Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: France
Age: 74
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My post and all the responses to it have mysteriously disappeared so I'll try again.
I have read all the 116 pages of this thread (not much else to do when you are grounded) and I really want to get to the bottom of it.
So this is my take on the whole sorry saga.
1. The engine manufacturers set a zero tolerance to volcanic ash to minimise the chances of litigation, understandably.
2. The airlines didnt want to set a higher limit for the same reason, also understandable.
3. ICAO tried to accept those above to come up with a figure they could use in their ash avoidance doc 019 but were unsucessful and so they reluctantly published zero as the limit KNOWING it to be at best unrealistic and at worst absurd!
4. All the other safety bodies around the world accepted this as the law KKNOWING it to be based on an unrealistic perameter at best and bloody absurd at worst.
Rules and laws in aviation have to be followed of course. Its not hard to follow a rule, however silly, but its much harder to interpret it, that takes intelligence and common sense.
In my view and with the advantage of hindsight I would say whoever it was(maybe someone can tell us?) who first decided to close European controlled airspace so abruptly, panicked and made a rash decision. Understandable, perhaps. (No doubt it was a committee, not one person, brilliant previous comment-'you never see a statue of a committee!)
SO what should have happened?
First, as soon as the eruption occurred NOTAMS and warnings issued as to where and how far the dust was and what the danger was. Presumably we can tick that box.
Then instead of rushing to judgement and closing most of European airspace KNOWING the law was ultra conservative and KNOWING such a decision would cause utter chaos, all the relevant bodies, 1, 2,3 and 4 above plus the govts concerned should have been consulted beforehand.
Yes this would have taken time, maybe 24 hrs and maybe some answers would not have been forthcoming but a better decision could have been arrived at which could have saved over $2 billion dollars WITHOUT COMPROMISING SAFETY.
The mantra of all the bodies that govern aviation goes like this
'Our primary concern is safety'
That is a given, we all know that and comply with it but just mindlessly repeating it over and over is not a defence.
Sometimes I get the impression it should be
'Our primary concern is protecting our backsides'
'We were just following the rules'
These are among the sad famous last words before a fall.
I have read all the 116 pages of this thread (not much else to do when you are grounded) and I really want to get to the bottom of it.
So this is my take on the whole sorry saga.
1. The engine manufacturers set a zero tolerance to volcanic ash to minimise the chances of litigation, understandably.
2. The airlines didnt want to set a higher limit for the same reason, also understandable.
3. ICAO tried to accept those above to come up with a figure they could use in their ash avoidance doc 019 but were unsucessful and so they reluctantly published zero as the limit KNOWING it to be at best unrealistic and at worst absurd!
4. All the other safety bodies around the world accepted this as the law KKNOWING it to be based on an unrealistic perameter at best and bloody absurd at worst.
Rules and laws in aviation have to be followed of course. Its not hard to follow a rule, however silly, but its much harder to interpret it, that takes intelligence and common sense.
In my view and with the advantage of hindsight I would say whoever it was(maybe someone can tell us?) who first decided to close European controlled airspace so abruptly, panicked and made a rash decision. Understandable, perhaps. (No doubt it was a committee, not one person, brilliant previous comment-'you never see a statue of a committee!)
SO what should have happened?
First, as soon as the eruption occurred NOTAMS and warnings issued as to where and how far the dust was and what the danger was. Presumably we can tick that box.
Then instead of rushing to judgement and closing most of European airspace KNOWING the law was ultra conservative and KNOWING such a decision would cause utter chaos, all the relevant bodies, 1, 2,3 and 4 above plus the govts concerned should have been consulted beforehand.
Yes this would have taken time, maybe 24 hrs and maybe some answers would not have been forthcoming but a better decision could have been arrived at which could have saved over $2 billion dollars WITHOUT COMPROMISING SAFETY.
The mantra of all the bodies that govern aviation goes like this
'Our primary concern is safety'
That is a given, we all know that and comply with it but just mindlessly repeating it over and over is not a defence.
Sometimes I get the impression it should be
'Our primary concern is protecting our backsides'
'We were just following the rules'
These are among the sad famous last words before a fall.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Faulconbridge, New South Wales, Oz
Posts: 64
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one-size-fits-all limits are absurd
Engines are different.
Specifying ranges of contamination which don't discriminate between different engine technologies is obviously silly. Clearly a piston engine with a filtration system differs from a jet without. One jet design is likely to be relatively immune by comparison with another.
The limits need to be based on the engine, not the airspace. Data from the manufacturer please. Not recommendations, firm and clear limits.
Specifying ranges of contamination which don't discriminate between different engine technologies is obviously silly. Clearly a piston engine with a filtration system differs from a jet without. One jet design is likely to be relatively immune by comparison with another.
The limits need to be based on the engine, not the airspace. Data from the manufacturer please. Not recommendations, firm and clear limits.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Royaume-Uni
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Safety is the number one priority but...." belongs in the same stash of rhetorical devices as "I'm not a racist or anything but..."
I'd say "over-cautious" was probably an oxymoron, especially in a field of operation with as many variables and natural hazards as aviation, and in a situation with as many unknowns as this ash predicament.
One day the actions of the authorities over the last week might be legitimately criticised as unnecessary - but that will require a fair bit more hindsight than we currently have. We're still in a phase where damage to engines - significant enough to reduce maintenance life if not actually precipitate accidents - could be occurring, and I think a little circumspection and humility amongst aviators is the order of the day.
If it turns out to have been a massive overreaction, then I still say that when you make a mistake it's better to have the ugly numbers for "losses" in the £s/$s column than in the one for human beings. Governments can't win in matters like this - better to be hated for costing money than costing lives.
I'd say "over-cautious" was probably an oxymoron, especially in a field of operation with as many variables and natural hazards as aviation, and in a situation with as many unknowns as this ash predicament.
One day the actions of the authorities over the last week might be legitimately criticised as unnecessary - but that will require a fair bit more hindsight than we currently have. We're still in a phase where damage to engines - significant enough to reduce maintenance life if not actually precipitate accidents - could be occurring, and I think a little circumspection and humility amongst aviators is the order of the day.
If it turns out to have been a massive overreaction, then I still say that when you make a mistake it's better to have the ugly numbers for "losses" in the £s/$s column than in the one for human beings. Governments can't win in matters like this - better to be hated for costing money than costing lives.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they cannot provide limits, because limits are a regulatory matter and cannot be imposed by an OEM, whether they wish to or not; if you look at any OEM document, any page with a Limitation is invariably marked as being Approved by a regulatory authority.
If OEMs could impose Limits on their own it'd be a license to print money.
Originally Posted by Cool guy
The engine manufacturers set a zero tolerance to volcanic ash to minimise the chances of litigation, understandably.
Don't worry all you children crying over the lack of scientific empirical data about the effect of rarefied VA clouds on turbine engines. We'll have all the data we need soon enough.
I still have a faint hope that it won't be more than we can possibly handle.
Indeed imagine sitting there the EGT on all engines going to limiting value, the acrid smell the knot in the stomach and,..you are cornered by the Alps or Altlantic,...Folks I think we are having a totally new and unprecedented experience in aviation; this one is VERY difficult, Very!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: France
Age: 74
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Clandestino, of course most rules are here for our own good, why does everyone keep repeating the obvious? I am referring to this particular rule based on a zero tolerance which even you must admit was virtually impossible to apply.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTAMs
Regarding airbubba’s NOTAM, with such a complicated NOTAM what is the chance of the wrong safe or not safe areas being given to the pilot? Consider the possible data chain between the volcano and the pilot. Presumably it is something like:-
• Ash eruption density and wind speeds measured by Met Offices
• Put data in a computer model
• Model generates a map of ash concentrations
• CAA(?) by hand (presumably) add a 60 mile margin for error, approximate this boundary into straight lines and hand transfer these lines to the extensive list of coordinates on the NOTAM
• Transmit NOTAM
• ATC/airlines, etc. transfer coordinates from NOTAM to a new map by hand.
• ATC/flight planners, etc. use the new map to tell pilots where they can /can’t go.
Update it all every 6 hours.
Note the ATSIN says that original Met Office maps carries no official status so pilots can not use them to judge safe areas.
Major areas where the process could fall down is:-
• Human error in transferring data at each step
• Forget to add the 60 miles
• Failure to use the latest data e.g. copying over old data
• Failure to adapt to the ever shifting CAA, etc. policy advice
• Met Office computer modelling error
• Met Office measurement error
• Corruption of NOTAM message in transmission (unlikely)
I’d say it’s quite a high risk that the area is wrong but am prepared to be told I have got the process wrong or that there is more automation (less human input) than I think.
Is the NOTAM sytem fit for purpose for communicating this information? Would not direct electronic transfer of the original Met Office map be safer?
• Ash eruption density and wind speeds measured by Met Offices
• Put data in a computer model
• Model generates a map of ash concentrations
• CAA(?) by hand (presumably) add a 60 mile margin for error, approximate this boundary into straight lines and hand transfer these lines to the extensive list of coordinates on the NOTAM
• Transmit NOTAM
• ATC/airlines, etc. transfer coordinates from NOTAM to a new map by hand.
• ATC/flight planners, etc. use the new map to tell pilots where they can /can’t go.
Update it all every 6 hours.
Note the ATSIN says that original Met Office maps carries no official status so pilots can not use them to judge safe areas.
Major areas where the process could fall down is:-
• Human error in transferring data at each step
• Forget to add the 60 miles
• Failure to use the latest data e.g. copying over old data
• Failure to adapt to the ever shifting CAA, etc. policy advice
• Met Office computer modelling error
• Met Office measurement error
• Corruption of NOTAM message in transmission (unlikely)
I’d say it’s quite a high risk that the area is wrong but am prepared to be told I have got the process wrong or that there is more automation (less human input) than I think.
Is the NOTAM sytem fit for purpose for communicating this information? Would not direct electronic transfer of the original Met Office map be safer?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else noticed?
Until this afternoon, every VAA from the UK Met Office VAAC carried a statement: Ash concentrations unknown.
This evening they have dropped that statement.
A change of policy, perhaps?
Anyone know what ash concentration they are now delineating as "Code Red"? Is it perchance different to the criterion they used before Wille Walsh's now famous political meeting of minds?
This evening they have dropped that statement.
A change of policy, perhaps?
Anyone know what ash concentration they are now delineating as "Code Red"? Is it perchance different to the criterion they used before Wille Walsh's now famous political meeting of minds?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 80
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As both an aircraft engineer and pilot I do feel that so much of what has been written here has been absolute drivel. There are just so many variables associated with the potential for engine damage that I would suggest it's almost impossible to predict.
A good metaphor, understandable by most, would be to compare volcanic ash with potholes in the road. Is a 6in deep pothole bad for your car. Well dependant how many, their dispersion, how fast you hit it, steepness of the sides, etc. etc. etc. One 6in deep pothole on a 200km journey, probably will have minimal effect, whereas a 6in pothole every few yards would. If the sides drop away steeply then it will have more effect than if the sides are quite angled and gentle. The speed at which you hit it will have an effect on potential damage. A 6in deep pothole in a concrete road will probably do more damage than one in bitumen. How many potholes has the car been driven over since last being serviced. Etc.
I do not believe that there is adequate science available to accurately predict damage for every flight undertaken. You need the nature of the ash - silica glass, pumice, water content, etc. their ratios. You need the density of the ash in parts per million. You need the time spent in the ash - whether just transiting a level or continuous flight. You need flight engine parameters - thrust settings, etc. You need a history of previous encounters. You need engine type - some engines may be better able to cope than others. The list goes on and on.
When I flew regularly, risk analysis was considered part of the job, nowadays I suspect less so. And irrespective of whoever you care to blame in the final analysis it's up to the captain to decide whether it's safe or not. What scares people here is, I suspect, an unwillingness to take on that responsibility.
A good metaphor, understandable by most, would be to compare volcanic ash with potholes in the road. Is a 6in deep pothole bad for your car. Well dependant how many, their dispersion, how fast you hit it, steepness of the sides, etc. etc. etc. One 6in deep pothole on a 200km journey, probably will have minimal effect, whereas a 6in pothole every few yards would. If the sides drop away steeply then it will have more effect than if the sides are quite angled and gentle. The speed at which you hit it will have an effect on potential damage. A 6in deep pothole in a concrete road will probably do more damage than one in bitumen. How many potholes has the car been driven over since last being serviced. Etc.
I do not believe that there is adequate science available to accurately predict damage for every flight undertaken. You need the nature of the ash - silica glass, pumice, water content, etc. their ratios. You need the density of the ash in parts per million. You need the time spent in the ash - whether just transiting a level or continuous flight. You need flight engine parameters - thrust settings, etc. You need a history of previous encounters. You need engine type - some engines may be better able to cope than others. The list goes on and on.
When I flew regularly, risk analysis was considered part of the job, nowadays I suspect less so. And irrespective of whoever you care to blame in the final analysis it's up to the captain to decide whether it's safe or not. What scares people here is, I suspect, an unwillingness to take on that responsibility.
We're beginning to chase our tail on the question Is It Safe to Fly and we need limits from the engine manuafactures.
Many of the demands arise from folks with little experience in managing aviation safety but never-the-less consider themselves experts in knowing when it's safe enough.
In trying to keep it simple, the industry has arrived at today's safety record based on lots of experience including data both analytical, emperical and test based. This is embodied in the regulations including the one most at play here Continued Airworthiness.
Under Continued Airworthiness lots of emperical assessments are offered based on a smattering of test data, real experiences and analysis. Turn the crank and you develop a rational for continued flying with intelligent monitoring as controls are implemented. This is the provence of the OEMs and Operators and has to meet the approval of the regulators to ensure that things do not get out of hand.
Just because the observer of aviation does not see the details or understand the process doesn't mean that it is unsafe to fly. If you really want to audit the process then you have to be as close to it as the regulators.
And by-the-way, such a process of managing safety does not mean that one would expect no incidents of Volcanic ash damage nor symptoms, but it does expect that no harm will come to the passengers.
Fly safe
Many of the demands arise from folks with little experience in managing aviation safety but never-the-less consider themselves experts in knowing when it's safe enough.
In trying to keep it simple, the industry has arrived at today's safety record based on lots of experience including data both analytical, emperical and test based. This is embodied in the regulations including the one most at play here Continued Airworthiness.
Under Continued Airworthiness lots of emperical assessments are offered based on a smattering of test data, real experiences and analysis. Turn the crank and you develop a rational for continued flying with intelligent monitoring as controls are implemented. This is the provence of the OEMs and Operators and has to meet the approval of the regulators to ensure that things do not get out of hand.
Just because the observer of aviation does not see the details or understand the process doesn't mean that it is unsafe to fly. If you really want to audit the process then you have to be as close to it as the regulators.
And by-the-way, such a process of managing safety does not mean that one would expect no incidents of Volcanic ash damage nor symptoms, but it does expect that no harm will come to the passengers.
Fly safe
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have quantitative criteria for such things as the difference between VMC and IMC. The Met office (of any country) provides us with plan view charts to help us determine where is which.
One of those met offices (the UK one, in this matter) is producing an areal chart which delineates a certain parameter (volcanic ash density, in this case), but it is becoming extremely difficult to obtain a factual statement of what the criterion is which is used in drafting those areal limits.
Can anybody give me a straight answer?
What density is being used to draw those red lines?
Is it different to the criterion which was being used the day before yesterday?
If so, why? and by how much?
One of those met offices (the UK one, in this matter) is producing an areal chart which delineates a certain parameter (volcanic ash density, in this case), but it is becoming extremely difficult to obtain a factual statement of what the criterion is which is used in drafting those areal limits.
Can anybody give me a straight answer?
What density is being used to draw those red lines?
Is it different to the criterion which was being used the day before yesterday?
If so, why? and by how much?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: France
Age: 74
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of people say you cant be too cautious about safety, you cant overeact on that side of the equation. Well I beg to differ. You can actually jeopodise(someone spell that for me!) future safety by bad decisions even if they are overcautious ones.
The european authorities cried 'wolf' on this one and they wont have the same credibility next time it happens. Many people are going to say 'Here we go again' and they maybe tempted to push their luck when there really is a serious problem, I certainly hope not.
The european authorities cried 'wolf' on this one and they wont have the same credibility next time it happens. Many people are going to say 'Here we go again' and they maybe tempted to push their luck when there really is a serious problem, I certainly hope not.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying in areas with ash clouds near should probably be treated like icing conditions earlier in aviation. Ice could kill you if you didn't respect it but it could be dealt with if you handled it properly. Little is known about how much ash is too much now. We need to study it and learn from this incident how to deal with it better. We have so much technology now to study it, Drones with monitors would give us a wealth of data. This will happen again, over and over, so we need to know how to deal with it. What would happen to aviation if no one could fly within 100 miles of a thunderstorm?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFMU now have a rather pointless plotting function showing the routing of any of the 1000's of daily flights filed within Europe. Why cant the ash cloud forecast be overlayed
CFMU now have a rather pointless plotting function showing the routing of any of the 1000's of daily flights filed within Europe. Why cant the ash cloud forecast be overlayed
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From alisoncc, above:
It appears to be WORSE than that. Not only is there no accurate PREDICTION. The suggested methods (starting with visual examination post-flight) have already been demonstrated to be insufficient to cover all situations where turbine damage has already occurred. Instrument and engine data recording during flight are also not (it seems) a reliable indication of ash damage.
I've suggested already that filters on heat-exchangers etc. fed via compressor bleeds will contain an accurate record of whatever has passed through the turbine and therefore should be a primary focus of post-flight checks but no-one else seems to consider this important. (Having looked at the recent CAA FOD on the subject of ash, I'm not reassured that bases are covered by the suggested procedures.)
At best, I predict that operators are in for a torrid time covering wildly escalating turbine maintenance costs, quite apart from the downtime waiting for non-available spares.
I do not believe that there is adequate science available to accurately predict damage for every flight undertaken.
I've suggested already that filters on heat-exchangers etc. fed via compressor bleeds will contain an accurate record of whatever has passed through the turbine and therefore should be a primary focus of post-flight checks but no-one else seems to consider this important. (Having looked at the recent CAA FOD on the subject of ash, I'm not reassured that bases are covered by the suggested procedures.)
At best, I predict that operators are in for a torrid time covering wildly escalating turbine maintenance costs, quite apart from the downtime waiting for non-available spares.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool Guy
Agree absolutely. Legallity to the point of absurdity seems the way nowdays. Buarecrats covering their own backsides is what it is. Ironically, Mount Pinotubo in 1991 they didnt have the b.lls to close the airspace and now they didnt have them to open it. Headless chickens all.
Agree absolutely. Legallity to the point of absurdity seems the way nowdays. Buarecrats covering their own backsides is what it is. Ironically, Mount Pinotubo in 1991 they didnt have the b.lls to close the airspace and now they didnt have them to open it. Headless chickens all.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Prestwick
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem has not gone away! Inverness closed to traffic due to ash at 1800 last night and not opening again until 1300 today at earliest. Keflavik is now affected with Icelandair flights between the USA/Canada and Europe operating via Glasgow with a flight from Glasgow to Akureyi for Iceland bound passengers.