Is this a ridiculous over-reaction?

[HIALS]

Surely the density of the volcanic pumice matter is the key to the safety of flight. The doctrinal application of flight cancellations is stupid. I have yet to see any evidence of high-concentration airborne pumice clouds.

I think the en-masse cancellation of flights is a monstrous over-reaction.

Why are International airlines of global experience and significant reputation continuing to fly? Why is Virgin exercising discretion when the QANTAS group have applied a 'chicken licken' approach?

In the aftermath of this crisis of silliness - there had better be some good answers.

[1me]

Have you ever had the pleasure of having to inspect an aircraft subject to volcanic ash exposure?

[gobbledock]

QANTAS group have applied a 'chicken licken' approach?
Idiot.....Different airlines apply differing risk managment techniques, hence there are often different outcomes or decisions made. Plus QF can't afford to lose any more Rollers at the moment !!

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

[HIALS]

Don't patronise me.

I have worked for airlines on 4 continents. I have 35 years of global experience. I understand the effects of volcanic ash on aircraft.

My point is - this seems like a monstrous over-reaction.

Avoidance of volcanic plume is normally associated a cloud of sufficient pumice density to actually do some abrasive damage to the aircraft.

I see no evidence of such a thing.

[Mr. Hat]

I guess any level of exposure will cause significant engineering costs. I think this could be a factor amongst many.

[gobbledock]

Don't patronise me.
I have worked for airlines on 4 continents. I have 35 years of global experience.
Yeah, experience at what ? Emptying the ****ters each flight or removing chunder off seat belts ? Nufty.

[HIALS]

...any level....

Perhaps no aircraft should ever fly?

I remember about 10 years ago, when the dust storms in Beijing reduced visibility to less than 500m. Airbus was asked whether it was safe to continue. They said there was no limit. And, in my experience, there was no problem.

I hasten to add that sand and volcanic are quite different. So, I am not suggesting that flights into volcanic dust should be equated.

However - the density of volcanic plume is currently what? It seems to me that it is immeasurable. The sky is clear.

Where is common sense?

[Mr. Hat]

Jesus guys..

My last comment is I suspect both companies are working extremely hard behind the scenes to create the best outcome.

[gobbledock]

However - the density of volcanic plume is currently what? It seems to me that it is immeasurable. The sky is clear.
Maybe you should contact the Bureau Of Met, visit Youtube, pester some meteorology guru near your cave and disapear now......

[CaptCloudbuster]

I remember about 6 years ago flying over PNG hearing a mayday from a biz jet doing survey work suffering a double engine failure. The subsequent report included the fact that the volcanic ash was invisible to the pilot but sufficient to cause the flame out. The volcano responsible was Manam.

[HIALS]

Can you answer my question? What is the density of the volcanic plume currently suffocating Tasmania & Victoria?

[gobbledock]

Can you answer my question? What is the density of the volcanic plume currently suffocating Tasmania & Victoria?
Maybe we should take a tissue sample from your brain as it appears to be filled with the stuff.

[The The]

Can you answer my question? What is the density of volcanic ash that has the potential to effect the safety of flight? And secondly, how can such a measurement be unquestionably made?

In aviation, the safest option is to be risk averse!

[catseye]

HIALS,
if you had ever been near the Boeing training package and video you would never be asking these questions. Which international carrier did you work for????:=

[HIALS]

Thanks for your sensible response.

What is the acceptable amount of volcanic particulate matter that an aircraft can fly through?

I accept that there is a difference between day-flight and night-flight on this subject. We all know that radar isn't relevant.

My point is that it seems like the air is very clear. I appreciate that I can't see further than my window, but I can honestly see 50km, without any apparent airborne particulate matter. The sunset tonight was very normal (I remember when Mount Pinatubo exploded - the sunset was extraordinary). The moon is clear. The stars are twinkling. There is no visible obstruction.

I am genuinely mystified about how there can be such a degree of disturbance when there is no visible airborne particulate cloud. Abrasion damage is a result of time, speed and density of pumice. In the absence of a measurable density of particulate volcanic ash/dust - what is the problem?

[gobbledock]

And 'air' is invisible also, yet it has killed a lot of people through turbulence, wake turbulence, microburst and wind shear. Just becasue you cannot see it that does not mean it doesn't exist.
The ash particles cause damage even when they are microscopic and invisble to the naked eye. Volcanic dirt/dust also varies in its density and even texture depending on what part of the Earth the volcano is located. In other words, the same shoe doesn't fit all.
As The The said
In aviation, the safest option is to be risk averse!

[HIALS]

Catseye - I have seen the volcanic encounter videos produced by both Boeing and Airbus. I have worked (as a Captain & TIRE) for airlines in Australia, Europe, the Middle East and Hong Kong. So, I don't want to seem ignorant.

However - the key point of those presentations was that the aircraft inadvertently encountered a volcanic plume of sufficient density to cause problems.

I am not advocating a cavalier or careless attitude to volcanic plumes, per se.

I am mystified about how the current reaction can be reconciled with a simple visual observation. There is no ash cloud to speak of. At least that I can see.

If someone can see it - then I would accept that I am wrong. The point of my post is to ask - has anyone seen it? Has any one of the pilots flying around seen any evidence?

[PPRuNeUser0161]

HIALS
Yep, I agree.

[Dehavillanddriver]

I think it is fair to say that the airlines dont just decide to throw millions of dollars of revenue away because they have nothing better to do.

The VAAC has a number of ways of determining the location and density of the ash cloud - there are sufficient reports from aircraft stating that the ash cloud is there to suggest that the ash cloud is there.

[Xcel]

Better cancel every flight to PNG then. The only thing we used to cancel up there were night flights into Tokua if there was anything forecast (everyday just about)

Perhaps some insight from the boys doing rabual everyday on the 100??

The fact that AirNZ is still operating (i would see them as experienced in this matter) gives me plenty of questions of Qantas. Also the fact that their current motto is F*&$K the punters and pilots. It is the only reason it begs the question.

On another note - flight from Adelaide tomorrow morning on international - whats the bet it goes ahead (just because im wishing it wont).

[HIALS]

Dear De Havilland Driver - thank you so much.

Your reply is the first time a pilot, on this supposed pilots network, has mentioned that something is actually out there.

The events that have spectacularly disrupted aircaft in flight (BA in Indonesia, KLM in Alaska, etc) have encountered the full force of the volcanic eruption.

Given that this 'cloud' has travelled two thirds of the way around the world, have the pireps been able to calculate or estimate the density of the volcanic pumice particulate matter?

Given that abrasion damage is based on density of pumice, speed and time of exposure - I wonder how serious the cloud is?

As I said previously (may have been on a separate post) - I just can't see any visible evidence of the 'cloud' everyone is talking about...

[Nulli Secundus]

Actually, well done HIALS for bringing some level of enquiry to the issue. My first reaction was Chile is a very long way away and also given the initial altitude of the ash cloud was 8000m (now revised up to 10 000m) surely climb and descent into & out of ML could be considered safe. Isn't the danger in fact 32 000 feet above ML?

[Sunfish]

Hials, if you do a search on Pprune, you will find some Sixty odd pages of thread regarding the recent Icelandic volcano event. Somewhere in there are the permissible maximum concentrations in micrograms per cubic metre, as well as numerous bleatings from uninformed idiots whose holiday trip to Benidorm was disturbed.

Suffice to say that levels of ash that are invisible from the ground and may be invisible in CAVOK conditions can seriously shorten the life of first stage turbine blades and nozzle guide vanes.

You should also be aware that it may be lessors and insurance companies that are calling the shots.

[Kangaroo Court]

I predict lots of babies named after aeronautical references nine months from now..:O

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I find your questions interesting HIALS and am looking at it from a different angle. Could it be that Qantas know it is absolutely safe to fly but are looking for another "natural" excuse for poor performance to take the heat off the board?

[c100driver]

Could if be that QF has backed itself into a corner that it cannot get out of without loss of face?

[Yousef Breckenheimer]

Commercial decision by the airlines. QF/J* can't afford anymore bad press. Nuf said. Next.

[amc890]

So this volcano is still ejecting ash, how many weeks will the QANTAS group remain on the ground?

[mohikan]

Just saw Ms Worth on Ch9. Credit where credit is due, she was well presented and came across well.

Having said that, I tend to agree with the ALAEA Fed Sec - this is just another effort by QF management to run down the business even further.

Note that Air NZ and V Aust are still flying.......

[teresa green]

Are you a pilot or engineer HIALS? Because if you are either you have forgotten the first creed. When in doubt don't. I have seen aircraft in PNG that have flown thru this crap, the donks are stuffed to put it in technical terms. It is simply not worth the risk. End of story.

[denabol]

Geez what if the pollies flight from Tasmania had gone down?

Qantas on the spot over 'unsafe' RAAF flight for politicians | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/14/did-the-raaf-imperil-politicians-lives-by-flying-them-where-qantas-dared-not-go/)

Local radio station is reporting lots of piston charters in Victoria to fly to Tasmania. Now that scares me more than flying with the Kiwis or Virgins in a jet.

[waren9]

QF and JQ decision to not fly is purely political. Absolutely nothing to do with safety. Uneducated, inexeperienced clowns taking the opportunity to push another "safety" headline.

If safety was their first priority there would never have been a senate inquiry. They look bad and they know it.

Agree with HIALS, Virgin and ANZ. Lets just get on with it.

[The Bunglerat]

Earlier today Captain Richard Woodward, a Qantas A380 pilot and vice president of the Qantas pilot union, AIPA, told Jason Morrison on 2UE that he would have no issues being required by the airline to fly under or around a volcanic ash concentration. Woodward explained the dangers of volcanic ash, and endorsed the caution and safety first culture at Qantas, but was adamant that it was completely safe to fly under or around the ash concentrations provided they are known with accuracy.

And there you have it. Whilst Woodward's comments are the opinion of only one pilot in the QF group, surely he's not the only one who shares the same view on this matter. If so, the answer is clear: professional pilots (which I understand the QF ones are), & who should be able to assess all available information in order to make an informed COMMAND decision regarding "go" or no-go," are being chopped off at the knee caps by incompetent, inexperienced & ultra-conservative decision makers further up the chain. For whatever reason is simply beyond me, proving once again that common sense is not very common. :ugh:

[KABOY]

Very fine volcanic ash particles (particularly glass-rich if from an eruption under ice) sucked into a jet engine melt at about 1,100 °C, fusing onto the blades and other parts of the turbine (which operates at about 1,400 °C).

One of the reasons for grounding, ash would not be thick enough for sandblasting.

Clogging of sensors possibly another and electromagnetic wave insulation would be unlikely.

These are the 4 considerations in aviation with a volcanic ash encounter. The ash exists within the troposphere so I don't know how you can fly underneath it.

Decisions would me made on economic as well as safety grounds.

[Keg]

The crux of the matter. Are the concentrations known 'with accuracy'?

[Flt.Lt Zed]

Perhaps the no go decision is entirely economic. QF and J* not prepared to operate below and clear of so called ash clouds because of fuel burn and possible engineering costs. The proof of the pudding will come in the near future when Air NZ inspects their exposed aircraft.
Remember BA 09 was flying within 200km of the source volcano.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Very fine volcanic ash particles (particularly glass-rich if from an eruption under ice) sucked into a jet engine melt at about 1,100 °C, fusing onto the blades and other parts of the turbine (which operates at about 1,400 °C).
One of the reasons for grounding, ash would not be thick enough for sandblasting.

Clogging of sensors possibly another and electromagnetic wave insulation would be unlikely.

These are the 4 considerations in aviation with a volcanic ash encounter. The ash exists within the troposphere so I don't know how you can fly underneath it.

Decisions would me made on economic as well as safety grounds.

I'd say economic posing as safety.

Most of these pax will still have to fly, so QF will still get the business.

Turbofans burn a lot of fuel dashing around in the low 20s :D

They'll be operating off design RPM and burning through that expensive black stuff. I somehow dont think selling a few muffins will cover it :)

[The Bunglerat]

Spot on, Keg, that is the crux of the matter. And whilst subsequent aircraft inspections may reveal a different story, nevertheless with every passing day, the decision by QF to suspend ALL operations is being seen as a gross over-reaction.

[c100driver]

Back to my point

Could it be that QF management has backed itself into a corner that it cannot get out of without loss of face?

[Balthazar_777]

I think HIALS questions are valid, and really think the personal "piss taking" by goobledick on the previous page is ridiculous.

Are Qantas and Virgin the safest airlines in the world? Are they the only ones who operate near volcanic ash? Do they know something i dont?

These questions are valid, because not all airlines are reacting the same way.

I believe that some of the international airlines are carrying extra fuel and descending early to avoid the ash. The density of the cloud is then irrelevant, as you are not in it.

Why doesn't Qantas do that. Can they not afford the fuel??? Do they think the Cloud height information is inaccurate?

I would like to know so that I can learn. Maybe my company and myself are missing something. I flew over an ash cloud in Indonesia a couple of days ago. 10 minutes behind a Qantas 747.

All valid questions and I think HIALS must be a pilot of international experience, because I am, and I was asking EXACTLY the same questions.

:ok: Balthazar_777

[airtags]

Woodward's quote on UE was a little disturbing (in respect of command decisions) especially as the fact remains that the real issue is the unkown variable. [Sorry Captain - not your call - Olivia said its OK to fly!!!!]

As acknowledged by BoM and VAC, this unkown largely stems from the different monitoring methodologies/systems used in AUS as opposed to the northern hemisphere.

Before we start the overkill chant here, we need to remember that under Dixon and Joyce, we have a business that has systematically and overtly raped the SMS and compromised what have been long standing, sensible safety procedures with commercially driven ammendments.

Given this, think I'd prefer to drop a few hours and let these decisions further predicate the "safety before schedule" cliche that has been so lovingly embraced by management. - we may need to quote it back to them in the not too distant future!

Interesting though that Joyce has been laying low since his foot in mouth exploit on the IATA stage in Singas. Guess he might have to say say something positive about Pilots otherwise - Nothing like the presence of inspiring leadership.

AT

A 'real' CEO would have at least done a few walk throughs checking on coal face staff and maybe even helping out talking to passengers for an hour or two. (Note Olivia: poss photo op ahead of the 30 June kicking)

[The Bunglerat]

Woodward's quote on UE was a little disturbing (in respect of command decisions)

Why?

I don't profess to have bucket-loads of "international" experience as far as trotting to every corner of the globe, but I spend a lot of time operating between Oz & S/E Asia (DPS & HKT to be specific). Indonesia is one of the most volcanically active regions on Earth, & every second week there's a NOTAM concerning an ash cloud eruption somewhere in the region. If we were going to down tools every time one of those mountains started smoking, we'd simply never go.

At the end of the day, we have policies & procedures in place to mitigate the risk, we observe them, & unless it is an extreme case (& I don't think this is - unless we were operating in Chile & within a bee's dick of the volcano itself), we go. And when it's not safe to do so, we don't. However, we don't just apply a blanket suspension to ALL operations in the region, when there are still other options available. There is nothing disturbing about that; it's called RISK MANAGEMENT & COMMAND DECISION MAKING.

[Ken Borough]

At the risk of being slaughtered, I have to ask what special training makes a pilot qualified to judge if the skies are free from volcanic ash and therefore that it's safe to fly? Is there no limit to their expertise?

That said, it’s about time the keyboard experts either shut up or put up. Qantas has developed a sophisticated system for the monitoring of volcanic eruptions and their impact on aviation. This goes back to the early 1980s when BA took a hammering over Indonesia. Everyone remembers that near catastrophe but how many recall that a Singapore Airlimes B747 (SQ222) flying from Singapore to Sydney unwittingly flew through volcanic ash shortly after the BA incident when everyone thought the skies were free from it? The SQ incident, while not as dramatic as BA’s, is largely forgotten but it did cause a lot of grief at the time. Perhaps the very wise decision-makers at Qantas do have some corporate memory after all! Also, if you think about it, why would any carrier want major disruption on a long week-end when loads are heavy?

[The Bunglerat]

Why would a major carrier want to cause major disruptions by alienating their workforce & forcing them to contemplate industrial action as well, Ken?

...But then what would I know. I'm just a dumb-ass aeroplane driver.

(Sorry for thread drift).

[Ken Borough]

(Sorry for thread drift).

....just like the volcanic ash! Sorry. :ok:

[Balthazar_777]

Ken, I hardly think that we are all "Keyboard Experts". As alluded to by many of us, we are "real plane" experts asking a few questions.

Also, my analysis of the ash cloud is based on the information we get from the "Volcano experts." I was under the impression that much of the "lower level" airspace was free from ash, as per the VAAC docs.

I am not questioning Qantas' decision in an antagonistic, churlish or industrial loaded barrage, but more as a general and genuine question of why.

How do I answer pax questions about our flights safety, if Qantas say it isn't. I am trying to see if I am being too dimissive or maybe even ignorant :ooh:

As an aside, I must admit that I wasn't going to get actively involved in the discussion, but the invective and patronising attitude aimed at HIALS on the first page got me ****ty. I understood his general question, but not the negative passion of some of the replies.

Cheers :)

[Come in spinner]

I agree with HIAL,
The over reaction is to stop flying, an appropriate action would be to avoid flying above fl 240 in the effected area.
That being said you know what opinions are like, everyone has one.

[donkey123]

At the end of the day, we have policies & procedures in place to mitigate the risk, we observe them, & unless it is an extreme case (& I don't think this is - unless we were operating in Chile & within a bee's dick of the volcano itself), we go



RISK MANAGEMENT & COMMAND DECISION MAKING.


Is this not the 'crux' of the matter. This is I'm sure exactly what QF have done. It is their Risk & Safety systems that have produced the 'do not operate' decision. How can they all a sudden change their decision without changing those policies?

If other airlines have a mandate to operate around, under, on top of etc; ash clouds we can only presume that their policies allow it.

I am sure once this situation has passed QF will look into those systems and see if indeed they were too excessive and need updating or changing. That though, is completely different to just making a decision to operate or not over the last couple of days.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Qantas, JetStar and Tiger are grounded because its unsafe to fly.
Air NZ, Virgin and the RAAF are operating because its safe to fly.

Someone needs to explain this!

Dr :8

[fritzandsauce]

The only thing that QF has is it's safety record which has been tarnished of late, why risk the "only" kinda thing you have going!

[The Bunglerat]

It is their Risk & Safety systems that have produced the 'do not operate' decision. How can they all a sudden change their decision without changing those policies?

Fair point, Donkey. However, I guess it just reinforces what an out-of-step policy it is - & only draws attention back to the original premise of this thread: Is this a ridiculous over-reaction?

The answer, it would appear, is YES, especially when the head of their own pilot union effectively disagrees with it.

[Sunfish]

How would you like to be faced with Forty CFM56's that all need new NGV's and First stage turbine blades by tomorrow afternoon?

...and only Four spares because you have outsourced all your engine overhaul to Asia?

[FlightlessParrot]

I don't think anyone is denying the ash cloud is there; nor are they flying through it.

AirNZ is going around and under it, at the expense of some extra fuel (10%, they say).

Qantas and spawn are not.

AirNZ is not competing on lowest possible prices, and presumably has reasonable margins from captive government travellers at the front of the aeroplane. It is also looking after its core market.

Looks like a commercial decision, not a safety one.

[Icarus2001]

Qantas, JetStar and Tiger are grounded because its unsafe to fly.
Air NZ, Virgin and the RAAF are operating because its safe to fly

Comes down to the fact that SAFE is not an absolute state, like dead, or pregnant or a ranger. More it is a subjective assessment, like drunk, pretty or stupid.

Do you ride a motorcycle? Is it safe?

Do you ride a motorcycle at night? In the rain? After two pints?

VB and the internationals flying in and out of ML have decided that it is SAFE ENOUGH to operate. QF has decided not to. Their call.

However, pretty hard to understand why ML to SY flights could not operate at low FL, in VMC by day for example.

Perhaps it has more to do with how QF are perceived by the market. QF are trying to "take the high moral ground" as it were by being ultra conservative.
A little like when ATC had closed some approach sectors and gone TIBA. I heard the QF CP on the radio selling the line that QF WILL NOT FLY in UNCONTROLLED airspace. Someone should tell him about Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland etc

[ThePaperBoy]

I agree with HIAL,
The over reaction is to stop flying, an appropriate action would be to avoid flying above fl 240 in the effected area.


Exactly, why not depart MEL, climb to a level that gives you a safe buffer beneath the projected ash based, then climb higher when you are safely away from it all? The BoM claims the base is around FL260, not A080 for crying out loud! And it's not like the boundary stretches all the way to QLD or the NT.

You will suffer from higher fuel burns, but surely the cost of doing this is less than all the adminstration and overtime costs involved in sorting the mess out during the following days?

Perhaps some airline operations staff and management have become a little excited that something like this has happened in their neck of the woods, resulting in a massive over-reaction? I'm not for one minute suggesting flying through it, but surely some better decisions could have been made!

[Sunfish]

I agree - a ridiculous over reaction....


......................by a lot of Bogans who can't understand why Qantas and Jetstar won't risk a few hundred million in additional engine costs, not to mention loss of earnings, just so they can spend a dirty weekend in Hobart or wherever.

[teresa green]

Ken, QF did exactly the same thing in the eighties. It was one of the combies, (747/200)half pax, half freight, or often racehorses. It came back home with completely crazed windows, severe damage to the leading edge of both wings and tail plane, and four totally stuffed JT9's (I think the RB211's came later) a excellent bit of flying from the lads got her back, and I put it in the same category as the A380 for airmanship, at least Richard could see where he was going. She was in the hanger for 8 weeks required four new donks, a new leading edge and new windows. A mate of mine took her out to HNL for her first flight and he was not a happy camper, four new donks and over water did not do it for him, and a couple of the engineers were not all that enthralled either, but all went well.

[Sunfish]

Hcmclown:

I don't understand. What type of damage can be caused to NGV's and 1st stage turbine blades by an ash cloud?

Both components are full of very fine cooling air channels. if ash gets in there and melts, you lose cooling and the blades and vanes overtemp and erode faster.

The permissible limit for contamination is measured in micrograms per cubic metre of air, a lethal dose for an engine is apparently not even very visible in CAVOK conditions, let alone at night.

http://bucharestexpat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jet_engine_turbine_blade_damaged_by_volcanic_ash_cloud-2.jpg

http://airlinenightmare.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/H8eksqPst0PnZsVaL6E4FA.jpeg

[Ken Borough]

four new donks and over water did not do it for him, and a couple of the engineers were not all that enthralled either, but all went well.

Of course it went well! I don't remember a QF aircraft entering volcanic ash but in those days when E&M performed an engine change, they would take the aircraft to the engine run bay and run/trim the engine to within an inch of its life. The running/trimming would often take a lot longer than the change. Why anyone would be apprehensive after such an exercise mystifies me.

[Capt Casper]

Volcanic Ash Graphics 5 (http://reg.bom.gov.au/products/IDD65290.shtml)

Presumably this is a very cautious presentation by meteorlogical experts.

I think airlines applying their own margins of care would be justified in operating.

[Angle of Attack]

So lot's of talk about how dangerous it is and in the other camp how it is an over reaction by QF but why is not anyone saying VB is operating dangerously? Just a thought with no opinion either way. I'll bet my 2nd leg Virgin does not have any major engine problems because the decisions there have not been taken over by 20's something UNI graduates in risk assesment aka lawyers!

[The SSK]

We in Europe would be interested to know the procedures in place, as Europe is trying to implement an “operators’ discretion” system.

What’s happening down there is a very specific situation – normally the job of charting the ash contamination should be the responsibility of the VAAC in whose region the eruption occurred (Buenos Aires). But trans-Tasman flights transit between two other VAAC regions (Darwin and Wellington). An earlier poster said that Darwin was providing advice to the Aus carriers. Could there be three – or more – ash dispersal models circulating, all showing different results?

[Undercover Brother]

A different prospective from an eye in the sky BN CTR...

There is one thing I don't understand about QF not flying. I don't begrudge QF for taking the safer (or by policy default) option for not flying, however what strikes me as odd is the fact that nearly all major international airlines continue to fly to AUS/NZ, in some cases outside of controlled airspace (see and be seen!). We are talking Singapore 777's, Emirates A380's flying to Auckland at 20,000ft, Malaysian 777's, then there is the airlines just transiting Australian airspace... I could go on...

But it does strike me as odd that an airline like Emirates will fly to NZ and back in their flagship A380, with only a fraction on their journey being controlled by ATC, usually a massive no-no in Regular Public Transport operations, while QF plays the procedures card over and over again...

[gobbledock]

At the risk of being slaughtered, I have to ask what special training makes a pilot qualified to judge if the skies are free from volcanic ash and therefore that it's safe to fly? Is there no limit to their expertise?

Ken, you really ask the wrong questions dont you, Nufty?
I haven't met a QF Pilot yet that makes any claim to being an absolute expert on all matters.

Pilots make their assessments and decisions based on the evidence on hand, as well as consulting with subject matter experts. At the end of the day a Pilot WILL make the final call over a specific matter as it is his/her a#s that is responsible for hundreds of lives in a pressurised tube. The Execs will be sitting at home sipping bubbly, listening to clasical music , counting their bonuses while having their strudels massaged, all within a nice safe comfortable environment.
If a Pilot feels that in the name of safety he is not going to move his/her aircraft an inch off the ground then that is his/her perogative, whether they are an absolute expert or not.

Ken, go and grab 3 kilo's of volcanic ash, stuff it in a makeshift bong and inhale the entire amount in one momentous drag. Be gone....

[Mr. Hat]

Quite strange that the RAAF are flying when it's so dangerous.

[KABOY]

I'll bet my 2nd leg Virgin does not have any major engine problems because the decisions there have not been taken over by 20's something UNI graduates in risk assesment aka lawyers!

No, the decision was made by Virgin executives who are monitoring their bottom line and know how devastating grounding their ops will be on their bottom line.

The have rolled the dice on a situation that would be devastating financially to them, they don't have the same options QF do financially.

They are about to announce a loss that would have probably increased by $X,000,000 if they took the same drastic actions.

[FOCX]

Gobbledock, love it, love it!!!!

[teresa green]

I am sure you will find it Ken in the engineering history, I think the A/C was VH ECC. As for the pilot,some pilots don't like flying a A/C over water at night with a couple of new donks, four new donks was over the top for him. We all have our little oddities.

[Icarus2001]

The have rolled the dice on a situation that would be devastating financially to them, they don't have the same options QF do financially.

mmmm, and Air NZ, Etihad, Air Asia, Emirates, Singapore Airlines and our own RAAF. Have they "rolled the dice" as well?

[1me]

Don't patronise me.
Wasn't my intent, HIALS.


I have worked for airlines on 4 continents. I have 35 years of global experience.Doing what, exactly?



I understand the effects of volcanic ash on aircraft.
As do I..


Avoidance of volcanic plume is normally associated a cloud of sufficient pumice density to actually do some abrasive damage to the aircraft.

I see no evidence of such a thing.

Well I guess everything is ok then..

[KABOY]

Financially, YES.

Pointless bringing the RAAF up as you have misread the intent.

[RATpin]

KABOY, you come across like your feeling a little insecure with the J.B. run Virgin Australia.

[1me]

Quite strange that the RAAF are flying when it's so dangerous.

Yeah.. Who'd have thought, eh??? :p

[porch monkey]

Sorry kaboy, but that's horse****. Va are flying because it is possible to do so safely using the information and procedures developed for such contingencies, as contained in the companies operations manual. Which, I might add specifically states that the pic has the final say in these circumstances. Are you suggesting that VA tech crews are bigger risk takers than QF or JQ? Like maybe emirates or anz crews?

[RATpin]

Perhaps they they need too stay current with looming "protected action".
Quid pro quo I guess with A.J's immediate endorsement of the P.M.'s carbon tax backflip.

[Old Fella]

It seems pretty simple to me. Qantas/JetStar have determined not to fly whilst they perceive any risk at all of damage to aircraft as a result of volcanic ash encounters. Virgin, the RAAF and all the International airlines mentioned as still operating have determined the risk is not evident. It surely goes further than "the bottom line" as suggested by some. Qantas knows very well that any incident, no matter how insignificant, will be grabbed with two hands by the media and blown out of proportion in the traditional "Qantas Bashing" manner. At the end of the day it will be the Qantas shareholders who will feel the impact of the lost revenue. Qantas will have protected their "safety record" and all will be well in the halls of fame within.

[RATpin]

I guess they would be the same share holders who seem to be oblivious to current events.

[Balthazar_777]

Old Fella,

I don't believe for a moment that my airline is any less safe.

I don't believe that I am exercising my command any less diligently.

My airlines trades on its reputation as well. Do you think for a moment we would sacrifice it all for a couple of bucks?

Inappropriate risk management can do as much damage as none at all. Although, I hasten to add, that grounding flights in the short term is safer. However if risk is not well understood then small issues can be blown out of proportion and, conversely, large issues may be missed.

BUT, I digress. I am not questioning Qantas' commitment to safety, just trying to understand their thinking. As i mentioned earlier, maybe i am missing something. I can always learn more.

Cheers :ok:

[Mr. Hat]

Total rubbish KABOY. Virgin do a significant amount of flights into Bali and thus have their own very well developed systems in place for this type of occurrence. Is it the case that Va/Anz/RAAF have just thrown caution to the wind? I don't think so.

[RadioSaigon]

...go and grab 3 kilo's of volcanic ash, stuff it in a makeshift bong and inhale the entire amount in one momentous drag. Be gone...

You 1st :}

[Brian Abraham]

It's a pity that HIALS asks a reasonable question, about something outside his personal experience, and the reception his post evoked.

Following is a report of an inadvertant ash cloud encounter by a NASA instrumented DC-8. Note the engine damage resulting from this seven minute encounter. The report is lengthy, but a short lead in,

On the flight to Sweden, in a moonless and cloudless sky at 0508 GMT on February 28, 2000, scientists onboard the DC-8 monitoring sensitive research instruments reported a sudden increase in measurements that indicated the presence of a volcanic ash cloud. showing aerosol data for the seven-minute encounter. This encounter was more than 200 mi north of the predicted maximum northerly extent of the plume and approximately 800 nmi from the volcano. The volcanic plume was about 35 hr old at this time.

The flight crew noted no change in cockpit readings, no St. Elmo’s fire, no odor or smoke, and no change in engine instruments. They did notice that no stars were visible, but this is typical of flight through high cirrus clouds.

After seven minutes the crew noticed that the stars had reappeared, and at about this time the scientists reported that the research instrument readings had returned to normal. There was still no change in engine or airplane instrument readings. The DC-8 crew made an airborne encounter report to the appropriate oceanic control agency.

In this ash encounter, the crew verified that there was no change in engine instruments. As such, they did not reduce engine power nor attempt to exit the cloud. This was because of the complete lack of indication of a volcanic plume, other than the sensitive scientific instruments, and because the crew was not aware of the recommendation to reduce power to idle. In addition, over the polar ocean at night, using visual flight rules in a “Non-Radar Environment,” it was probably not prudent to reduce power and descend even if the crew had been aware of the recommended procedure.

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/volcanicash/03_NASADC8AshDamage.pdf

[distracted cockroach]

Interesting report, and a lot of damage for no noticable change in engine indications.
But note the aircraft's track through the satellite picture of the ash-cloud location.....right through the red.
I'm picking there are a plethora of satellite pictures available of the current ash cloud over the south Tasman, and the operating airlines are carefully choosing routes and altitudes to avoid the indicated areas. I doubt pilot observation is the sole criteria for selecting a clear route.
I flew into Auckland from an Asian port on Monday morning, and ATC were being incredibly accommodating and helpful to aircraft's requests for routing/altitudes. I have absolutely no doubt that airlines like Air NZ are carefully checking the conditions of their aircraft's engines through borescope etc and equally no doubt that they would cease operating if any risk of large engineering costs was present.
I guess time will prove or disprove the wisdom of operating or not operating in the current environment. Someone will end up looking very clever, and someone will end up looking very foolish......time will decide who.

[kimir]

The safest option is to keep all birds on the ground, don't dispute that. That would be the case for a number of reasons every day of the year. Mels/Cdls Cyclones, cb's low vis etc. But isn't a lot of aviation risk assessment and management of conditions at the time? Re routing around, flying well below the ash is managing the risk. Pilot reports, engineering inspecting aircraft on arrival which have been in the vicinity of the ash etc. The Volcanic Ash risk assessment team made the decision not to ground flights, financial reasons don't ring true considering V Aus have cancelled all services into perth this afternoon. The ash extends a lot lower in the atmosphere this time and on this occasion has been deemed as not safe. As someone else stated, ultimately PIC has final say.

[Indianzz]

It's not the lawyers keeping QANTAS & Jetstar on the ground.

Nor is it the ash cloud.

It's their Accountants............lose less money on the ground than in the air.

Now how did that come to pass I wonder?

[The The]

It's their Accountants............lose less money on the ground than in the air.

The tickets have been sold, money in the bank. Costs are reduced as the planes sit on the ground. June 30 just around the corner. Perhaps a way to boost the year end results and ensure the bonuses get paid?

Love a conspiracy theory!

[A SHAMBLES]

..Local radio station is reporting lots of piston charters in Victoria to fly to Tasmania. Now that scares me more than flying with the Kiwis or Virgins in a jet.

Mate...your a fool.....flying with an Aussie pilot WHO thinks he is good is far scarier:D!!

[Brian Abraham]

But note the aircraft's track through the satellite picture of the ash-cloud location.....right through the red.I think you may have missed the bit that saidHowever, with the diffuse and ice-coated ash that the DC-8 is suspected to have encountered, this information-gathering capability would have shown a cloud band that would have appeared to be standard atmospheric moisture, not volcanic ash.

[Artificial Horizon]

Air NZ now starting to cancel flights, looking at the new forecast this could be a long drawn out affair with a large area of ash heading our way between FL100 and FL270. Can't see anyone flying below that!!

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Wonder if some airlines will start standing aircrew down?

Funny how all them flash B737NG's, Airbus A320 and Dash8-400 are parked and the forty year old Chieftain is carrying stranded passengers across Bass Strait.

Anyone got a Dc-3 or two for sale?

[craka]

VFR?? Or most turbos can operate on the lower MSAs off the coast below 10,000 - bit risky with all uncontrolled outside 40 CH though so could be the knocked on the head for a while:eek::eek::eek:

[Mr. Hat]

CLX would standing crew down make you feel good?

Good old chieftain hey. Heap of ****.

[Brian Abraham]

Please tell mew what's wrong with the piston fellas flying. As far as I'm aware they have filters on the induction systems, Unlike your fancy suck/blow machinery.

[Mr. Hat]

Nothing wrong with them Brian, good on em.

[Artificial Horizon]

It just seems quite offensive to almost be willing that 'crews get stood down'.

[HF3000]

Do piston engine air filters really filter out microscopic volcanic ash particles?

Or are exhaust valves and cylinder heads just cheaper to replace than turbine blades...

[Mr. Hat]

Yeah that's how I read it AH, but I could be wrong, it may not have been the intention. Hence I didn't put in a banworthy reply.

[S70IP]

Funny how all them flash B737NG's, Airbus A320 and Dash8-400 are parked and the forty year old Chieftain is carrying stranded passengers across Bass Strait.

ummm, what do Virgin fly again.....:hmm:

[Centaurus]

the forty year old Chieftain is carrying stranded passengers across Bass Strait.


Don't look too closely at its maintenance release - its sure to be squeaky clean ;)

[Old Fella]

Balthazar 777. If you read into my post that I was suggesting airlines other than Qantas were not safety conscious you are mistaken. Qantas/JetStar, at the time of my post, were not operating to destinations that others were. Those still operating had determined that the risk, as seen by Qantas, was not evident. I know that other airlines protect their reputation and do not operate with undue care. I simply wanted to point out that Qantas is particularly conscious of the media being alert to any incident involving Qantas and, in many cases, make much of what would otherwise go unreported.

[teresa green]

As they say Ol Fella, its a lot better to be down here wishing you were up there, then up there wishing you were down here. Thats always been my creed.

[Old Fella]

TG You will get no argument from me on that score. The case for staying on the ground made by Qantas and JetStar would be dificult to contest. They obviously made a judgement call and their competitors who kept flying saw it differently. At the end of the day they each may be criticised by some.

[teresa green]

We have probably got 50,000 hrs between us Old Fella, on all sorts of types, we have probably flown aircraft that these young fella's would not even look at, much less fly, in places we would rather forget, but we are just a pair of silly ol buggers, that have little to contribute, but hey, would it not be great, if we knew, at say 35, what we know now? Shame it comes too late. :{

[Old Fella]

TG, we may well be a pair of silly old buggers, but we have survived to enjoy retirement. Our days in the heady environment of an aircraft cockpit with others may have gone, but I am not sure about having little to contribute. Rather, getting someone to listen can often be the issue. As you said, a pity we did not know at 35 (or sooner) what we learnt as time took it's toll. Enjoy the memories, I do. :ok:

[neville_nobody]

This Video shows QF's logic as to why they didn't fly. They argue that since the BOM can't predict cloud density they weren't going to risk it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41AYXhOGMFo&feature=player_profilepage

[M14_P]

blah,

Well Richie and Dave flew our boys in red and black into Welly for the match on saturday night in the DC3, how cool is that. They should do that more often, far more class than a jet, even if it took 3 weeks longer to get there.

Qantas have given themselves a really bad PR run, and that is the end of it. Doesn't really matter now who was wrong or not, Qantas look really bad, as do Jetstar (who never looked good).
Win for AirNZ.

[kimir]

PR machine (and its one of the best) working overtime....Damage control and if I hear "safety before schedule", especially from O.W. one more time I'll spew. they should have just said Cathay, Sing, Air N.Z. and Virgin are just cowboys and be done with it.

[Artificial Horizon]

Question is 'have they learnt anything?' considering there is another nice big area of ash heading our way in the middle of this week. I know over here in NZ absolutely no one bought the 'safety before schedule' line and rightly or wrongly the grounding was viewed as a purely economic decision. Qantas PR handled it so badly we actually made Air NZ look like the heroes again :ugh:

[airtags]

Whilever that left over ex-pollie minder Ms Worthless is running the media and PR circus no one will buy anything Q says.

Note however the total absence of any Pilots (or even the odd CC) for that matter backing the falsehoods she delivered...... s'pose after bagging and abusing Pilots the week earlier the only one to put their hand up predictably was PW......(who put in a worse peformance than Worthless)

I did however have my attention drawn to the xfer of some pax between QF and JQ just prior to recommencement.

$afety cliches were thick and fast ..... a chant that may be regretted by OW, AJ & Co in the very near future.

Round 2 coming up later in the week

[KABOY]

There was some abrasion damage albeit minor to some Virgin aircraft, directly from a Virgin engineer

Doesn't sound like a ridiculous over reaction now, maybe fortunate more damage wasn't done if all operators had been flying.

[amos2]

I think that TG and Old Fella are selling themselves short by describing themselves as "silly old buggers" with "nothing to contribute any more" simply because they are 73 and 71 respectively!

Surely they're aware that there are currently pilots in their very late sixties flying with all Australian airlines who will no doubt be pushing very hard to continue on into their 70's!

These pilots are, without a doubt, looked upon as "silly old buggers" with "nothing to contribute any more"...but they're still there!

Naturally, they are also, rightfully so, looked upon as "selfish old b*stards"!

Which is what they are! And they don't seem to know that!...how stupid is that?

And they are also unsafe

[Hugh Jarse]

So, Amos2/Obie. These guys continue to pass their cyclics and line checks to CASA and company standards.

In your expert opinion, why then are they unsafe? (YOUR WORDS). We await your words of wisdom.

Better to keep one's mouth shut and look like a fool, rather than open one's mouth and confirm it, eh old son?

[kimir]

Interested to see some proof of abrasion damage...any photos? Nothing on company D.S.R. across all fleets. Smoking gun can be caused by blank round, doesn't mean a bullet ever existed. A.o.a. (refer ash damage thread) needs to put some proof up.

[reallyoldfart]

Well said Hugh!!!!

Amos2 is obviously a really experienced aeronaut and therefore qualified to make such a judgement.

Just a pity he hasn't got the guts to expand on his stupid comments and expose himself to be a twisted little nobody with a personal blunt axe to grind!!!!!!!!!!

[Angle of Attack]

A.o.a. (refer ash damage thread) needs to put some proof up

Oh dear, I am just putting it out there because it happened, I do not neet to post any proof, obviously the people calling for it work for the said company! Its funny how nasty it gets when the worm turns! VA are obviously nervous, thus all the calls for proof! haha I have the proof, I dont need to share it, let the media GET ON BOARD! YAY!

Oh god this gets better and better!

[GAFA]

And the ones saying there was damage would appear to work for the QF group who didn't fly last week when the ash cloud was higher. But today QF operated 5 flights out of Adelaide when the ASH cloud was lower.

[kimir]

A.o.a. you need help buddy. Seriously, get a life. The point is without proof your moronic posts have zero credibility. Your'e just a little stone thrower. Good luck in life mate.:ugh:

[Offcut]

I have a question for you. If QANTAS and Jetstar are so convinced it is unsafe to fly, why are they transferring their passengers to Air NZ flights? Either they know it is safe to fly, or are happy to send their customers to a firey death. Which is it?

[kimir]

Did anyone read the article in fridays Australian? A.o.A. you got your wish, the media were all over it.