Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the doom forecasters:
Have any of you actually been up there this last week? Are any of you actually airline pilots?
If so: have you refused to fly this week?
I have been to the UK, to various parts of Scandinavia and to Italy this week. All the AMT`s that I have spoken to have told me that they haven`t seen any evidence of ash on any of the aircaft this week.
Let`s just all be grateful for the experience our industry is gaining these days on the subject.
Off to fly now....
Have any of you actually been up there this last week? Are any of you actually airline pilots?
If so: have you refused to fly this week?
I have been to the UK, to various parts of Scandinavia and to Italy this week. All the AMT`s that I have spoken to have told me that they haven`t seen any evidence of ash on any of the aircaft this week.
Let`s just all be grateful for the experience our industry is gaining these days on the subject.
Off to fly now....
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the doom forecasters:
Have any of you actually been up there this last week? Are any of you actually airline pilots?
Have any of you actually been up there this last week? Are any of you actually airline pilots?
Just the potential for massively-increased engine maintenance costs, which will inevitably and eventually hit YOU straight in the pay-cheque!
What difference does it make make whether you've flown through ash, flown in an EPZ or even just 'flown'?
I thought it was generally agreed that in many situations, even CAVOK, it was possible, even likely that flight-deck crew will see NOTHING on instruments or outside the aircraft that will give any clue AT ALL of the presence of ash! If you've got an instrument that images diffuse ash-clouds, you're sitting ona gold-mine!
Is it not a better idea to spend a relatively small amount of money on post-flight detection of an ash encounter than to risk millions on engine overhauls and spares that may not even be do-able on a reasonable timescale? (eg. repairs to all 4 engines on the NASA DC-8 after 8 MINUTES flying through ash at night: $3.2million)
PS
It's interesting that there WERE symposia and publications (eg. by USGS) after Pinatubo in the early 90s but not much got done about it! Much easier to justify activity and expenditure after a major event that cost LOTS of money. Much harder after the dust has settled
Well - here we are again!
Last edited by brooksjg; 26th Apr 2010 at 08:17.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was generally agreed that in many situations, even CAVOK, it was possible, even likely that flight-deck crew will see NOTHING on instruments or outside the aircraft that will give any clue AT ALL of the presence of ash! If you've got an instrument that images diffuse ash-clouds, you're sitting ona gold-mine!
To JFs point - the above applies to the immediate flight safety incidents that have been documented by USGC or ICAO. It is quite possible (even probable) that flying in invisible ash could significantly reduce the life of engine components and cause premature failure - I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing otherwise. However, that appears to be much more of an operational economic and maintenance inspection question than a flight safety issue.
PS
It's interesting that there WERE symposia and publications (eg. by USGS) after Pinatubo in the early 90s but not much got done about it!
It's interesting that there WERE symposia and publications (eg. by USGS) after Pinatubo in the early 90s but not much got done about it!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is generally stated, although it does not appear to be true.
And I was not suggesting more studies - there already seems to have been plenty of evidence, even from the early 90s. I meant real-world policies and procedures that actually MEASURED stuff (like ash in the air and collected on / in aircraft when there was likely to be a problem) and then ACTIONS to minimise risk and further cost. Ad hoc Mk 1 Eyeballing ain't it!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really is the bit that gets my goat. I and most others I listen to or read are not claiming by any stretch of the imagination that an aircraft will fly tomorrow, suffer multiple engine failures and glide for a landing into Blackpool. We are not forecasting doom at all. In fact I am very aware of the possibility and indeed hoping for it to turn out to be the case that nothing comes of this at all. But the single point is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
How pathetic an answer is it to say "we'll find out what damage is done in due course". Or for someone to say they flew 6 flights over the last three days and did not have single problem - as if this gives any indication of general conditions to be expected across the whole European network. That's the same ridiculous logic that was used to open the airspace so quickly in the first place.
Damage can be done and in fact, damage has been done. I completely agree that there must be conditions under which it is safe to fly and it is extremely unlikely that sustained significant damage would be done to every aircraft on every route. But we have not had any proper examination of that possibilty whatsoever. Worse than that, some of the test flights which did occur did find potentially damage causing levels of ash. Although it seems this finding was too close to the agrrement on the regulations. The point of no return must have been reached. Most signifcantly though in my mind they found multiple varying layers of ash conecntrations when this new regulation is based an three zones of constant and evenly spread concentration - something that nature will never provide.
This isn't about simply whether an aircraft will fly and crash. This about so much more than that. It is about the heavily commercially orientated mindset of those tasked with being objective and non-commercially orientated.
If this was a scenario that was likely to continue for weeks or months then I would understand the need to find a way to save our entire industry. But our industry as a whole was never at risk because this was NEVER going to last that long. Our safety process has been influenced by shareholders. Plain and simple. That's my problem.
No proper system of analysis nor operational procedures have been employed. Let me ask all you airline guys out there that challenge those who did or didn't fly already since the clampdown: When you're up there, after having studied your ash charts before you left and you're pootling through swedish airspace and suddenly ATC advises you of a new VA sigmet for the area you are flying in or intending to land in what do you do? The same as the rest of us - tear it up and throw it away because the chart didn't show it in your area I imagine. How do you deal with a pirep? That's something completely different surely? And there has been pireps of ash encounters - whether they were valid or not is another question - but aircraft are ignoring them completely. We have been led by the bloody nose here!!!!
Can anyone explain how the AACC shows zone 1 and 2 limited to Iceland while Gothenburg is confirmed to be zone 2 by ATC?
Put your head back there so I can a good hold on your nostrils while I walk into this cave to see what's in it.............
How pathetic an answer is it to say "we'll find out what damage is done in due course". Or for someone to say they flew 6 flights over the last three days and did not have single problem - as if this gives any indication of general conditions to be expected across the whole European network. That's the same ridiculous logic that was used to open the airspace so quickly in the first place.
Damage can be done and in fact, damage has been done. I completely agree that there must be conditions under which it is safe to fly and it is extremely unlikely that sustained significant damage would be done to every aircraft on every route. But we have not had any proper examination of that possibilty whatsoever. Worse than that, some of the test flights which did occur did find potentially damage causing levels of ash. Although it seems this finding was too close to the agrrement on the regulations. The point of no return must have been reached. Most signifcantly though in my mind they found multiple varying layers of ash conecntrations when this new regulation is based an three zones of constant and evenly spread concentration - something that nature will never provide.
This isn't about simply whether an aircraft will fly and crash. This about so much more than that. It is about the heavily commercially orientated mindset of those tasked with being objective and non-commercially orientated.
If this was a scenario that was likely to continue for weeks or months then I would understand the need to find a way to save our entire industry. But our industry as a whole was never at risk because this was NEVER going to last that long. Our safety process has been influenced by shareholders. Plain and simple. That's my problem.
No proper system of analysis nor operational procedures have been employed. Let me ask all you airline guys out there that challenge those who did or didn't fly already since the clampdown: When you're up there, after having studied your ash charts before you left and you're pootling through swedish airspace and suddenly ATC advises you of a new VA sigmet for the area you are flying in or intending to land in what do you do? The same as the rest of us - tear it up and throw it away because the chart didn't show it in your area I imagine. How do you deal with a pirep? That's something completely different surely? And there has been pireps of ash encounters - whether they were valid or not is another question - but aircraft are ignoring them completely. We have been led by the bloody nose here!!!!
Can anyone explain how the AACC shows zone 1 and 2 limited to Iceland while Gothenburg is confirmed to be zone 2 by ATC?
Put your head back there so I can a good hold on your nostrils while I walk into this cave to see what's in it.............
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm_flynn
how can you say
but feel that it wouldn't be a flight safety issue?
That's just strange! So if an engine quits 20 hours before it planned overhaul that's a problem for the bean counters more than for us?
how can you say
flying in invisible ash could ....cause premature failure
That's just strange! So if an engine quits 20 hours before it planned overhaul that's a problem for the bean counters more than for us?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The logic for ash being such a signficant safety issue is that it is one of those common mode failure things. If you are in sufficient ash to fail one engine, the odds are pretty high that the rest of them are going to roll back in a few moments. I think everyone agrees that is a big problem.
However,
engine overhauls are not scheduled 1 hour before expected failure, they have quite a lot of safety margin and typically have some type of condition monitoring to detect accellerated wear. A failure due to Ash wear is likely to be at a random time, and therefore the redundancy logic works.
Just to be clear - I am not saying flying in invisible ash has no effect - just that the risks seem similar or lower to lots of other risk.
However,
engine overhauls are not scheduled 1 hour before expected failure, they have quite a lot of safety margin and typically have some type of condition monitoring to detect accellerated wear. A failure due to Ash wear is likely to be at a random time, and therefore the redundancy logic works.
Just to be clear - I am not saying flying in invisible ash has no effect - just that the risks seem similar or lower to lots of other risk.
That's just strange! So if an engine quits 20 hours before it planned overhaul that's a problem for the bean counters more than for us?
That would concern more than just the bean counters, wouldn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we wasting all this money over ETOPS procedures, IFSD rates, etc, when it is clear that most here are prepared to accept a higher level of risk. Have we ever lost an aircraft due to strictly ETOPS issues? Based on that the procedures are superfluous.
I think we should be looking at what we may have to do if (when?) Katla erupts as many claim is a highly likely event.
Eyjafjallajökull might just be the warm-up!
We dont have much time to think this thing out.
I think we should be looking at what we may have to do if (when?) Katla erupts as many claim is a highly likely event.
Eyjafjallajökull might just be the warm-up!
We dont have much time to think this thing out.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm_flynn I understand your redundancy logic theory. Nice one! Never really cnosidered that. Although as you say, each engine is likely to be affected in a similar way and to a similar degree. So is it not cutting the redundancy logic a little fine? Can it not be considered possible that another engine may suffer similarly within a short period of time following an ash encounter?
Normal redundancy works because failures are much more random and occur from tiny differences in quality of manufacturing or unusual isolated interaction with other components and therefore the time scale for failure is very wide and varying.
But if what peter says is true then if you are likely to see problems within 100-500 hours then that is much too small a window to expect isolated and seperate issues. What I mean is that if one engine dies 105 hours after an ash encounter, there has been reasonably significant damage. It is therefore correct to assume another engine will suffer the same fate within a very short period.
Yes, engine monitoring should highlight longer term issues long before they become a problem, so I don't expect we will see engines failing spontaneously in 2 or 3 months time. I just hope we don't have repair bills which cripple the industry more than another couple of days of waiting for the ash to clear would have done. And an engine change takes a lot longer than 2 days....
Normal redundancy works because failures are much more random and occur from tiny differences in quality of manufacturing or unusual isolated interaction with other components and therefore the time scale for failure is very wide and varying.
But if what peter says is true then if you are likely to see problems within 100-500 hours then that is much too small a window to expect isolated and seperate issues. What I mean is that if one engine dies 105 hours after an ash encounter, there has been reasonably significant damage. It is therefore correct to assume another engine will suffer the same fate within a very short period.
Yes, engine monitoring should highlight longer term issues long before they become a problem, so I don't expect we will see engines failing spontaneously in 2 or 3 months time. I just hope we don't have repair bills which cripple the industry more than another couple of days of waiting for the ash to clear would have done. And an engine change takes a lot longer than 2 days....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainPaddy
Although the Volcanic Eruptions have declined slightly the low ash levels have remained constant over the UK and are forecast to remain so for the remaining of this week.
Paddy on the previous zero tolerance levels you seem to support we would be in over two weeks of no fly! not a couple of days longer as you put it.
Taken from the metoffice
Pace
Although the Volcanic Eruptions have declined slightly the low ash levels have remained constant over the UK and are forecast to remain so for the remaining of this week.
Paddy on the previous zero tolerance levels you seem to support we would be in over two weeks of no fly! not a couple of days longer as you put it.
Taken from the metoffice
Pace
Although the Volcanic Eruptions have declined slightly the low ash levels have remained constant over the UK and are forecast to remain so for the remaining of this week.
The wind direction is also favourably predicted for the UK until Saturday or so.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
I was using the word premature in the sense of earlier than expected. Whether that is measured in simple engine running hours or cycles would depend on what is normal for the particular engine.
By 'certain' contaminants I was referring to those that at HPT blade temperatures change their nature to a 'glass' like material that has been known to flow and coat surfaces.
Sadly I think this whole situation is one of those 'where we know what we don't know'
I would not like to be thought of as a doom-monger just as somebody who does not know enough to make a flight safety based commercial decision on this topic - sometimes it is great being retired!
I was using the word premature in the sense of earlier than expected. Whether that is measured in simple engine running hours or cycles would depend on what is normal for the particular engine.
By 'certain' contaminants I was referring to those that at HPT blade temperatures change their nature to a 'glass' like material that has been known to flow and coat surfaces.
Sadly I think this whole situation is one of those 'where we know what we don't know'
I would not like to be thought of as a doom-monger just as somebody who does not know enough to make a flight safety based commercial decision on this topic - sometimes it is great being retired!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or has anybody else noticed that the clouds have a brownish tinge to them? Just my observation whilst flying down T9 to the Canaries on Friday morning. It also may just be a coincidence but the whole of the cabin and flight deck stank very strongly of burning paper on engine shut down on stand.
The cabin crew senior reported the fumes to be like someone had just struck a box full of matches, all the passengers were very concerned. Duration of the fumes lasted about 7 to 8 minutes and I opened the DV to get fresh air into the flight deck. The engineer could not find anything obvious after a thorough inspection, neither could I during the walk round
The same thing happened the next day on the sane aircraft.
BR.
The cabin crew senior reported the fumes to be like someone had just struck a box full of matches, all the passengers were very concerned. Duration of the fumes lasted about 7 to 8 minutes and I opened the DV to get fresh air into the flight deck. The engineer could not find anything obvious after a thorough inspection, neither could I during the walk round
The same thing happened the next day on the sane aircraft.
BR.
I still haven't seen a reply to what was different about this eruption compared to the thousands of others that have happened since the advent of turbine engines, which have had no ill effects reported beyond a few where the aircraft was actually close enough to be visual with the eruption, and which were avoided by all other aircraft by common sense rather than a continent-wide ban.
When Mount St. Helens blew in 1980, for example, the ash generated was so thick that snowploughs had to be deployed on roads well downwind, yet there were only local aviation closures and diversions, and no adverse effects were reported from the continuing use of other airports and airways beyond the immediate and obvious zone. Why was a different approach taken this time, and what was the basis for it ?
When Mount St. Helens blew in 1980, for example, the ash generated was so thick that snowploughs had to be deployed on roads well downwind, yet there were only local aviation closures and diversions, and no adverse effects were reported from the continuing use of other airports and airways beyond the immediate and obvious zone. Why was a different approach taken this time, and what was the basis for it ?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately this thread has deteriorated into a series of hypothetical arguments between 3 or 4 protagonists on one side and most of the aviation society on the other. Some people do not seem to be able to differentiate between risk, safety, commercial decisions, personal choice and living life as a human being. Sorry to bring Capt. Moody up again, but since his encounter with volcanic ash, many people have unfortunately been killed in aircraft accidents of one sort or another, but none to my knowledge as a result of their jet being affected by said ash. Even though it, or ash like it has been present in the air ever since.
Engineering, and especially engine monitoring, has moved on leaps and bounds in the last 30 years and that leads directly to safer flying and also (believe it or not) better commercial decisions and therefore cost saving, which in turn is passed onto passengers.
From the moment you are born life is a risk and when you become old enough to make your own decisions then your risk assessment of a situation will determine the way you live that life. Unless you are a deportee, nobody will ever be forced to get on an aircraft. If you feel the aircraft is unsafe and don't want to travel that is a decision for the individual, but please leave commercial decisions about engine life etc. to the people who have the data in front of them and not a rumour forum.
Now mind how you drive home because in the last 25 years nobody has been killed in the air by volcanic ash, but 100 000 people have been killed on UK roads. What's the difference in risk involved in that?
Engineering, and especially engine monitoring, has moved on leaps and bounds in the last 30 years and that leads directly to safer flying and also (believe it or not) better commercial decisions and therefore cost saving, which in turn is passed onto passengers.
From the moment you are born life is a risk and when you become old enough to make your own decisions then your risk assessment of a situation will determine the way you live that life. Unless you are a deportee, nobody will ever be forced to get on an aircraft. If you feel the aircraft is unsafe and don't want to travel that is a decision for the individual, but please leave commercial decisions about engine life etc. to the people who have the data in front of them and not a rumour forum.
Now mind how you drive home because in the last 25 years nobody has been killed in the air by volcanic ash, but 100 000 people have been killed on UK roads. What's the difference in risk involved in that?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no "centrifuging" of air in a turbine engine. Unless you consider free turbine engines which generally use a centrifugal compressor, but then these have no bypass! Centrifuging in a bypass jet engine just does not occur!
When I last took a bird, it most definitely WAS centrifuged (and diced).
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
windytoo, you're spot on. This is just hypothetical argument. I'm certainly one of the few who seem to have a problem with what happened, so I accept I may well be a protaganist. Unfortunately we keep bouncing back and forth about what the risk is or isn't. Yet, I maintain my probelm is not so much with whatever apparent risk may have been out there but with the manner in which it was handled and ultimately decicded to not exist.
I just get tired of people telling me no aircraft have crashed from ash in the past as if that means there is no risk. Then when the same people admit that ash does carry risk, they then say as long as you not within a few hundred miles of the eruption you're OK. Get your hands on one of the early satellite images from last Thursday and tell me you would have been happy flying over Scotland or Scandinavia. Yet we should be fine since we're so far away. And on and on the argument goes.
Cars and road deaths compared to ash encounters is just pathetic IMHO. If you are a pilot then you train twice a year for an engine failure at V1, brief for it every single day and plan for it on every single departure at HUGE COST to the industry in lost payload and excess engine wear. Yet how many engine failures at V1 have occured over the last 50 years. The one in MAN recently was the latest I know of and maybe a handful before that. That makes it much less likely than a car crash, so why bother worrying about it by your logic. Apples and Oranges mate.
I'm just frustrated that we seem to be happy with a completely rushed assessment of the danger which flies in the face of previous thinking without proper analysis, for a problem that would go away, at least for the short term, within a matter of days.
Talk all you like about risk only being in the immediate vicinity of an eruption. Research aircraft found visible and significant layers of ash in UK airspace. One of these aircraft was grounded to due the risk of possible damage sustained. Military jets suffered damage in various areas and were grounded. Civilian airliners have had suspected damage. Why oh why is that so easy to ignore? I suppose all involved were just drinking heavily the night before and don't really know what they're talking about. All the talk about visible ash being the only issue is all rubbish also. How many ash clouds have you seen from the air? How can you all be so sure you'd be able to recognise it? It's not some black gritty looking cloud for Christ's sake. What about embedded ash? On and on it goes. I tell ya my head is sore from banging it off this wall.
Pace, check the latest London VAAC charts.
But, as I said you're right, this is a circular argument and maybe I'm just missing the point entirely. Maybe ini years to come I'll look back and say what a **** I was to have been so worried. Let's hope that's the case. So I at least will leave it there. Safe flying everyone.
I just get tired of people telling me no aircraft have crashed from ash in the past as if that means there is no risk. Then when the same people admit that ash does carry risk, they then say as long as you not within a few hundred miles of the eruption you're OK. Get your hands on one of the early satellite images from last Thursday and tell me you would have been happy flying over Scotland or Scandinavia. Yet we should be fine since we're so far away. And on and on the argument goes.
Cars and road deaths compared to ash encounters is just pathetic IMHO. If you are a pilot then you train twice a year for an engine failure at V1, brief for it every single day and plan for it on every single departure at HUGE COST to the industry in lost payload and excess engine wear. Yet how many engine failures at V1 have occured over the last 50 years. The one in MAN recently was the latest I know of and maybe a handful before that. That makes it much less likely than a car crash, so why bother worrying about it by your logic. Apples and Oranges mate.
I'm just frustrated that we seem to be happy with a completely rushed assessment of the danger which flies in the face of previous thinking without proper analysis, for a problem that would go away, at least for the short term, within a matter of days.
Talk all you like about risk only being in the immediate vicinity of an eruption. Research aircraft found visible and significant layers of ash in UK airspace. One of these aircraft was grounded to due the risk of possible damage sustained. Military jets suffered damage in various areas and were grounded. Civilian airliners have had suspected damage. Why oh why is that so easy to ignore? I suppose all involved were just drinking heavily the night before and don't really know what they're talking about. All the talk about visible ash being the only issue is all rubbish also. How many ash clouds have you seen from the air? How can you all be so sure you'd be able to recognise it? It's not some black gritty looking cloud for Christ's sake. What about embedded ash? On and on it goes. I tell ya my head is sore from banging it off this wall.
Pace, check the latest London VAAC charts.
But, as I said you're right, this is a circular argument and maybe I'm just missing the point entirely. Maybe ini years to come I'll look back and say what a **** I was to have been so worried. Let's hope that's the case. So I at least will leave it there. Safe flying everyone.
Last edited by captainpaddy; 26th Apr 2010 at 12:07.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will continue to debate this til the cows come home. There will be no resolution until there is something in writing from both the manufacturer and the regulator that clearly states a policy.
For instance, unless the manual states "approved for flight in icing", would you launch into an area of forecast icing on the premise that it would be possible to see and avoid icing conditions, i.e. mk 1 eyeball style.
I was once faced with a dilemma that that set "legal" against common sense.
Location: tropical island
Temp 32C
Weather:3/8 Cu/SC
1 Pitot heat failed, spares 24 hrs away.
Sector: 50nm, not above 6,000'
Freezing lvl:15,000'
Mel: Pitot heat, No. fitted 2, No. reqd 2
I was a new Capt. raring to go, but as my C.P said, if you blew a tyre you would get nailed for the MEL infraction even if it had nothing to do with it.
For instance, unless the manual states "approved for flight in icing", would you launch into an area of forecast icing on the premise that it would be possible to see and avoid icing conditions, i.e. mk 1 eyeball style.
I was once faced with a dilemma that that set "legal" against common sense.
Location: tropical island
Temp 32C
Weather:3/8 Cu/SC
1 Pitot heat failed, spares 24 hrs away.
Sector: 50nm, not above 6,000'
Freezing lvl:15,000'
Mel: Pitot heat, No. fitted 2, No. reqd 2
I was a new Capt. raring to go, but as my C.P said, if you blew a tyre you would get nailed for the MEL infraction even if it had nothing to do with it.
Originally Posted by Seat0A
Have any of you actually been up there this last week?
Originally Posted by Seat0A
Are any of you actually airline pilots?
Originally Posted by Seat0A
If so: have you refused to fly this week?
Guess If I'm extremely unlucky, new guidelines regarding the allowed VA contamination will ensure that my life coverage is paid in full to my dependents.
Slight downside is that I'm not a cargo pilot.