue about:ugh:

O'leary got busted for going on TV and telling the world that one of his planes flew through the "cloud" and there was no damage.

The UK Transport secretary outed the little hitler that his state of the art safety toolkit to fly safe as you put it never went near the red zone.

So wise up and less of your anti British rhetoric it be-littles you.

[dwshimoda]

Can't see his post, but Ryanair and state of the art safety toolkit to fly safe don't go together - especially after MOL today.

We are able to fly in low levels, but have not applied for the dispensation to fly into medium levels, and I am glad we haven't. It just puts passengers and engines at risk. We need to learn to live with the inconvenience that nature sometimes provides. When Boeing, RR, the CAA and my company's assessment say it is okay, then I will be happy to fly.

Until then I'm not going to go on the the say so of some mouthy little prick with publicity and profits as his main drivers.

[WetFeet]

If Ryanair did submit a safety case as claimed then it was obviously rejected as being inadequate. Otherwise they would be flying.

[StressFree]

Outstanding posts sir, absolutley spot on.

Shell Management, you're dangerous, if you really endorse what you seem to be suggesting then you worry me..........you really think its OK for a wide-boy CEO to make critical safety decisions with the sole objective of keeping the profits coming in?

Oh dear, :eek:

[Old and Horrified]

According to flightradar24, a BA A320, callsign BAW9271 appears to be part way through a grand tour of the British isles from London to Aberdeen, currently 19,000 feet over Manchester.

[Hibernia]

You've heard about affordable safety, well today's media orgasm was about affordable Volcanic ash. For those unfamiliar, MOL is a one trick pony. Pile it high, sell it cheap, and blame anyone and anything that gets in your way. This dangerous, disrespectful, anarchistic business whore needs to be taken down before he kills someone. IAA afraid. CAA DO SOMETHING.

SAFA MOL at every British airport until he learns to respect British rule of law. Better still, BLACKLIST Ryanair from British airspace.

Flying in proscribed British airspace? Outrageous.

[ExXB]

Wetfeet, you are quoting from the preamble to the Regulation rather than any part of the legislation itself. If you go down to the Regulation you'll see that article 5 paragraphs (1)a) and (3) together with articles 7, 8 and 9 make it explicitly clear that only the right to compensation is waived in the event of 'exceptional circumstances' like the ones you describe.

The right to care, as well as the right to refund or re-routing, persists even under these conditions.

:ok:
Wetfeet, you also need to look at the next paragraph of the preamble: (15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations. This pretty well excludes an airspace closure, which doesn't apply to a particular aircraft on a particular day.

Even Cryanair agrees, the Regulation requires them, in these circumstances, to provide a refund, rerouting and care; but not cash compensation.

[hellsbrink]

And, SM, how do you make a safety case based on last year's eruption when this one has a completely different "make up" with different size of ash particles, different concentrations, different weather conditions affecting the spread of the "plume", a specific height limit, etc, etc, etc.

If you are "management" of any kind then you will understand how a "risk assessment" works, how it can only apply to ONE SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, and how no airline can manage to get a PROPER "safety case" sorted out in the space of two days when you consider that the input from the engine manufacturers will need longer due to the lack of knowledge they had 24 hours after the volcano farted it's guts out.

NO airline can possibly have a VIABLE "safety case" drafted in 48 hours of an event like this, every eruption is different. To try and say that any airline has a "state of the art safety toolkit" to allow them to "fly safe" in these circumstances (when they didn't actually go anywhere near the ash cloud) is absolute malebovinefaeces.

[cuthere]

I see those pesky bureaucrats have been "making stuff up" again.

Ash observations confirm Met Office ash forecasts « Met Office News Blog (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/ash-observations-confirm-met-office-ash-forecasts/)

[Out Of Trim]

Old and Horrified

The same aircraft operated a similar profile this morning with the same callsign. It operated LHR to MAN via many orbits North of Aberdeen at 28,000 ft. You would have been able to read about it here but, unfortunately a Moderator deemed it only worthy of the Spotters forum and deleted all the relevant posts!

Whereas it would have been of interest to most of the professional industry workforce. Perhaps we need some more professional moderators here!

Ho hum.. :ugh:

[Flightrider]

Shell Management, we have crossed paths before on other threads but your comments here really do exceed even your own wild standards. That operators have not submitted a safety case to the Authority for operations in high ash concentrations is certainly, in my employer's case, due to the fact that we do not believe that the risk can be acceptably mitigated. I find your armchair "judge and jury" attitude that this somehow represents a failing on the part of the UK industry to be gratuitously offensive.

In any case, how do you define "high"? "High" concentration would be anything more than 4000 micrograms per cubic metre - and potentially with no upper limit. You could conceivably fly right through the plume of a volcano if you had that approval. I would hope that even you would agree, in light of the BA and KLM 747 experiences, that such activity is not advisable.

[eagleflyer]

Let´s face it, there won´t be any change to the existing chaos anytime soon. Nobody wants to hold his head out of the window with a decision that flying jet aircraft 1000 miles away from an errupting volcano is indeed safe.

Thirty years ago we simply didn´t have the computer power available to forecast (or should I say estimate) the amount of ash particles in far-away airspaces. Everyone (except for BA and KLM if I recall correctly) kept his distance from visible ashclouds and that was it. Since no accidents happened in the 50+ years of jet airliners aviation before last and this year´s chaos I conclude that todays chaotic regulations are not based on common sense or scientific research but on lawyers` opinions.

[PT6Driver]

Shell M,
As part of a safety case the Airline will have to provide evidence that the engines are allowed (by the engine manufacturer) to operate in airspace contaminated by ash in the relevent quantities.
The engines being those currently attached to their aircraft.
Further requirements are needed but that is the most relevant to your question and statements.
TO DATE NO engine manufacturer has given the aproval needed to operate in the red zone - therefore NO airline can present the case to operate in the red zone.
A safety case requires there to be SAFETY not just words from the oil industry - itself a fine example of safety management:ugh:.

[DA50driver]

This is all cooked up because of the lawyers.

I will be going to work on Thursday night flying from NY to Europe. If I start seeing St. Elmo's fire on my windscreen I will change altitude and or direction.

I am sick of some pencil-d..k nerd telling me how to do my job. Let's throw CRM and MCC and all that back at them as well.

In case you think I am writing this tongue in cheek, I am not.

[heavy_landing]

DA 50 driver, what evidence do you have to back up what you say?

You may feel that the airlines are being over-cautious, but what evidence do you have to show that it is safe?

[Montgolfier]

DA 50 driver, what evidence do you have to back up what you say?


Presumably he's taken a lot of meteorologists/geologists back to his place?

[saffron]

logged in to uk met office's crap website,there does not appear to be any ash concenteration charts ,am i looking in the wrong place?

[cuthere]

logged in to uk met office's crap website,there does not appear to be any ash concenteration charts ,am i looking in the wrong place?

Took me three click:

Met Office: Air ash concentration charts Eurasia area Public (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/eurasia.html)

[READY MESSAGE]

Germany closing some northern airports from 0300z due to the ash contamination

[saffron]

thanks cuthere

[The Fat Controller]

Just home from work.

The BA A320 had CAA dispensation to fly through the RED zone on it's second trip this afternoon and did so at various levels, routing from Manchester towards Newcastle and then into the Scottish TMA.

As far as I am aware it was the ONLY aircraft that had the relevant paperwork to do so.

There have been heavy showers all day here in Prestwick, and I can assure you that more than just rain has fallen from the sky, my car windscreen was very dusty when I left work at 10pm.

Hopefully all will be back to normal in the UK after 1am Wednesday morning.

The RED zone has now extended SE to the UK/Amsterdam boundary so there may be problems down that way by morning.

[DA50driver]

I don't have any evidence except we have been able to circumnavigate this things forever in Asia and Alaska. What is the Met offices evidence that something bad will happen if we do fly through the area? And if they do have evidence why would they let a BA flight go through it. (paperwork will not make the difference by the way).

It is an abundance of caution that wreaks havoc upon the masses.

The government could't be wrong. Right???

[Brenoch]

We need a geologist on here.

In regard to people claiming to fly around visible ash clouds I was recently told by a geologist, when queried about last years debacle, that eruptions under glaciers produce a very different kind of ash. It's very similar this year, and it's like nothing like an eruption in Indonesia or for that matter in Alaska as most of it's seismic activity is far from where the massive glaciers are.

If you actually do fly a DA50 and it's not your own, have you informed the owner of the possible risk involved, including swimming ashore?

[IcePack]

Well said Eagleflyer.
So have any of these things erupted in the last 37 years. If they have how come I have not crashed or heard of any engine problems.
Funny the techno becomes available suddenly danger danger. I'm with DA50Driver hear. :ok:

[Pace]

We are talking about invisible ash Ie not in cloud or mist form.
Take the fact that No One has lost their lives due to Volcanic ash in more than 50 years and you have to question an overreaction.
As a pilot I take the view that if I cannot see it there is no threat!
Threat to me is something which will endanger my flight Ie stop my engines!
Ash which is of such low density that it is not visible will not stop or fail an engine!
Long term there may or may not be a shortening of the egine life but that is a financial decision not a safety decision.
I repeat there has NOT been a fatality due to ash in over 50 years of aviation.
The same cannot be said for Bird strikes or thunderstorm incursions,
Double standards ?
There is proven risk and perceived risk. Birds and thunderstorms are proven risk with a track record.
Invisible ash has no track record and is perceived unproven risk.
If we are so safety aware why not close masses of airspace in the bird migration season or ground aircraft when there is thunderstorm activity?
The billowing ash clouds are a different matter. They are as visible as a large CB but invisible ash ? Come on ! Press hype and liability fear based on nothing.
long term and engine life a vague maybe but a financial decision not a safety one.

[jamesdevice]

well, it was noticeable on my car tonight, parked for three hours a few miles north of Lancaster. Tried using the windscreen washers and the fallout turned into an approximation of builders mortar. Not much dust, but enough to prevent vision through the windscreen.
Oh - and it scratches glass

[ZOOKER]

It will scratch glass, so imagine what it does to the finer bits of human lungs. The term 'ash' reminds us of that soft, grey powdery stuff (from coal-fires) that went in the dustbins years-ago.
Pyroclastic material is very different.
It is angular/sub-angular grit and sharp, angular shards of volcanic glass.
Usually with a high Silica content. Many of the mountains NW of Lancaster are built it.
Volcanic clouds often have a high content of volatiles, CO2, SO2, HF, H2S, HCl, Flourine and Boron may also be present.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Just a small question l would like to ask Pace.
Why was GPWS invented?
I think the answer was Pilots and l mean Pilots not aircraft, kept flying into high ground.
Now were they all stupid or did they not see the high ground.
Just a thought. :ugh:

[cuthere]

DA50driver....

What is the Met offices evidence that something bad will happen

It's pretty simple. They have none. The Met Office are asked to forecast the movement and intensity of the the ash in accordance with the definitions in the ICAO EUR/NAT Volcanic Ash Contingency Plan (ICAO EUR Doc 19 and NAT Doc 06 Part II, December 2010 edition) They do this using one of the most advanced dispersion models in the world. It is then up to the CAA, manufacturers and operators to decide what's safe or not. This idea that the Met Office are sitting staring at their computers deciding what will damage aircraft engines and then closing airspace is ridiculous. That is WAAAAAAAY outside their remit.

As an aside. I'd imagine if the airlines coughed up a few quid then the dispersion model could be better, observations of ash could be better, and disruption could be more justified.

[Nemrytter]

As a pilot I take the view that if I cannot see it there is no threat!

Pace, how do you think the many SLF who read this website will react when they read comments* like the one I quote? Do you think they'll be reassured that there are intelligent, professional and safety conscious pilots in the pointy end of their aircraft?
Or do you think they might become worried that some pilots are treating this a little too carelessly.


Also, try flying at the altitude of the ash - it will be more visible then. We had some at surface level here yesterday, and it was visible (just).


*Which I hope you write in jest

[spinnaker]

PACE.

The reason no life has been lost, thus far, is because no one is stupid enough to deliberately fly into an ash cloud. When inadvertent flight into ash HAS occurred, severe damaged and flame-outs HAS occurred. If I remember correctly the Boeing book says don't do it.

During my career, I guess I averaged 4 lightning strikes per year, maybe more, maybe less, and god knows how many bird strikes. All of which I would have loved to avoid, BUT, I didn't kill any of my crew or passengers.

There are no double standards, just your own BS

[Pace]

James my car was covered in sand in the south of England before the eruption! A week ago!
What we need are density levels that are a threat to the flight not to long term engine life.
What density level of ash causes ash to be visible to the naked eye ? How does that compare with the existing maximum permitted levels.
Regardless the proven track record over 50 years shows that volcanic ash is not a major threat to life and certainly far less rhan many proven threats that we accept and live with.

Pace

[Smoketrails]

@ DA50Flyer

If I ever have the money to hire a bizzjet, remind me not to make it a DA50!

@ Pace

What airline do you fly with? As I might have to change some bookings!?

Sorry lads but as a SLF your ignorance and down right childish stupidity scares the sh*t out of me!

[sabenaboy]

Let´s face it, there won´t be any change to the existing chaos anytime soon. Nobody wants to hold his head out of the window with a decision that flying jet aircraft 1000 miles away from an errupting volcano is indeed safe.

Thirty years ago we simply didn´t have the computer power available to forecast (or should I say estimate) the amount of ash particles in far-away airspaces. Everyone (except for BA and KLM if I recall correctly) kept his distance from visible ashclouds and that was it. Since no accidents happened in the 50+ years of jet airliners aviation before last and this year´s chaos I conclude that todays chaotic regulations are not based on common sense or scientific research but on lawyers` opinions.

This is all cooked up because of the lawyers.

I will be going to work on Thursday night flying from NY to Europe. If I start seeing St. Elmo's fire on my windscreen I will change altitude and or direction.

I am sick of some pencil-d..k nerd telling me how to do my job. Let's throw CRM and MCC and all that back at them as well.

In case you think I am writing this tongue in cheek, I am not.

Well said Eagleflyer.
So have any of these things erupted in the last 37 years. If they have how come I have not crashed or heard of any engine problems.
Funny the techno becomes available suddenly danger danger. I'm with DA50Driver hear.

We are talking about invisible ash Ie not in cloud or mist form.
Take the fact that No One has lost their lives due to Volcanic ash in more than 50 years and you have to question an overreaction.
As a pilot I take the view that if I cannot see it there is no threat!
Threat to me is something which will endanger my flight Ie stop my engines!
Ash which is of such low density that it is not visible will not stop or fail an engine!
Long term there may or may not be a shortening of the egine life but that is a financial decision not a safety decision.
I repeat there has NOT been a fatality due to ash in over 50 years of aviation.
The same cannot be said for Bird strikes or thunderstorm incursions,
Double standards ?
There is proven risk and perceived risk. Birds and thunderstorms are proven risk with a track record.
Invisible ash has no track record and is perceived unproven risk.
If we are so safety aware why not close masses of airspace in the bird migration season or ground aircraft when there is thunderstorm activity?
The billowing ash clouds are a different matter. They are as visible as a large CB but invisible ash ? Come on ! Press hype and liability fear based on nothing.
long term and engine life a vague maybe but a financial decision not a safety one.

James my car was covered in sand in the south of England before the eruption! A week ago!
What we need are density levels that are a threat to the flight not to long term engine life.
What density level of ash causes ash to be visible to the naked eye ? How does that compare with the existing maximum permitted levels.
Regardless the proven track record over 50 years shows that volcanic ash is not a major threat to life and certainly far less rhan many proven threats that we accept and live with.
Let it be clear: I'm with all these guys I've quoted (Especially the underlined parts.) All incidents in the past occurred in thick, high-density ash clouds. NOT in nice VMC weather. And even then, when the KLM and BA crews (with hindsight) did many things wrong ( no engines immediately to idle, no 180° turn, no wing + eng A/I on) they didn't crash.

Aviation is not absolutely safe. Crashes occur every year, but not one crash or incident has occurred due to volcanic ash while flying outside ash concentrations visible to the naked eye. A/C manufacturers can't guarantee that it's safe to fly in areas with concentrations >4000 microgrs/m2. Why is that, do you all think? Based on scientific data or experiments? NO: IT'S A LIABILITY ISSUE. Would you really expect RR, GE, Boeing or Airbus NOT to cover their ass, just in case somebody flew into some high density ash cloud?

So what should be done now?

Well, military A/C should be flying in the red zone by day VMC, actively looking, but avoiding visible ash concentrations. Make a post-flight inspection of the A/C + engines. No damage? Take-off again and go look for some visible (pollution-like) ash and examine the A/C after the flight.

Until now there's NO evidence that ash > 4000mgrs/m2 but still invisible to the eye has ANY safety impact on an A/C.

The decision to close airspace (or rules to same effect) is nothing but a bureaucrats' "cover-your-ass"-policy!

Believe me. As an airline captain I have safety on my mind all the time. I'm looking out of the window as I'm writing this and looking at severe CAVOK conditions but with low ash concentrations forecast. Maybe, just maybe flying my A320 in those conditions might have a long term negative impact on the engines maintenance, but I'm sure it's not going to kill me! :ugh:

Until there's any proof or valid doubt that flying outside visible ash is dangerous, airlines should have the possibility to operate in daylight VMC-conditions regardless of the forecast ash concentrations.

Regards,
Sabenaboy

[10W]

All incidents in the past occurred in thick, high-density ash clouds. NOT in nice VMC weather.

This is Northern Europe. Where can you ever guarantee nice VMC weather here ? :}

Well, military A/C should be flying in the red zone by day VMC, actively looking, but avoiding visible ash concentrations. Make a post-flight inspection of the A/C + engines. No damage? Take-off again and go look for some visible (pollution-like) ash and examine the A/C after the flight.

Until now there's NO evidence that ash > 4000mgrs/m2 but still invisible to the eye has ANY safety impact on an A/C.


Why military aircraft ? They don't have any sensors to determine the level of contamination, therefore although they might prove damage, it doesn't assist anyone in determining what level of contamination or type of particle caused it. It is this figure which is surely important to the industry, as it will allow the tolerable level to be enshrined in procedures. The only way you are going to get that information is by using Met Research aircraft with suitable equipment on board, and a suitable ground based team to assess the data and make the judgements for the Regulators to act on. Maybe the manufacturers and the airlines could pay for this to happen urgently as it will ultimately be in all their interests. There certainly doesn't seem to have been much done in the last year to advance the publication of a 'safe' level.

[Pace]

Sabena boy I am flying south France at 1230 and am trembling in my shoes as I look out of my Hotel room at clear blue Skies.
Totally agree with you. There are far too many arse watchers and headline grabbers.
If I note anything on my flight I will post tonight ; )

Pace

[WHBM]

Can someone ask Eric Moody what the PPM concentration was on BA9; my guess is that it was about 1,000 times greater than the red zone over Britain. None of the aircraft that have flown in the red zone have reported any issues at all. His flight deck windscreen was sandblasted opaque !

Here's an interesting comment over on an AH&N thread, which might seem unrelated at first, about a turborop operation in the Gulf 35 years ago :

The Dhahran airbridge was operated by 1 F27 from PLAD based in BAH ..... It was maximum punishment flying, very short flights at low altitude in humid air laden with dust. I've seen Dart compressor blades reduced to 25% when removed on scheduled overhaul.

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/452512-did-gulf-air-operate-handley-page-herald.html

If aircraft can operate quite safely in conditions like that (I presume they haven't changed), and engines last through to SCHEDULED overhaul when operated continually in such conditions, then without a doubt they can operate in the UK today.

[Whippersnapper]

Sabenaboy, what military aircraft would you suggest? They all have fairly different aerodynamics and engines from airliners for a start, if you're thinking about fast jets, and the transport aircraft are all rather busy elsewhere, besides which, why should an RAF crew put their lives on the line for the profit of airlines and convenience of travellers? But with all the cuts, do you really think the RAF can afford do deliberately wreck an aircraft anyway?

What about the Finnish F18s and Belgian F16s that damaged their engines flying in what appeared to be clear skies last year? Why do you chose to ignore that? Their engine cores are very similar to those of the CFM56...

A lot of the authorities' and manufacturers' reactions are based on avoidance of liability for accidents or incidents, but they are also liable for loss of business if they over-react, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt when there is so little scientific data on which to base a more informed decision over this issue.

[Whippersnapper]

WHBM

I'm no engineer, but to my knowledge, the temperatures of modern engines are much higher, so the bleed air cooling the turbines is that much more critical than on older engines, making modern engines more susceptible to cumulative damage. furthermore, the sand would have been merely highly abrasive, but would not have bonded to the blades or fuel nozzles in the way that ash particles are claimed to.

[lomapaseo]

I'm no engineer, but to my knowledge, the temperatures of modern engines are much higher, so the bleed air cooling the turbines is that much more critical than on older engines, making modern engines more susceptible to cumulative damage. furthermore, the sand would have been merely highly abrasive, but would not have bonded to the blades or fuel nozzles in the way that ash particles are claimed to.

I`probably pedanic, but cooling air doesn´t enter into the severe hazard of glassification.

The glassifying occurs in the burner flame which is hottest in the latest high perf engines. The cooling air is aft of this melting zone and promotes the solidification of the glass on the critical bits of nozzles behind the flame.

[Postman Plod]

Problem is that if you instrument an aircraft for a task (and I don't think we're talking about rolling pallets on an off the aircraft), then it'll take time to reinstrument it for another task.

The second aircraft is obviously being provided primarily for the volcanic ash role, so will permentantly be instrumented, only it isn't ready. I guess that is a fair question - why has it taken so long?

For those stating that they can operate in the desert off sand dunes after dragging their engines across beaches for a week, can I just point out that sand does not equal volcanic ash, and in fact volcanic ash is a VERY different beast? (Mind you, given that I've also seen the result of sand damage to an engine, I dread to think what ash might do!)

There are clearly a certain number of ignorant people trolling on the thread, but there are some with a very reasonable level of scepticism who are asking fair questions, listening to answers and actually applying logic and reason to their comments.

[anotherthing]

DA50,

you obviously don't have a clue, which is worrying if you are a pilot.

The Met office has no power to stop airlines flying, it merely provides a forecast of where the ash cloud will be (and if you have never done a Met Forecaster course, you will probably not have an appreciation of how imprecise a science it can be).

The airlines are not flying in high concentration areas for one reason - they do not have dispensation from the CAA.

Why don't they have this dispensation? Because not one of them, even Ryanair despite their claims otherwise, have submitted a safety case deemed acceptable. Most of them haven't even tried, why? Because the manufacturers of the powerplants have so for been unhappy (for perfectly fair reasons) to sign a piece of paper stating that they are happy the engines would be fine.

Because the engine manufacturers have not signed off on this, the majority of airline operators have not even bothered trying to get dispensation... how can you prove a safety case it the engine manufacturer won't say they are happy?

Germany has closed some of it's airports - is the the fault of the UK Met Office as well?

Whether you personally think it is safe to fly or not is your opinion, but before you try to argue it, at least get the very basic facts correct!
O'Leary claims to have submitted one to the IAA, but what it was founded on is anyones guess, and it is no wonder it was dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

[lomapaseo]

This is just a repeat of what I have said earlier last year, but since the same old arguments keep surfacing, it`s time to counter than once again.

The manufacturers can not tell you how much ash is dangerous, or even safe, since no standards exist.

Safety is relative freedom from risk and can be established from available operational data.

I'm encouraged by the realization from some pilots, that symptoms and actions can be combined to reduce risk to flight. Turn the aircraft away, reduce power on engines etc.

Also keep in mind that this knowledge and action alone is quite likely to keep you out of so called red zones, by allerting you when you are entering a yellow zone which has been demonstrated to have been safely penetrated by test flights.

Thus the challenge today are for the operators to evaluate their route risk based on data, and action plans. To simply sit on the ground and ignore any sense of a measured response is not practical.

[Llademos]

From the BA Intranet ...

Verification flight “finds nothing”; minor disruption affects Germany

The preliminary results of last night’s ash verification flight were received earlier today, with no ash found.

Speaking on BBC4's Today programme this morning (Wednesday May 25), IAG CEO Willie Walsh said that the flight operated at different altitudes, through a zone designated by the Met Office to contain high densities of ash – a level at which no commercial carrier has received safety clearance to operate.

"Initially it flew over the north of England, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, back to Newcastle. The aircraft then returned to Heathrow and has been examined. We have made initial checks of the aircraft, including the windows, engines and moving parts such as the leading edges. All the filters were then removed and will be sent to a laboratory for further testing. The simple answer is that we found nothing."

The data will also be made available to the Civil Aviation Authority, and should help develop the understanding of the limitations of the models being used to forecast ash dispersal.
Does the last paragraph translate as 'We think the CAA and Met Office are getting it wrong'?

Ll

[cldrvr]

BBC reporting that the eruption has stopped, citing an Icelandic source. No link available just yet.

[sabenaboy]

What about the Finnish F18s and Belgian F16s that damaged their engines flying in what appeared to be clear skies last year? Why do you chose to ignore that?

I didn't chose to ignore that. On the contrary, I was hoping somebody would bring it up! :ok: Thanks! :p

The press was very quick to pick up the initial reports of so called significant damage to those engines. Later, after more in depth research, the press had lost interest.

So perhaps you would like to read those articles:
Finnish F-18 engine checks reveal ‘no significant damage’ (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/23/341056/ash-cloud-pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-checks-reveal-no-significant.html)

ABOUT THE BELGIAN F16's (http://www.f-16.net/news_article4065.html)

I hadn't heard about the Belgian F-16's case before today. Googling learns me that there were a lot of news reports on 19 + 20 april 2010 after one US diplomat said something, but after that there's nothing to be found about significant damage to these F16's?

[anotherthing]

Does the last paragraph translate as 'We think the CAA and Met Office are getting it wrong'?
Was the aircraft equipped to collect samples, or merely to fly through high density areas and then 'look' for evidence in the moving parts etc?
Not exactly a scientific rebuttal is it? Do BA engineers know how 'x' PPM density of ash should manifest itself on working parts etc, or is it enough to say we can't see anything therefore the density claims are wrong?

Or does it actually translate to "not enough research has been done on this to date"...

...And if so, who is at fault? The CAA, The Airlines or the engine manufacturers?

I'd suggest it wasn't the CAA... it is up to the engine manufacturers to provide safety limits for airlines to adhere to (and for the CAA to then grant exemptions)- they do in all other aspects of operations, why is volcanic ash any different? The fact that (jet engine) manufacturers have not been willing to do so means that everyone else has their hands tied.

To go back to your original question. The CAA will give dispensation for regular flights in High Density areas as and when the aircraft manufacturers and operators provide a safety case. That safety case cannot happen if the engine manufacturers are unwilling to sign off. For the CAA to do otherwise, apart from 'sampling' fights, would be iresponsible and would mean they were actually operating outside the framework of UK Law.

Now if could be argued that the met office is getting it wrong and that the BA flight did not actually encroach any High densty areas... it would not be the first tme that the met office got a forecast wrong... have you ever done a forecasting course? It's not an exact science.

The forceasts are made even less precise by the fact that they are published in 6 hour blocks. I'd suggest that the reason they do this is to allow airlines some degree of flexibility (although it seems exactly the opposite) as it gives them 6 hour windows of where the alleged high, medium and low concentrations are.

You could get more accurate forecasts if they were done more frequently, but that would reduce flexibility for airlines that need a certain amount of notice, never mind the fact that flight times often mean they need these wide windows in order to flight plan a route.

So what you get from the Met Office is a forecast that decreases in accuracy the longer range it is. I can guarantee the the airlines would be whingeing if the met office only forceast the areas of ash for periods of one hour in advance. It would be more accurate, but would remove flexibility!

[cldrvr]

I guess, I am more of a chicken then most here. A few days of not flying is not going to make a difference in my life, becoming a statistic does. Flying is about risk management and as long as the risk is as unknown as it is here, I will happily stay away.

[cldrvr]

Do you get paid for sitting on the ground? Getting paid or not is not part of my decision making process. For the avoidance of doubt, I am losing out financially, but at least I get to live another day to do it again.

[ayroplain]

Millions of people worldwide believe there is an afterlife despite there being not one shred of evidence. You could call it speculation. The rest of us steadfastly refuse to believe so until we see some actual evidence.

So, here we have people sitting at desks looking into screens at images produced by a computer program which purports to claim that there is ash of varying densities floating all over Scotland. It provides no actual evidence of such. You could call it speculation. On the other hand we have an aircraft (two in fact, that we know of) that flew around the area for some time and no ash of any kind was encountered on the way up, whilst up and on the way down again and an inspection revealed that no evidence was found on the airframe or engines.

It strikes me as extraordinary that people here, probably the majority, prefer to rely on the speculation rather than the evidence. I have little doubt that the real reason for this is that it was Ryanair who set out to prove the "experts" wrong. I seem to recall that last year BA sent up a 747 with WW on board to carry out a similar exercise and got no flak when they came to similar conclusions as Ryanair has now. In the end it was BA who were the heroes and brought their long haul fleet back to the perimeters of the UK Exclusion Zone and embarrassed the authorities into reopening the airports. All that waste of money and inconvenience to millions caused by nothing more than speculation.

The other extraordinary aspect of all this is that, despite last year's events, there is no attempt by the authorities to have a suitable flying program in waiting and ready to run with aircraft fitted with suitable equipment when a volcano erupts and produce real evidence (as distinct from speculation).

[Pace]

Maybe some of us are arguing the case the other way to bring some balance into the panic stricken liability driven society we have.
We should not be looking at Longterm damage as that is an economic judgement.
Any long term pollution will shorten engine life!
As a pilot I am interested in what density of ash can bring my aircraft down.
I am sorry but a few thimblefuls in an area the size of a four bedroom house won't do it.
What happened in the 60s and 70s when there was no sophisticated equipment to determine all this ?
No one killed in over 50 years is a pretty good record.

Pace

[WetFeet]

1 Whilst Ryanair claim to have found no ash on their test aircraft, are we forgetting the helicopter and the Loganair aircraft that apparently did find ash?

2 O'Leary's mistake was claiming to have flown through the red zone when it appears he didn't. Hopefully not a "Ratner" moment for him.

He would have been much better explaining how he got to 41,000ft without entering the red zone. Unfortunately he didn't, so his arguments have lost a lot of credibility in many peoples eyes including, I would suggest, the regulators.

[cldrvr]

I am more of a "when there is smoke, there is fire" kind a guy. I'd rather sit in the pub wishing I was at FL410, then being at FL410 wishing I was in the pub.

Until the boffins come up with a reasoned, well-researched and peer reviewed safe way of navigating through ash, I will just pass. I am a driver, not a test pilot.

Ah well, time to find a pub for some lunch.

[sabenaboy]

Flying is about risk management and as long as the risk is as unknown as it is here, I will happily stay away.

Well, you'd better stop flying altogether then. e.g. Can you be SURE Fukushima's radiation poses no threat to aviation safety?

About risk management. Last year, after pushback in Marrakech, I saw 4 storks sitting in the grass about 10 meters away from the rwy edge, about 600 m from the beginning of the rwy. I informed twr about this. Two airliners took off ahead of me, well aware of the storks' presence after being informed by ATC, disregarding the fact that getting a stork in the engines will have a catastrophic effect. I elected to have the birds chased away before taking off.

Last spring, there was a CB with frequent lightning strikes along the final app path. I elected to hold (about 20 mins) to have a clear path to the rwy. Others elected to press on through the CB and lightning to land.
I suppose that's why some average 4 lightning strikes/year (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/452263-new-eruption-starting-iceland-merged-11.html#post6471705) and someone like myself averages 0,25 strikes/year.

Where has common sense gone to?

[anotherthing]

ayroplain

Ryanair did not fly through any promulgated high density areas - fact. The flight was observed on radar throughout...

[ANOpax]

Pace said;

Maybe some of us are arguing the case the other way to bring some balance into the panic stricken liability driven society we have.


:D

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I am sorry but a few thimblefuls in an area the size of a four bedroom house won't do it.

Pace, that's rather a bold, but unqualified, statement. Prove it. Please.

As a pilot I am interested in what density of ash can bring my aircraft down.

Yet, so far, nobody knows. What are you going to do? Keep flying until you do have an IFSD due to ash then report back to us? How many passengers lives are you going to risk while you do this?

[Pace]

But neither have the so called qualified hence the anger from the airlines who are also not qualified to make their angry statements.
Personally I would worry more about bird strikes and CBS than and I stress INVISABLE ash.

Pace

[anotherthing]

As a pilot I am interested in what density of ash can bring my aircraft down.

So why don't you ask your employer to speak to the engine manufacturer?

Until they make a decision, then you will not be flying in High density areas. They have stated that the promulgated medium and low density areas are fine for aircraft operation. Air Worthiness had nothing to do with the Met Office. Air Worthiness certification from CAA needs assurances from engine and airframe manufacturers (as it does in any ther aspect) - something that is sadly lacking for High density operations.

As a pilot, you may be willing to fly in the promulgated high density areas, but tellingly, your airline and your manufacturer are not...

The CAA will allow you to do so as and when the correct paperwork hits their desk. Until then, their hands are tied.

Irrespective of anyones viewpoint on whether or not they shold be allowed to fly, they should get that facts right about how they could do so.

1. Safety case from airframe and engine manufacturers saying it is OK
2. Airlines submit said safety case
3. CAA grants permission

at the moment, no one has got past stage one for jets...

A certain Irish airline bypassed stage 1 in the above process, hence the lack of permission. Still, it's all free advertisement for them,despite the fact he talks complete rubbish.

[Heathrow Harry]

there are two choices - you fly until it affects your plane (think BA south of Java here) or you try and use models to predict and act on that

Modelling the atmosphere in real time is just about the hardest computing task there is so its unlikely to ever be perfect

Neither is wonderful but risking damaging a $30 mm -$ 300mm aircraft doesn't seem very wise to me

[Hamrah]

Gentlemen,

I am involved with an airline that has extensive operations in and around Iceland.

For all the experts on here who complain about government departments producing "no-fly " areas, here is the bottom line.

You or your airline are allowed to fly into any level of Ash you want, PROVIDED, you have submitted to them, a SAFETY case for doing so. In other words, if you are so confident that you will not be endangering your self, your aircraft and your passengers, put your money where your mouth is and make the submission.

I am prepared to bet that your Accountable manager will no be as " gung ho" as some of you appear with regard to the risks involved.

The UK CAA have publicly stated that NO airline has submitted a safety case to fly in Red Zone Ash. We, along with many other airlines have submitted a safety case to fly in low and medium level Ash areas and had them approved with an increase inspection requirement 9namely after every flight)

The reason why RYR were not allowed to fly yesterday, ultimately came down to the IAA saying " You havn't presented us a Safety case for flying in the red Zone"

And this lovely notion of " no-one has died from flying in Volcanic Ash" is typical Dead Body Economics. have you an acceptable number in your head ...would 200 be a good number or bad number?

[sabenaboy]

Pace, that's rather a bold, but unqualified, statement. Prove it. Please.

No, Lord Spandex, you PROVE that a few thimblefuls in an area the size of a four bedroom might bring an aircraft own.

Bottom line is you can't do that either! Then why are we now so worried all of a sudden when such a thing never happened before?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Sabenaboy, correct. Which is the situation that Europe now finds itself in.

So which is the more prudent and safer option?

[JohnMcGhie]

The Dhahran airbridge was operated by 1 F27 from PLAD based in BAH ..... It was maximum punishment flying, very short flights at low altitude in humid air laden with dust. I've seen Dart compressor blades reduced to 25% when removed on scheduled overhaul.


When I trained on them, back in 1966 or so, the Dart had NO "compressor" blades. Did something change? Why wasn't I told ;)

[Postman Plod]

The problem isn't the forecasts, which are accurate enough to be backed up by the observations.

Densities across all levels and across the entire red area may be at question, but nobody is saying that everywhere from 0-FL200 across the entire red zone has a fixed ash density, and nobody could ever say that. Some places will have, some places won't. Its in the same way that fronts don't have solid bands of identically intense rain, or showery airmasses aren't solid CB. So lets strike that one off now. The aviation industry has decades of experience of the products provided to know how they work, so pleading ignorance because they're volcanic ash products rather than sig wx, cat / turb, etc is odd given they've never complained about those.

I'd also imagine the VAAC are providing charts and information based on guidelines or regulations from ICAO. I'd imagine that the local regulators are also working on the basis of ICAO guidance, as well as information from the engine and airframe manufacturers. I'd imagine that the airlines are taking information from across the board! So perhaps more questions need to be aimed in that direction? The answers might be readily available, but everyone appears to be looking in the wrong place.

The biggest pressures here are commercial pressures. Therefore the issues are between the airlines and the regulators / manufacturers.

And saying all of this is based on speculation? No - its based on OBSERVED EVIDENCE. Its based on real ash falling from the sky, its based on satellite measurements, LIDAR, etc etc. Now whether that observed ash is safe to fly in is not for the VAAC to say.

[spinnaker]

sabenaboy said:


Last spring, there was a CB with frequent lightning strikes along the final app path. I elected to hold (about 20 mins) to have a clear path to the rwy. Others elected to press on through the CB and lightning to land.
I suppose that's why some average 4 lightning strikes/year and someone like myself averages 0,25 strikes/year.

Where has common sense gone to?

Dont twist the story. No I never pressed home approaches with cb etc. Remember, we have weather radar, not lightning detectors. Weather radar only show conditions that are likely to have conditions conducive to lightning. You can still get strikes from innocuous looking weather. I totally endorse your actions re Marekesh, and delaying departure due Wx. But because I did have strikes, please don't assume I was reckless or ignorant of the conditions that I flew in. I would run like a scared cat from anything I saw, on radar or visually, or reported by radio, that would endanger or frighten my pax and crew. Also take my comment that you link and quote in context.

[stev]

it is a complete and utter load of B*lls**t from start to finish of this whole farce, and you can argue all you want about the should fly shouldn't fly crap from behind a desk, but until the CAA put a plane up and give proof of ash concentration then all the rest is hypothetical horse manure.
And for those of you interested in when it will be over, if the cloud even looks like it's approaching Heathrow or the CAA think about shutting UK airspace, then WW and a few others will see to it that it is over.

[sabenaboy]

So which is the more prudent and safer option?

The safest option is never to fly, which is also the stupidest option! :E

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Yes that's the safest option, but the safer option would be to conduct a proper risk assesment.

Then go flying.

[ayroplain]

Ryanair did not fly through any promulgated high density areas - fact.

I think you didn't really read my second paragraph.

[Postman Plod]

It possibly IS over if the volcano has stopped erupting, and Heathrow hadn't been threatened by any of the forecasts so far, even extrapolating out based on weather charts rather than ash.

You're right though - we need to make sure we have an aircraft available at no-notice to provide the research and evidence needed. Its a shame the airframe that was provided for this task wasn't provided in time and isn't ready yet. Perhaps if airlines, manufacturers and to an extent regulators had spent a bit more of their profits on the required research after the last eruption, rather than apparently forgetting it ever happened, we might have been a bit further forwards.

[Calendar]

I've resisted, and resisted, but can't do it any more....so here's my first ever post!

It is quite astonishing to read such emotive & ill-informed nonsense from supposedly well-qualified professionals on here.

There IS evidence of ash (Met Office News Blog (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/)).

And even if there wasn't, the Met Office (as stated in their blog above) have absolutely nothing to do with allowing or preventing anyone from going flying. The Met Office provide the data and forecasts, and it's up to the aviation authorities to interpret that data and draw conclusions.
No airspace has been closed. By anyone.:=

ICAO have been asking the airlines / airframers / engine manufacturers for years to provide them with data to enable guidelines for volcanic ash flying to be formed. For years no data or research has been forthcoming (sorry Sir, the dog ate my homework). It is not the job of the Met Office to fill the gaps that the airlines etc were too lazy / complacent to complete themselves.

And as for having a fully-tooled up research aircraft that should be available 24/7, 365 at no notice.....presumably someone can recommend the aircraft model that never has, and never will, go tech?:rolleyes:

(might as well start with a bang, eh?!)

[ayroplain]

WW has just been interviewed on RTE and has stated that he doesn't disagree with what MOL has done and that they both have the same focus.

"Michael's message was very clear and very effective" being one of his quotes.

RT.ie Extra Video: BA chief executive Willie Walsh responds to the volcanic ash cloud - Video - RT News Player (http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0525/media-2965039.html#)

[Postman Plod]

Yes, they want to make money, and any publicity is good publicity. I did hear WW on Radio4 this morning, and wondered if it was MOL I was listening to.... However at least it appears from reports that his aircraft flew through the ash areas.

But thats fine - their only job is to maximise profits and profile of their respective companies. As long as they are held to the rules and regulations by the regulators and manufacturers, and called on their BS in the case of MOL, then there won't be a problem!

[scotbill]

To imply that managers of the status of Willie Walsh would cavalierly put passengers at risk in the pursuit of profit seems quite a desperate attempt to boost the case for the prophets of doom. As someone once said, "If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident."
All flying involves a balance of risk but the accumulated wisdom and experience of many thousands of aviation professionals has made commercial aviation the incredibly safe experience it is today.
Geese can bring an aircraft down - as was demonstrated all too dramatically in New York. The Western Isles of Scotland have thousands of them. By the logic of some of the contributors to this thread, there is a much stronger case for banning all flights in such areas.

[Herman the Navigator]

But thats fine - their only job is to maximise profits and profile of their respective companies. As long as they are held to the rules and regulations by the regulators and manufacturers, and called on their BS in the case of MOL, then there won't be a problem!

Er, only part right... Ensuring that their respective airlines don't have a high profile safety incident/accident, which sends passengers scurrying to another airline is also a very big part of their jobs.

Never thought I'd write in defence of MOL but he is quite right (no matter what I or anyone else think of his personal style). And WW is a qualified pilot who is trying very hard to apply aircrew common sense, in the face of outrageous bureaucracy. :ugh:

I've followed this whole farce quite closely and yet yesterday was the first I'd heard of airlines not submitting safety cases for high/red areas. Given that "high" is anything over 4 mg per m3, are they supposed to have made a safety case for anything from 4mg per m3 up to 4 tonnes per m3 (exaggeration for effect BTW)??? The "high" area was dreamt up by the regulators to get people flying again last year. That they have sat on their hands, and not made efforts to raise this threshold since, is causing further problems and making some people cry "unsafe" without any justification. The lack of safety cases is a red herring to deflect attention from the regulators IMO.

Now, instead of a very coarse contour plot, labelled with emotive terms like "low", "medium" and "high", why not produce a fine grained plot with many different numerical values and then allow airlines to generate a safety case relating to the level that they are prepared to accept (if any of this is really necessary vice "see/sense and avoid", in any case)?

Incidentally, the direct route from Kuala Lumpur to Perth is 130 nm from the volcano that caused Eric Moody his problems, at the closest point. I don't have figures for the other couple of known incidents but seriously doubt that they are much different. Hardly damning evidence for closing airspace 650 nm (and in some cases far further) from Iceland... If that sort of range really was in a dangerous zone (regardless of "exceptional weather conditions") we'd have seen far more incidents over the years (as all the sensible correspondents have already pointed out).

As for pilots who aren't worried about losing a bit of money by staying on the ground for a while - perhaps they think more about what will happen to us all when the whole economy collapses as a result of this nonsense.

[UN614]

Has anyone considered what will happen when the 'high concentraion' of ash is overhead at high altitude?

The 5 day projection has the entire country covered in high density ash between FL350 and FL550 on Friday. Now we know we can fly over it, but can we fly under it?

[Jig Peter]

The Dart didn't have compressor blades, because it wasn't an axial flow engine, but it did have two centrifugal compressor stages - and to think that it would operate at all with 25% (presumably, of the area) of their vanes (as RR called them) eroded away is either a tribute to the engine's robustness or a "misunderstanding" ...

[Sober Lark]

Risk is based on frequency and severity. There is on average more than one volcanic eruption worldwide every week. In the period 1980 to 2005 there were only 100 incidents of volcanic ash damage to aircraft. There were only three aircraft that suffered temporary engine power failure. Two of these flew overhead plume and the other was some 600nm downstream. In the 25 years no aircraft have been lost as a result of volcanic ash.

With 50-60 volcanic eruptions each year over a 25 year period one would have expected a few large losses but would have also expected there to have been many more small to medium sized events.

Those measuring risk seem to be concentrating far too much on the theoretical probability. Fine by me if Ryanair and BA cry the emperor has no cloths.

[Postman Plod]

To imply that managers of the status of Willie Walsh would cavalierly put passengers at risk in the pursuit of profit seems quite a desperate attempt to boost the case for the prophets of doom. As someone once said, "If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident."
All flying involves a balance of risk but the accumulated wisdom and experience of many thousands of aviation professionals has made commercial aviation the incredibly safe experience it is today.


and Er, only part right... Ensuring that their respective airlines don't have a high profile safety incident/accident, which sends passengers scurrying to another airline is also a very big part of their jobs.


I didn't say otherwise - maximising profits and publicity doesn't mean or imply running an unsafe airline - however they have people in their organisation who look after safety, so they can concentrate on commercial. MOL can say one thing (charge to use the toilet, moan about flying in ash), but historically does another (doesn't charge, doesn't fly in ash) However their priority is to make money, get publicity and increase passenger numbers and awareness. They're not going to do that by having a crash once a week and their safety teams and regulators will hold them in check, but equally they're not going to do that by just rolling over and ignoring business and customer pressures at times where risk increases!

I'm not criticising, however that is the nature of the beast!

Which I guess puts the focus onto the regulators, ICAO and manufacturers, with pressure and funding from the airlines, whos best interests would be served by more research!

[FattyBarr]

As predicted on the Met office web site for Friday 27th.

Do you think flights will operate with a cealing of FL350?

Below 350 its predicted to be fine.

Got a flight to Belfasst booked early friday morning on a visa mission at the US Consulate Office, really hoping the flights will be ok, dont fancy a 1500 mile reound trip on my motorbike!!

Thanks

[timpara]

Pace wrote:
As a pilot I am interested in what density of ash can bring my aircraft down. I am sorry but a few thimblefuls in an area the size of a four bedroom house won't do it.Well I make each thimblefull equal to of the order of 10Kg per hour through each typical engine. But it's interesting to know, that you, as a pilot, are comfortable with that.

[lomapaseo]

The other extraordinary aspect of all this is that, despite last year's events, there is no attempt by the authorities to have a suitable flying program in waiting and ready to run with aircraft fitted with suitable equipment when a volcano erupts and produce real evidence (as distinct from speculation).

You all need to face the facts that neither the CAAs, nor the manufacturers are going to come up with a standard of acceptance when everybody is flying different products under different operating conditions, in different routes.

Futhermore no manufacturer is going to risk carrying increased liability for any operation outside his certificate.

The current way forward in this is for the operators to review their own operations versus available info regarding plotting ash densities and to offer their own risk assessments that demonstrate that they can operate safely under known conditions.

Every flight that operates safely in known concentrations of ash is real evidence. Just as we consider that incidents are evidence according to their level of severity.

If you hide your head in the sand you can not see the evidence even though it is there.

[cuthere]

Now, instead of a very coarse contour plot, labelled with emotive terms like "low", "medium" and "high", why not produce a fine grained plot with many different numerical values and then allow airlines to generate a safety case relating to the level that they are prepared to accept (if any of this is really necessary vice "see/sense and avoid", in any case)?

Why hasn't this been done? Could it be because the computational power required to generate such a detailed model is not available to the Met Office, or likely anyone else in the meteorological community?

Also, who fancies having a quick sniff of an erupting volcano to have a look at what it's spewing out? Any model is only be as good as the initial conditions, which in this case would require detailed information of what's actually coming out of the volcano (fall rate, particle type/size etc).

Now, is MO'L (or indeed WW in his time at BA) going to cough up the cash to do this? If not, then for now, and no doubt some time to come, we're stuck with the low, medium and high coarse plot, from the existing NAME model the Met Office uses.

[PhilW1981]

http://http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/files/website_scenarioA_auto-BGR-FL350-550-201105251200-201105271200.gifGiven it's fair to say the high concentrations are moving in a South Easterly direction, a few hours earlier and it could prove difficult to get above FL200.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/files/website_scenarioA_auto-BGR-FL200-350-201105251200-201105271200.gif


http://http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/volcano/public/files/website_scenarioA_auto-BGR-FL350-550-201105251200-201105271200.gif

[Lemain]

Why hasn't this been done? Could it be because the computational power required to generate such a detailed model is not available to the Met Office, or likely anyone else in the meteorological community?AFAIK the most sophisticated met model is the Global Forecast System (GFS) and it is known to be very inaccurate. Which is why serious airmen and seamen never rely on GFS alone -- it's hugely useful as one of many inputs but not the whole story. Resolution is reduced for longer-range forecasts however you find that some met portals supply GFS data in Gridded Binary format (GRIB) to a resolution many times finer than the model can possibly predict to. A bit like taking an original recipe for salad dressing of 1/3 vinegar 2/3 oil to find that some bright spark has converted to five places of decimals! The accuracy of the model can never be better than the accuracy of the raw data input.

What puzzles me (though there might be a perfectly good reason) is why they are not using weather balloons for monitoring ash. They are cheap, cheerful, reliable and with modern transponders, easily recoverable if they land on land (or even at sea, come to that).

All the talk in this thread and on the news about sending aircraft into ash clouds seems very odd. There is no control. The aircraft might, by happenstance, to fly through a high concentration or a low concentration -- nobody, seemingly, knows how homogeneous the ash is. Surely it would be better to use balloons to check concentrations and to take samples then test vital components (e.g. engines, critical airframe components) on the bench/windtunnel? That way you can get repeatable and accurate engineering data rather than rely on guesswork.