Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Highlow/Sunfish
No airline will risk aircraft or passengers or make false statements following inspections. The industry has wide experience of operating around areas of ash. You forget if the airline executives are found to have taken unnecessary risks with either investors money or public safety they will individually be liable to prosecution in the UK at least.
It really is inflammatory comment to suggest the airlines are flying when it is not safe to do so. It is possible the airlines may suffer from long term costs due premature engine ware but to date as far as I am aware there has not been a single case in my own airline of an ash encounter despite some of the assertions on this web site. However, time will tell. I am also aware that our own inspections have come to much the same conclusion as BA's.
Why is it some seem to need to find a conspiracy to risk public safety? Do you hear the airlines squealing about the latest airspace closures? No because they are sensible and based on the best data we have, not a blanket over reaction. It is possible this volcano will close UK and European airspace again and as long as the guidelines in place now are applied I doubt very much you will hear the airlines arguing as the closure will be based on a sensible policy!
No airline will risk aircraft or passengers or make false statements following inspections. The industry has wide experience of operating around areas of ash. You forget if the airline executives are found to have taken unnecessary risks with either investors money or public safety they will individually be liable to prosecution in the UK at least.
It really is inflammatory comment to suggest the airlines are flying when it is not safe to do so. It is possible the airlines may suffer from long term costs due premature engine ware but to date as far as I am aware there has not been a single case in my own airline of an ash encounter despite some of the assertions on this web site. However, time will tell. I am also aware that our own inspections have come to much the same conclusion as BA's.
Why is it some seem to need to find a conspiracy to risk public safety? Do you hear the airlines squealing about the latest airspace closures? No because they are sensible and based on the best data we have, not a blanket over reaction. It is possible this volcano will close UK and European airspace again and as long as the guidelines in place now are applied I doubt very much you will hear the airlines arguing as the closure will be based on a sensible policy!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suggesting anything of the sort !!! It is human nature to push and push, and I am just worried that commercial pressures will result in us pushing this too far. Look at the NASA Challenger accident, the engineer suspected there could be an issue with the O Rings, but was quickly over ruled due to pressure to get the shuttle airborne.
For the people who were quick to come to the conclusion that I was making inflammatory comments towards BA, I hope this can clarify my position.
These are testing times, and we are all in agreement safety should never be compromised. So lets see how this unfolds....
All i know is ASH and Turbine Jet Engines don't get on well together.
For the people who were quick to come to the conclusion that I was making inflammatory comments towards BA, I hope this can clarify my position.
These are testing times, and we are all in agreement safety should never be compromised. So lets see how this unfolds....
All i know is ASH and Turbine Jet Engines don't get on well together.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@pace
Pace,
I've been trying to reply to your PM, but have been unable to do so because your inbox is full and you disabled e-mail "reachability" Please clear some old messages in your inbox.
Sabenaboy
I've been trying to reply to your PM, but have been unable to do so because your inbox is full and you disabled e-mail "reachability" Please clear some old messages in your inbox.
Sabenaboy
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident is therefore completely irrelevant when discussing what forecasts / measurements / levels should be used to close airspace, because it occurred in airspace that would have been open under any regime.
Furthermore,this "invisible but dangerous" ash is either a freak/one-off, so there is only this one incident, or it is common but we only know of this one incident because the a/c happended to have the instruments on board. If it's a one-off then it is irrelevant for safety or commercial considerations, if it's not, then other a/c have been flying (unknowingly) through the same stuff for years, so we already know the maintenance cost.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Key problem is the precision of the data!
OK - chances are that 2000 micrograms is low enough not to be a problem for that particular flight.
But what about the variation in ash density that the aircraft actually encounters? It might be lower or marginally higher than the magic 2000.
OK - chances are that 2000 micrograms is low enough not to be a problem for that particular flight.
But what about the variation in ash density that the aircraft actually encounters? It might be lower or marginally higher than the magic 2000.
Also there's the question of cumulative exposures and what that does to projected remaining on-wing life.
Personally, I do think that long term there will be some increase in maint costs and reduced engine life, but not significant. A few nutters with fizzy drink bottles, and the reaction thereto, have probably cost the industry more.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Highlow
I take your point but I really do not believe the airlines are pushing in the way you fear. We operate around ash a lot in certain parts of the world and the airlines are well aware of the problems and risks associated with ash clouds.
I appreciate your analogy but this is a very different situation to Challenger and this is not perhaps the thread to get in to why. The airlines will not push to fly if they feel it is unsafe they just want a sensible policy that exists in areas of the world where ash encounters are common.
However, I do understand your concerns but I really believe the situation is now being managed appropriately and as time goes by the authorities will improve the way they manage the airspace with better models and detection methods. The one silver lining is we will get unified airspace over europe sooner rather than later this will, if done properly, improve efficiency, reducing fuel burn and time en-route.
I take your point but I really do not believe the airlines are pushing in the way you fear. We operate around ash a lot in certain parts of the world and the airlines are well aware of the problems and risks associated with ash clouds.
I appreciate your analogy but this is a very different situation to Challenger and this is not perhaps the thread to get in to why. The airlines will not push to fly if they feel it is unsafe they just want a sensible policy that exists in areas of the world where ash encounters are common.
However, I do understand your concerns but I really believe the situation is now being managed appropriately and as time goes by the authorities will improve the way they manage the airspace with better models and detection methods. The one silver lining is we will get unified airspace over europe sooner rather than later this will, if done properly, improve efficiency, reducing fuel burn and time en-route.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tagron, does it say what aircraft these inspections have been carried out on?
If all 24 engines are from shorthaul aircraft flying around Europe then this data could be very useful and very positive news.
However if its from the long haul fleet(s) spending significantly less time in the areas of volcanic ash then perhaps the data is less useful?
If all 24 engines are from shorthaul aircraft flying around Europe then this data could be very useful and very positive news.
However if its from the long haul fleet(s) spending significantly less time in the areas of volcanic ash then perhaps the data is less useful?
one post only !
The straight answer to your question is "No", there was no such indication in that article..
However, I infer from a BA statement of two weeks ago that they are likely to be the longhaul aircraft that landed at LHR/LGW on the evening of April 20 when UK airspace was first reopened, i.e.B747/767/777. Can anyone else confirm this ?
It might be of interest to recall that on that day the UKMO chart forecast of possible ash in the height band SFC-FL200 showed it covering not only the UK but most of western and some of central Europe. At the same time Eurocontrol had published a chart showing areas of forecast high ash concentration that could have presented a safety issue. This chart looked totally different. The areas affected were confined to the Atlantic, i.e not over UK or Western Europe at all.
And this helps explain BA's rationale in dispatching those flights. They were planned to land if necessary at other European airports, and some did just that, in Ireland, France, Belgium, Netherlands Germany and Spain because all that airspace was already open based presumably on the Eurocontrol forecast, not the UKMO version on which the British authorities were relying. And then UK airspace opened....
However, I infer from a BA statement of two weeks ago that they are likely to be the longhaul aircraft that landed at LHR/LGW on the evening of April 20 when UK airspace was first reopened, i.e.B747/767/777. Can anyone else confirm this ?
It might be of interest to recall that on that day the UKMO chart forecast of possible ash in the height band SFC-FL200 showed it covering not only the UK but most of western and some of central Europe. At the same time Eurocontrol had published a chart showing areas of forecast high ash concentration that could have presented a safety issue. This chart looked totally different. The areas affected were confined to the Atlantic, i.e not over UK or Western Europe at all.
And this helps explain BA's rationale in dispatching those flights. They were planned to land if necessary at other European airports, and some did just that, in Ireland, France, Belgium, Netherlands Germany and Spain because all that airspace was already open based presumably on the Eurocontrol forecast, not the UKMO version on which the British authorities were relying. And then UK airspace opened....
I think most professional pilots are familiar with significant weather charts and many are also familiar with oceanic tracks. But regardless, the chart sort of speaks for itself concerning the forecast location of the ash clouds.
However, my reason for posting this is that you don't get to see this orientation of the oceanic tracks (A through G) every day! That is some routing if you want to fly from, say, London to New York!
However, my reason for posting this is that you don't get to see this orientation of the oceanic tracks (A through G) every day! That is some routing if you want to fly from, say, London to New York!
Last edited by xetroV; 7th May 2010 at 17:12.
As for the data on the DC8 incident in 2000 being "Old", I note that the engines on it are CFM 56 - variants of which are fitted to aircraft today. More modern engines are only going to have higher T's and P's in the hot section as that determines thermodynamic efficiency.
I note that the DC8 had a "one off" experience with Ash. I also note that the Atlantic route is not flown "one off".
The report also gives the lie to the statement that there has never been damage associated with this event. As at 2000:
The engineers have said 2000 micrograms. That is the end of the story until the boffins have decided otherwise.
I would imagine that somewhere a test cell is being modified to allow ash ingestion to be studied in more detail.
I note that the DC8 had a "one off" experience with Ash. I also note that the Atlantic route is not flown "one off".
The report also gives the lie to the statement that there has never been damage associated with this event. As at 2000:
More than 100 commercial aircraft have unexpectedly encountered volcanic ash in flight and at airports in the past 20 years. Eight of these encounters caused varying degrees of in-flight loss of jet engine power (ref. 1). In some cases this nearly resulted in the crash of the airplane. Reference 5 explains that a range of damage may occur to aircraft that fly through an eruption cloud depending on the concentration of volcanic ash and gas aerosols in the cloud, the length of time the aircraft actually spends in the cloud, and the actions taken by the pilots to exit the cloud.
The engineers have said 2000 micrograms. That is the end of the story until the boffins have decided otherwise.
I would imagine that somewhere a test cell is being modified to allow ash ingestion to be studied in more detail.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report also gives the lie to the statement that there has never been damage associated with this event. As at 2000:
More than 100 commercial aircraft have unexpectedly encountered volcanic ash in flight and at airports in the past 20 years. Eight of these encounters caused varying degrees of in-flight loss of jet engine power (ref. 1). In some cases this nearly resulted in the crash of the airplane...
(Note - for the record, there are a few incidents where the details from the crew/airline/NAA are sufficiently sketchy you can draw no conclusion as to the flight conditions - or sometimes the day or if the crew noticed at the time)
MM Flynn:
Go ahead, buy an aircraft fitted with jet engines worth millions of dollars and become your own test pilot.
The Gurus have spoken, and their word is law.
And when you read the 100 reports you will see in virtually every incident that the aircraft flew through or 'just around' an ash cloud with clearly visible features (St Elmos fire, sand blasting of windows, cabin filling with dust, black cloud of bits of gravel from volcano directly underneath, etc). The crews may have not noticed the cloud was ash vs. water or they may not have been able to avoid due to being night ... but they were clear clouds rather than very low ackground concentrations in clear blue 100km viz sky that are the basis of your concern.
(Note - for the record, there are a few incidents where the details from the crew/airline/NAA are sufficiently sketchy you can draw no conclusion as to the flight conditions - or sometimes the day or if the crew noticed at the time)
(Note - for the record, there are a few incidents where the details from the crew/airline/NAA are sufficiently sketchy you can draw no conclusion as to the flight conditions - or sometimes the day or if the crew noticed at the time)
The Gurus have spoken, and their word is law.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latest London VAAC NWP Volcanic Ash Concentration Charts
Have a look at the latest London VAAC NWP Volcanic Ash Concentration Charts.
It looks like there's going to be a lot of problems in NE Spain by 1200Z tomorrow.
It looks like there's going to be a lot of problems in NE Spain by 1200Z tomorrow.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A clear satellite image of the plume around noon today, stretching south from Iceland until it merges with an area of cloud, (lower centre of this rather large image),
2010/127 12:35 UTC - Terra/MODIS - Rapid Response System
2010/127 12:35 UTC - Terra/MODIS - Rapid Response System