AirNZ & the ash-cloud
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The punters were confused/perplexed. Any reading of this does not imply that QF is sayiong that NZ and DJ are unsafe. Nor does it suggest that AJ is lying. He is simply trying to explain a QF decision that differed from those of DJ and NZ.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens if the plane hits the ash at the low flight level?
What happens if the plane hits trouble? Less time to glide at those levels...
Safety is freaking important to QF employees normally!?
YellowMellow
The British Airways incident and the present ash cloud are two vastly different situations. The BA flight encounterd that ash within a couple hundered miles of the eruption not several thousand miles away like the case is now. The two conditions are like chalk and cheese.
I heard the Captain of the BA flight being interviewed the other day and in his opinion the actions of the airlines that were flying was quite safe. In fact he was surprised at the actions of the likes of Qantas.
The British Airways incident and the present ash cloud are two vastly different situations. The BA flight encounterd that ash within a couple hundered miles of the eruption not several thousand miles away like the case is now. The two conditions are like chalk and cheese.
I heard the Captain of the BA flight being interviewed the other day and in his opinion the actions of the airlines that were flying was quite safe. In fact he was surprised at the actions of the likes of Qantas.
Apart from the safety issue, there is an economic issue. The abrasion caused by volcanic ash can be severe - not only in the engines but windscreens, leading edges, pneumatic systems, side windows etc. The repair cost of a single aircraft encountering ash dense enough to cause abrasion would be more than the cost of not flying (ie putting pax in hotels etc).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The abrasion caused by volcanic ash can be severe
Safety is freaking important to QF employees normally!?
It's beyond me why QF cancelled so many flights......
Blogsey I believe Qantas cancelled their flights because of a lack of data about these clouds compared to the ones it operates near around other parts of the world. And before you all knock the airline it operates into the same areas as Cathay, Singapore etc so it does have experience operating in these areas. This I believe is why they are using research aircraft to try and get some data, at least they are doing something to try and find a remedy to the problem.
They decided not to fly under the cloud for their own reasons, and different airlines flew under the cloud at different levels. I sometimes need to ask myself why some airlines are prepared to fly under the cloud at FL200 and not at FL180? Whats the difference? Why are ANZ and VA prepared to fly at different levels? Would be nice to know but hey thats what the airlines decide, all airlines have a set of guidelines they use ( i hope!)
Personally i agree with flight operations on the decision after hearing the reasons why, but i think the letter put out by AJ to FF was just another indication of how out of depth the upper management is at the moment. The guy is a fool and we all know that, and what do you really expect?
If he was smart he would have contacted the other CEO's and they could have worked together to try to get more accurate modelling/ data so the impact of this situation is reduced. Instead he started a my "safety" is bigger than yours fight. Its embarrassing to the operational staff that have to make and deal with these events.
They decided not to fly under the cloud for their own reasons, and different airlines flew under the cloud at different levels. I sometimes need to ask myself why some airlines are prepared to fly under the cloud at FL200 and not at FL180? Whats the difference? Why are ANZ and VA prepared to fly at different levels? Would be nice to know but hey thats what the airlines decide, all airlines have a set of guidelines they use ( i hope!)
Personally i agree with flight operations on the decision after hearing the reasons why, but i think the letter put out by AJ to FF was just another indication of how out of depth the upper management is at the moment. The guy is a fool and we all know that, and what do you really expect?
If he was smart he would have contacted the other CEO's and they could have worked together to try to get more accurate modelling/ data so the impact of this situation is reduced. Instead he started a my "safety" is bigger than yours fight. Its embarrassing to the operational staff that have to make and deal with these events.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: South West Pacific
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer ANCDU's query.
The data that airlines are getting on the location and the height of the Volcanic Ash "no-go" areas are produced from the Darwin VAAC (Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre) for an area from the middle of the Indian Ocean to 160E (approximately the middle of the Tasman Sea). Wellington VAAC has its responsibility from the 160E Longitude to close to the South American Coast. The next VAAC if you head beyond the Wellington VAAC Area is Buenos Aires. The Northern Hemisphere has similar arrangements, London Toulouse, Washington, etc.
I have flown across the Tasman Sea betwen NZ and Australia several times when the Darwin Charts had 3 types of areas defined in Altitude bands. At the same time the Wellington Charts had two. We were rerouted from the normal relatively "straight lines" tracks that are the air routes between NZ and the east coast cities of Australia to avoid flying into the lowest altitude band and flew in an area where the "floor" of the Area was at FL280 at FL250. Similarly a crossing was made at FL220 when the "floor" was at FL250.
Yesterday the Darwin Charts had two "Altitude Bands" and the Wellington chart had only one with "floor" over a significant part of its area at FL180 so the final part of a flight from North Asia into Auckland was completed at FL150. Others flying in the different quadrantal were at FL160.
Flying low and by circuituous routes has a significant economic impact on the operation, descent was made north of Norfolk Island from FL370, fuel flows increased by the order of 15% per hour however the real killer was the reduction in air speed from a TAS of 485 to 365 thus adding a further 28 minutes to the flight time as compared to normal flight at FL370 then descent to land as opposed to FL370, descend to FL150, cruise for approximately 95 mins at this level then descend to land.
The lower limits of the Oceanic CTAs have also been adjusted downwards to keep these lower altitudes still within controlled airspace.
The data that airlines are getting on the location and the height of the Volcanic Ash "no-go" areas are produced from the Darwin VAAC (Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre) for an area from the middle of the Indian Ocean to 160E (approximately the middle of the Tasman Sea). Wellington VAAC has its responsibility from the 160E Longitude to close to the South American Coast. The next VAAC if you head beyond the Wellington VAAC Area is Buenos Aires. The Northern Hemisphere has similar arrangements, London Toulouse, Washington, etc.
I have flown across the Tasman Sea betwen NZ and Australia several times when the Darwin Charts had 3 types of areas defined in Altitude bands. At the same time the Wellington Charts had two. We were rerouted from the normal relatively "straight lines" tracks that are the air routes between NZ and the east coast cities of Australia to avoid flying into the lowest altitude band and flew in an area where the "floor" of the Area was at FL280 at FL250. Similarly a crossing was made at FL220 when the "floor" was at FL250.
Yesterday the Darwin Charts had two "Altitude Bands" and the Wellington chart had only one with "floor" over a significant part of its area at FL180 so the final part of a flight from North Asia into Auckland was completed at FL150. Others flying in the different quadrantal were at FL160.
Flying low and by circuituous routes has a significant economic impact on the operation, descent was made north of Norfolk Island from FL370, fuel flows increased by the order of 15% per hour however the real killer was the reduction in air speed from a TAS of 485 to 365 thus adding a further 28 minutes to the flight time as compared to normal flight at FL370 then descent to land as opposed to FL370, descend to FL150, cruise for approximately 95 mins at this level then descend to land.
The lower limits of the Oceanic CTAs have also been adjusted downwards to keep these lower altitudes still within controlled airspace.
Last edited by ghw78; 28th Jun 2011 at 05:31.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems I'm not the only one who thinks safety had nothing to do with the QF group no-fly policy
(C)ash the reason for grounding flights - Business - NZ Herald News
(C)ash the reason for grounding flights - Business - NZ Herald News
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received my QF FF letter as well - I have added a few edits:
As you know, Qantas has responded to the dispersal of
volcanic ash from the Mt Puyehue Cordon Caulle volcano
in Chile by cancelling or rerouting a number of flights.
As a valued Frequent Flyer I want to let you know why we
have made these decisions when other carriers, including
Virgin and Air New Zealand, and every other international carrier have continued to operate.
Qantas does not take the decision to cancel flights lightly.No, we have another agenda
We understand that this causes significant disruptions for all our customers. Too right being grounded for nothing is a real hassle We regret the inconvenience and we appreciate your patience. But safety is our first priority That’s why we offshore maintenance, employ 200hr First Officers at Jetstar etc
We will never fly unless we are fully satisfied that it is safe to do so. And right for us financially, we also want to soften up our restless staff.
Volcanic ash cloud poses a significant threat to aircraft. But not 16,000 km the long way around the globe from the volcano It can enter an engine, turn into molten glass as a result of the high temperatures and potentially cause the engine to fail. If you fly through ash a few hundred km from the volcano, not 16000km away.
Other risks include windscreens becoming opaque, contamination of cabin air and hydraulic systems and erosion of aircraft parts. We’ll see if VB or others have any problems with erosion soon .
Our decision not to fly in the presence of volcanic ash is
based on assessments by our Critical Operational Event
Group, with advice from the Bureau of Meteorology and in
consultation with the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC)
in Darwin. All bureaucratic ass coverers
Unlike the meteorological authorities in Europe,
Australia's VAAC does not have the ability to calculate
ash density so we are unable to access definitive
measurements. You could consider you are 16000 km downwind instead. Our policy is not to fly into areas where the concentration of volcanic ash is unknown. Without certainty about the density of the ash, we do not consider it safe to fly. The safest airline is one that never leaves the ground. Of course we won't mention Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, a larger eruption, one whose ash went around the globe three times, caused global red sunsets, global cooling, yet the only major airport that was shut was Manila - less than 150km away. No airliner crashed because of Pinatubo - a couple of aircraft sustained minor abrasion damage with 500km of the volcano.
Again, we sincerely regret the inconvenience caused by
these weather conditions. Not really.
This partial shutdown of the network two weeks ahead of FWA authorising industrial action by pilots (first time in 45yrs)and engineers is very useful. We have lost a little money but not nearly as much as prolonged industrial action. After the ash we can go to our employees and the press and claim the airline is in crisis and any industrial action would be criminal and threaten the viability of the airline, grossly irresponsible, threatens jobs etc etc. The Govt will be on our side now as no Govt. MP has any shred of technical knowledge or idea of running a business. A second benefit is, that if the industrial action goes ahead all our ground staff are now refreshed on disruption procedures and giving out meaningless excuses to our passengers.
As you know, Qantas has responded to the dispersal of
volcanic ash from the Mt Puyehue Cordon Caulle volcano
in Chile by cancelling or rerouting a number of flights.
As a valued Frequent Flyer I want to let you know why we
have made these decisions when other carriers, including
Virgin and Air New Zealand, and every other international carrier have continued to operate.
Qantas does not take the decision to cancel flights lightly.No, we have another agenda
We understand that this causes significant disruptions for all our customers. Too right being grounded for nothing is a real hassle We regret the inconvenience and we appreciate your patience. But safety is our first priority That’s why we offshore maintenance, employ 200hr First Officers at Jetstar etc
We will never fly unless we are fully satisfied that it is safe to do so. And right for us financially, we also want to soften up our restless staff.
Volcanic ash cloud poses a significant threat to aircraft. But not 16,000 km the long way around the globe from the volcano It can enter an engine, turn into molten glass as a result of the high temperatures and potentially cause the engine to fail. If you fly through ash a few hundred km from the volcano, not 16000km away.
Other risks include windscreens becoming opaque, contamination of cabin air and hydraulic systems and erosion of aircraft parts. We’ll see if VB or others have any problems with erosion soon .
Our decision not to fly in the presence of volcanic ash is
based on assessments by our Critical Operational Event
Group, with advice from the Bureau of Meteorology and in
consultation with the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC)
in Darwin. All bureaucratic ass coverers
Unlike the meteorological authorities in Europe,
Australia's VAAC does not have the ability to calculate
ash density so we are unable to access definitive
measurements. You could consider you are 16000 km downwind instead. Our policy is not to fly into areas where the concentration of volcanic ash is unknown. Without certainty about the density of the ash, we do not consider it safe to fly. The safest airline is one that never leaves the ground. Of course we won't mention Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, a larger eruption, one whose ash went around the globe three times, caused global red sunsets, global cooling, yet the only major airport that was shut was Manila - less than 150km away. No airliner crashed because of Pinatubo - a couple of aircraft sustained minor abrasion damage with 500km of the volcano.
Again, we sincerely regret the inconvenience caused by
these weather conditions. Not really.
This partial shutdown of the network two weeks ahead of FWA authorising industrial action by pilots (first time in 45yrs)and engineers is very useful. We have lost a little money but not nearly as much as prolonged industrial action. After the ash we can go to our employees and the press and claim the airline is in crisis and any industrial action would be criminal and threaten the viability of the airline, grossly irresponsible, threatens jobs etc etc. The Govt will be on our side now as no Govt. MP has any shred of technical knowledge or idea of running a business. A second benefit is, that if the industrial action goes ahead all our ground staff are now refreshed on disruption procedures and giving out meaningless excuses to our passengers.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waren9,
That article to me seems to make one very valid point:
"Air New Zealand was losing money in the second half of the year, but its domestic network was highly profitable which explained why they continued flying"
So the decision to 'ground' service by Qantas may have been influenced by the fact that this was not going to have an impact on their profit. The more worrying suggestion though is the fact that Air NZ continued to fly as they couldn't afford to impact their highly profitable domestic operations since the rest of the airline is bleeding cash. I think from a 'safety' point of view flying to maintain profit is slightly more 'risky'.
That article to me seems to make one very valid point:
"Air New Zealand was losing money in the second half of the year, but its domestic network was highly profitable which explained why they continued flying"
So the decision to 'ground' service by Qantas may have been influenced by the fact that this was not going to have an impact on their profit. The more worrying suggestion though is the fact that Air NZ continued to fly as they couldn't afford to impact their highly profitable domestic operations since the rest of the airline is bleeding cash. I think from a 'safety' point of view flying to maintain profit is slightly more 'risky'.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AH, I dont agree.
AFAIK AirNZ kept ALL of their fleets flying. Not just the profitable regional bits, when perhaps they could have followed the QF excuse and parked up unprofitable jet routes.
My point is, every other carrier used their noggin and found ways of keeping out of the ash. It has been vindicated AFAIK by no reports of any evidence of ash encounter at all.
QF used "safety" as an excuse to park up, and as I did at the time, I call BS.
AFAIK AirNZ kept ALL of their fleets flying. Not just the profitable regional bits, when perhaps they could have followed the QF excuse and parked up unprofitable jet routes.
My point is, every other carrier used their noggin and found ways of keeping out of the ash. It has been vindicated AFAIK by no reports of any evidence of ash encounter at all.
QF used "safety" as an excuse to park up, and as I did at the time, I call BS.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warren9,
I am kind of with you, I personally thought that the decision by Qantas to ground aircraft was ludicrous in this situation. Just simply stating that in this article it was stated that a big part of the decision by Air NZ to continue flying was down the the fact hey didn't want to risk a high profit part of the business. This is not really a good message to be putting across.
I am kind of with you, I personally thought that the decision by Qantas to ground aircraft was ludicrous in this situation. Just simply stating that in this article it was stated that a big part of the decision by Air NZ to continue flying was down the the fact hey didn't want to risk a high profit part of the business. This is not really a good message to be putting across.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNZ had no input in the article and therefor had no control over the messsage put out.
I'm not sure I agree with the writer that money was the major reason QF did not fly, I have called my reasons previously. Fixed costs still acrue while on the ground, and I would have thought it would be cheaper to burn a bit more gas to get round the ash than the associated costs of not flying at all.
Perhaps we will all become a bit wiser as to QF's real reasons for not flying on Aug 24.
I'm not sure I agree with the writer that money was the major reason QF did not fly, I have called my reasons previously. Fixed costs still acrue while on the ground, and I would have thought it would be cheaper to burn a bit more gas to get round the ash than the associated costs of not flying at all.
Perhaps we will all become a bit wiser as to QF's real reasons for not flying on Aug 24.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the sandpit
Age: 49
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm I think the real zinger is this...if Qantass (sic) were so concerned for their frequent flyers and other passengers safety, why were they happy to transfer them to other airlines including Air NZ and Virgin? 
"Ohhh nah mate, its far too dangerous to fly and your safety is our number one priority, so we've transferred you over to Air New Zealand"
"Ohhh nah mate, its far too dangerous to fly and your safety is our number one priority, so we've transferred you over to Air New Zealand"
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put things into some perspective on the risk of flying into ash here is a presentation Snecma (CFM) made following the European Ash clouds.
It looks at past events and associated aircraft flying into ash clouds.
http://en.keilir.net/static/files/co...cfm-snecma.pdf
To summarize.
There was found to be NO immediate operational effect at distances greater than 1000km from the Volcano.
The time after eruption is the determining factor as the larger damaging particles fall to the earth or disperse.
No Damage has occurred with clouds older the 35 hours. Most engine damage occurs within a few hours of en eruption.
- CFM recommends avoiding flight through visible ash clouds
- Positive industry experience when operators avoid visible volcanic ash, defined as 2mg/m3.
- Flight into predicted ash concentrations of higher than 2 mg/m3 may be undertaken at operators’ discretion, provided flight into visible ash clouds is avoided
- Follow current AMM maintenance requirements when operating in areas of potential volcanic ash encounters .Report findings to be provided to CFM
Considering the this ash cloud was much greater than 48 hours old and last weeks cloud was then weeks old. And the fact that the cloud wasn't even really visible. I think AirNZ, VB and all the others where quite justified to continue flying and probably could have flown and normal flight levels.
It looks at past events and associated aircraft flying into ash clouds.
http://en.keilir.net/static/files/co...cfm-snecma.pdf
To summarize.
There was found to be NO immediate operational effect at distances greater than 1000km from the Volcano.
The time after eruption is the determining factor as the larger damaging particles fall to the earth or disperse.
No Damage has occurred with clouds older the 35 hours. Most engine damage occurs within a few hours of en eruption.
- CFM recommends avoiding flight through visible ash clouds
- Positive industry experience when operators avoid visible volcanic ash, defined as 2mg/m3.
- Flight into predicted ash concentrations of higher than 2 mg/m3 may be undertaken at operators’ discretion, provided flight into visible ash clouds is avoided
- Follow current AMM maintenance requirements when operating in areas of potential volcanic ash encounters .Report findings to be provided to CFM
Considering the this ash cloud was much greater than 48 hours old and last weeks cloud was then weeks old. And the fact that the cloud wasn't even really visible. I think AirNZ, VB and all the others where quite justified to continue flying and probably could have flown and normal flight levels.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point that QF seems to miss is that Air NZ has not opted to fly through ash and hope for the best. As they repeatedly imply. We are avoiding areas of ash by flying under/around them. With the full support of CAA. It is not a question of ash concentration. We are avoiding it completely. The accuracy of these forecasts/observations is validated by the fact that no aircraft has reported an encounter and no evidence of an ash encounter has been found on any aircraft. The crew briefs are very clear. No aircraft are to be operated into any area of forecast ash. If the ash level lowers to where it is impractical to operate then flights are cancelled. It is a question of risk management and this approach seems pretty sensible to me. If you look at a sat picture and see an area of CB's on your track, do you cancel the flight? No, you fly around them.