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...

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.......

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.

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

Qantas on the spot over 'unsafe' RAAF flight for politicians | Plane Talking

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

Quote:
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 :)

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.

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?

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