Icelandic Ash Cloud

[SilsoeSid]

the website Information is Beautiful calculated the volcano has emitted about 15,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.

15,000 x 6 days = 90,000 tonnes
90,000,000,000 grammes

2000 km travelled, so 90,000,000,000g / 2000km = 45,000,000 g/km

Well, that puts my cars 219g/km into perspective and I've not used it for a few days!

[SilsoeSid]

Please correct me on this, but didn't BA flight 009 fly into a full volcanic ash cloud at night c180 km from the volcano, as opposed to a clear blue skied day, thousands of miles away from the source?

Also KLM Flight 867, another 747, flew into the plume of the erupting Mount Redoubt, again c180 km from the volcano, causing all four engines to fail.


Is there not some kind of picture emerging there?

[Postman Plod]

and the 80-odd other flights that have had serious incidents due to volcanic ash in the last 20 years? and the Finnish F18's? Finland being on the whole clear of ash:

BBC News - Iceland volcano in maps

Yeh, they're scaremongering based on 1 flight

Currently, world-wide advice from ICAO is based on engine and airframe
manufacturers stating that aircraft should not be exposed to any volcanic
ash.

If you go fishing (test flight) you might not catch a fish (ash) , but it
does not mean there are no fish (ash) in the sea. (air)

The Daily Mash - MET OFFICE FINALLY BLAMED

[Double Zero]

All the tests seem to be using 747's, as Sid says there is a pattern; is this because of Captain Eric Moody's experience, or because modifications took place as a result ?!

Also if there's a low level risk ( I thought it was medium / rare ) what about the Ark Royal's Olympus engines ?

Different much less fussy kit, or should I offer to lend mast, sails and 5hp outboard ?

Yours,

Master & Commander ( Anderson 22' )...

[Hugh Spencer]

ash clouds

I don't understand what is going on because at 9.45 am this morning on a website, KLM and Lufthansa aircraft were flying over UK airspace but no sign of any British planes - RadarVirtuel.com with a Volcano Ashes Layer

[diginagain]

Its quite possible, Hugh, that those aircraft flying in the 'safe' air over our airspace climbed to that altitude in air also considered to be 'safe', while our own gallant pilots would have to climb up through 'less safe' air.

[Ray Dahvectac]

The same website shows a significant amount of traffic over central Europe too.

While there is no significant ash above FL200 over most of Europe (according to this link) there is still a cloud from SFC-FL200.

So have most European airlines just decided to ignore the warnings while we Brits are happy to wait in ever-lengthening queues for a trip on Grey Funnel Lines from Spain to Portsmouth? Is it a Nu Labor conspiracy in an attempt to prove they can take firm [Naval] action when needed?

[Blacksheep]

climbed to that altitude in air also considered to be 'safe'

Probably shipped to Lithuania by road from Germany and Holland for their take-off and climb.

[Wander00]

By can someone explain why the ash cloud is coming from the north, but that it is Scottish and some northern airports that have been open, albeit temporarily. Has the CAA and NATS got it in for Heathrow and Gatwick?

[diginagain]

Perhaps a suitable analogy would be of a gent standing at a urinal. The bloke is in Iceland, the rim of the bowl is the Land of the North British, and Heathrow and Gatwick are the drain. Gravity has an effect on the stream, passing over the rim to fall on Heathrow.........

[Rossian]

Geography??.....

.....WANDER00 why don't you take a look at the Met Office web site and go to the synoptic charts. Take a look at where Eyafjallajokul is and see where the airflow takes the detritus.
All will become clear. And there are some good graphics of where the densest parts of the ash clouds are.

The Ancient Mariner

[Thelma Viaduct]

By can someone explain why the ash cloud is coming from the north, but that it is Scottish and some northern airports that have been open, albeit temporarily. Has the CAA and NATS got it in for Heathrow and Gatwick?

Think about it fella

[Tankertrashnav]

CONTRAILS!!!!

I live about 3nm NW of Culdrose. Just standing outside at around 1930 local chatting with my neighbour, an Observer instructor, when we saw contrails approaching from the west. Usually would pass without comment as we live under an airway (cant remember what it's called) but this is the first I've seen since last week. Aircraft passed LND VOR and a few miles later executed a couple of very wide orbits and then disappeared to the North. While this was happening a second aircraft came up behind, and this one turned 90 left and also disappeared North, not a manoeuvre I've seen before

Were these test flights, or a couple of the transatlantic inbounds I heard about on the news buggering about over Cornwall while somebody finally decided where they were to go? Be interesting to find out.

[Liffy 1M]

Several eastbound transatlantic BA flights have diverted into Shannon this evening. Perhaps you saw some of these.

[Tankertrashnav]

Interesting Liffy, thanks, that was one of the theories we came up with. Question is, why did they let them get as far as LND before diverting them - and what was that orbit all about? Sounds like indecision at some level

[vecvechookattack]

as we live under an airway (cant remember what it's called)

You should have asked

chatting with my neighbour, an Observer instructor

As a QOI he would certainly know the number of the airway







All airports open


BBC News - UK airports set to reopen

[JAVELINBOY]

Was looking at RadarVirtuel tonight and saw North American flights put into holding pattern south end of the Isle of Man then diverted to Shannon.
One New York Heathrow flight left the holding pattern then flew direct to Paris, it was listed as a East Midlands destination.
BA ex Lagos orbiting Cherbourg tonight as well

[advocatusDIABOLI]

OK, I Can't constrain myself any longer. (Ref- Island Volcanoes)

I think this is, and will be reported in History, as 'Risk Aversion' gone Mad!

We, in the aviation field, have quite rightly striven for better safety, but there might come a point, where 'x' meets 'y' and there is no possible progress in 'that' direction?

In that statement, I mean, that different possible means to advance or maintain safety should be explored, and more importantly, the general public assumption that flying can be 100% safe should be activley squashed!

That premis, should also be taken to the military (UK), as In my view, way too much time is dedicated to proving why we can't do things (RTS's) and little effort is put into why or what we CAN do.

Most Aviation Safety effort is purely negative; If It doesn't happen, it's no risk, The Ultimately safe Air Force Doesn't Fly.

Personaly, I think a much more pragmatic and engaged approach is required:

Make RTS's what they were intended to be- Pilots documents, for proper guidance and easily read.

Produce, an aircraft 'Legal Use Document' if required, separately, but not at Sqn Level.

FRC / FCCs- Guidance, NOT law, but accurate, and up to date.

Acceptance of all liabilities and risks falling through the above, openly accepted by HMG.

Allow full and free flight through any kind of 'Monster Thunderstorm', but Close the whole UKADR when there is a whiff of pumiss........ Geeeeezzzz


Advo

PS- Don't PM, I'm too bored of the Election to respond. Sorry.

[vecvechookattack]

Make RTS's what they were intended to be- Pilots documents, for proper guidance and easily read.

You are confusing the RTS with the Aircrew Manual (Pilots notes). The RTS was never designed for aircrew.... otherwise it would have been written by aircrew and be easy to read. As it stands, its written by gingerbeers and is complete bo££ocks.