Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its a case of showing aircraft flying round uk airspace then diverting to most other european Countries surrounding the UK to show the public what BA and others would like to do. No argument about continued flying in ash but one off positioning flights in cavok?> make no mistake the Government can't move the thousands of passengers stuck throughout the world....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes indeed, it's a miracle. Five minutes ago it was dangerous and now its safe. This decision should have been made last week. A complete farce
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under a small carrot outside strathbungo
Age: 43
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theres another ash cloud heading our way....
gordon Nropwn "saftey is paramount"
all airports colsed till tomorrow....
and then....
a cobra meeting with the airline bosses....
Its all fine, you can all go flying. we still know no more about ash densities or AC engine tolerances, but its political suicide now so you can all go flying.
Its either safe or not.
If they were saying it was unsafe today, do we really want to go flying tomorrow just because Gordon Brown is down in the polls and WW is loosing money.
gordon Nropwn "saftey is paramount"
all airports colsed till tomorrow....
and then....
a cobra meeting with the airline bosses....
Its all fine, you can all go flying. we still know no more about ash densities or AC engine tolerances, but its political suicide now so you can all go flying.
Its either safe or not.
If they were saying it was unsafe today, do we really want to go flying tomorrow just because Gordon Brown is down in the polls and WW is loosing money.
Disappointed
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't a few things about where we stand now.
Firstly, the decision to impose zero flow rates was not NATS' alone. It'd be foolish to use the ANSP as a scapegoat.
Secondly, the ash situation is no better in many ways than it was last Friday, yet now the Government, facing an election and some pretty strong pressure from BA et al, decide it's fine to fly now, but not then.
Not rocket science really.
Firstly, the decision to impose zero flow rates was not NATS' alone. It'd be foolish to use the ANSP as a scapegoat.
Secondly, the ash situation is no better in many ways than it was last Friday, yet now the Government, facing an election and some pretty strong pressure from BA et al, decide it's fine to fly now, but not then.
Not rocket science really.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cynics delight
This will of course be most welcome news for all those experts who say that the airspace should never have been shut. Standby for the pious glee of those who never will be in a position to have to make such decisions but nevertheless try to talk as if they knew the answer all along.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice disclaimer from the CAA that airlines will need to conduct their own assessments whether to fly.
And about time they did step up to the plate - NATS are merely a service provider - The CAA are the regulatory body and should've been prominent from the beginning
louby
And about time they did step up to the plate - NATS are merely a service provider - The CAA are the regulatory body and should've been prominent from the beginning
louby
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LAX
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk assessment with this is exceedingly difficult because of the lack of concrete information. However, using some arbitrary numbers and a bit of probability theory suggests that the closure isn't the overreaction some believe it to be.
If one assumes that the probability of a serious incident from an ash encounter under these conditions is one in a million; i.e. the probability of an individual flight making it to its destination is 999,999/1,000,000, then you can compute the likelihood of an incident over a given number of flights. You actually compute the odds of having no accident then subtract, but it yields the correct result.
Using this method, while admittedly arbitrary, does yield some interesting results. Over the span of only 25,000 flights, the chances of an incident are around 2.5%. For 50,000, it's 4.9%. Whatever number you use, it is clear that the risk is not negligible. Here, I've assumed that a given flight is 99.9999% likely to fly without having an incident. The numbers get a lot grimmer using lesser figures.
I think what this exercise does do is to demonstrate the difference in perspective between those in government, who have to look at the overall picture, and the individual pilots here who would launch under these conditions. Individually, the risk is seemingly small. However, cumulatively, a somewhat different picture emerges. This result is not entirely dissimilar to the "tragedy of the commons" problem in economics.
If one assumes that the probability of a serious incident from an ash encounter under these conditions is one in a million; i.e. the probability of an individual flight making it to its destination is 999,999/1,000,000, then you can compute the likelihood of an incident over a given number of flights. You actually compute the odds of having no accident then subtract, but it yields the correct result.
Using this method, while admittedly arbitrary, does yield some interesting results. Over the span of only 25,000 flights, the chances of an incident are around 2.5%. For 50,000, it's 4.9%. Whatever number you use, it is clear that the risk is not negligible. Here, I've assumed that a given flight is 99.9999% likely to fly without having an incident. The numbers get a lot grimmer using lesser figures.
I think what this exercise does do is to demonstrate the difference in perspective between those in government, who have to look at the overall picture, and the individual pilots here who would launch under these conditions. Individually, the risk is seemingly small. However, cumulatively, a somewhat different picture emerges. This result is not entirely dissimilar to the "tragedy of the commons" problem in economics.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under a small carrot outside strathbungo
Age: 43
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else think its a bit too much of a coincidence that the airspace opens just as 14 BA longhual AC arrive in european airspace with not a lot of holding fuel, and with WW in a meeting with Cobra?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will of course be most welcome news for all those experts who say that the airspace should never have been shut. Standby for the pious glee of those who never will be in a position to have to make such decisions but nevertheless try to talk as if they knew the answer all along.
Disappointed
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How easy it is for you all to shout about over-cautiousness when, thanks to the regulations, there hasn't been a single incident. Well apart from D-CALM running away from some pretty bad stuff during one of it's flights...but that seems to get handily ignored here.
Perhaps those cocksure ladies and gentlemen amongst you, the armchair pilots and decision makers, would be rather more reluctant to scream for heads to roll if, heaven forfend, something came down in an unrestricted, ash-filled airspace, as a result of commercial pressure exerted on non-commercial organisations more interested in safety then profit.
To be honest, it's a little sickening how so many can claim to know so much about such a complex and oft-changing situation. We're clearly blessed with unparalleled levels of aviation expertise. Lucky us.
Perhaps those cocksure ladies and gentlemen amongst you, the armchair pilots and decision makers, would be rather more reluctant to scream for heads to roll if, heaven forfend, something came down in an unrestricted, ash-filled airspace, as a result of commercial pressure exerted on non-commercial organisations more interested in safety then profit.
To be honest, it's a little sickening how so many can claim to know so much about such a complex and oft-changing situation. We're clearly blessed with unparalleled levels of aviation expertise. Lucky us.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incompetence At The Highest Level
Adonis (government) and Hutton (CAA/government). live on Sky and BBC. Squirming Liars, attempting to protect their faulty decisions, with the absolute safety mantra.
They and their cohorts deserve to pay a one-way visit to the volcano!
They and their cohorts deserve to pay a one-way visit to the volcano!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: W
Age: 42
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet to Luton
This was a test flight conducted by easyjet.
Finally common sense prevails and a huge amount of spin from Adonis there. Also interesting that the 6pm VAAS forecast from the met office hasn't materialised.
Finally common sense prevails and a huge amount of spin from Adonis there. Also interesting that the 6pm VAAS forecast from the met office hasn't materialised.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Yonder, UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@bubbles #1920:
A BA source is now saying that they are not engaged in a act of defience and the 26 flights will not be landing in the UK tonight.
Thanks bubbles re mine at #1919 but BA certainly did orchestrate this to exert pressure and its denial is meaningless. LHR was showing all the US, Canada and Mexico City flights on its arrivals board almost from the get-go, not so much an information exercise for the benefit of a general audience as BA's clear signalling of intention to politicos and the rest.
It does seem we're now into 'posture politics' whereby BA can claim it did nothing other than "assist the decision making process" whilst the, er, decision makers can say something along the lines of, well, hey, as soon as we heard the volcano was *really* calming down, then that's why we lifted the restrictions.
Unfortunately, neither of the above addresses the fundamental issue here.
A BA source is now saying that they are not engaged in a act of defience and the 26 flights will not be landing in the UK tonight.
Thanks bubbles re mine at #1919 but BA certainly did orchestrate this to exert pressure and its denial is meaningless. LHR was showing all the US, Canada and Mexico City flights on its arrivals board almost from the get-go, not so much an information exercise for the benefit of a general audience as BA's clear signalling of intention to politicos and the rest.
It does seem we're now into 'posture politics' whereby BA can claim it did nothing other than "assist the decision making process" whilst the, er, decision makers can say something along the lines of, well, hey, as soon as we heard the volcano was *really* calming down, then that's why we lifted the restrictions.
Unfortunately, neither of the above addresses the fundamental issue here.
Disappointed
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just think the anti-NATS and anti-CAA storm is ludicrous. Because surely the only motive the CAA have, or should have, is ensuring safe flight.
Personally I'd rather be regulated by over-caution than cowboy when so many lives are at stake.
Wouldn't you?
Oh and for the person crying wolf about the non appearance of the latest met chart...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271785386.png
Personally I'd rather be regulated by over-caution than cowboy when so many lives are at stake.
Wouldn't you?
Oh and for the person crying wolf about the non appearance of the latest met chart...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271785386.png
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every single aspect of the way that NATS/DfT/Met Office have conducted themselves from day one should be the subject of a public enquiry. It was completely ridiculous to close the whole UK FIR last Thursday when the offending ash was north of Scotland. They used a sledgehammer to crack the nut and it has taken them nearly a week to admit it.