Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
volcanic hazard and aviation safety
for those interested there is a document on volcanic hazard and aviation safety available through the CAA website:
some numbers are quoted on costs of repair and replacement after encounters with volcanic ash (eg 80milUSD for B747-400 damaged by an ash cloud from Reddoubt Volcano, Alaska, in Dec 1989)
...Complete avoidance of volcanic ash clouds is the only procedure that guarantees flight safety.
some numbers are quoted on costs of repair and replacement after encounters with volcanic ash (eg 80milUSD for B747-400 damaged by an ash cloud from Reddoubt Volcano, Alaska, in Dec 1989)
...Complete avoidance of volcanic ash clouds is the only procedure that guarantees flight safety.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen the word coward thrown about here more than once and I fail to understand the usage in this situation. Are we at war? Is there a common enemy we need to band together against and press on no matter the consequences?
They are flying till the first accident. Russians always learn on their own mistakes.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CargoOne + 411A:
are you suggesting that the cargo operations should start first?
So if it would prove to be safe the people carrying could safely start after some real operations data is gathered - this might be a good approach to investigate.
The only question is - would this operation be insured?
are you suggesting that the cargo operations should start first?
So if it would prove to be safe the people carrying could safely start after some real operations data is gathered - this might be a good approach to investigate.
The only question is - would this operation be insured?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot, former engineer and now an Air Traffic Controller here is my 2 cents.
I believe that any pilot complaining about the decision to close airspace has his right to his opinion. He does not pay maintence bills and in all likely hood has no idea of the cost of maintence and the actual threat that volcanic ash poses to the components of an engine. There is enough evidence shown on this thread of the immediate results of ash ingestion to a gas turbine engine, e.g the finnish airforce f18 photos on page 31 or so.
From an ATC perspective, the law states that we may not clear an IFR aircraft to operate in an area known to be affected or forecast to be effected by volcanic ash. So why is there an argument here about the decision that was made to close airspace?
Personally I believe any pilot willing to fly in such conditions carrying passengers is irresponsible and this industry has no place for such people.
The economic effects of this volcano are dire, but nothing compared to what would happen when a few airliners crash because of it.
I believe that any pilot complaining about the decision to close airspace has his right to his opinion. He does not pay maintence bills and in all likely hood has no idea of the cost of maintence and the actual threat that volcanic ash poses to the components of an engine. There is enough evidence shown on this thread of the immediate results of ash ingestion to a gas turbine engine, e.g the finnish airforce f18 photos on page 31 or so.
From an ATC perspective, the law states that we may not clear an IFR aircraft to operate in an area known to be affected or forecast to be effected by volcanic ash. So why is there an argument here about the decision that was made to close airspace?
Personally I believe any pilot willing to fly in such conditions carrying passengers is irresponsible and this industry has no place for such people.
The economic effects of this volcano are dire, but nothing compared to what would happen when a few airliners crash because of it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Age: 57
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balance of risk
Having read all of this thread so far, I have not seen much on the evaluation of the dangers and risks of shutting down of airspace.
The decision to close down aviation will certainly reduce the risk of an accident, and will save some lives just by reducing the hours flown, and the amount of duty free cigarettes and alcohol sold -but it will also probably cause many deaths and injuries and other effects - which need to be understood so that the decision can be taken balancing the risks.
Some that can think of are:
(1) Immediate loss of life / injury caused by lack of air ambulance flights, stress related illneses, people being forced to stay in countries with less sanitation etc. loss of supply of drugs
(2) Displacement deaths: More deaths on roads, ferries, etc. due to increased traffic
(3) Economically related deaths. Millions in africa rely on air transported products (flowers,fruits, veg) to earn wages - their lower standard of living will cause deaths. Pilots, cabin crew, airport staff and their families will earn less money - generally less money means higher death rates
(4) Indirect loss of life due to loss of progress of life saving drugs (less business meetings etc.)
(5) Dangers due to loss of flying experience if pilots have periods of many weeks without flying
(6) Increased chance of death caused by soldiers in Afghanistan etc having to extend their tours of duty, and reduced interaction between govenrnemnts possibly increasing tensions / frictions etc.
Whatever these risks are, they demonstrate that somebody who knows only about the risks of volcanic ash and aviation can not be the decision maker about whether or not to shut down aviation. It needs to be somebody who can balance the risks of flying with the risks of not-flying.
For example, in the UK, around 3,000 people die in road accidents caused by motor cars each day, but presumably lives would be lost by banning all motorised road transport, not least of which would be horse related.
On that basis, I wonder who the decision maker really is, and where they are looking for the data to balance with?
The decision to close down aviation will certainly reduce the risk of an accident, and will save some lives just by reducing the hours flown, and the amount of duty free cigarettes and alcohol sold -but it will also probably cause many deaths and injuries and other effects - which need to be understood so that the decision can be taken balancing the risks.
Some that can think of are:
(1) Immediate loss of life / injury caused by lack of air ambulance flights, stress related illneses, people being forced to stay in countries with less sanitation etc. loss of supply of drugs
(2) Displacement deaths: More deaths on roads, ferries, etc. due to increased traffic
(3) Economically related deaths. Millions in africa rely on air transported products (flowers,fruits, veg) to earn wages - their lower standard of living will cause deaths. Pilots, cabin crew, airport staff and their families will earn less money - generally less money means higher death rates
(4) Indirect loss of life due to loss of progress of life saving drugs (less business meetings etc.)
(5) Dangers due to loss of flying experience if pilots have periods of many weeks without flying
(6) Increased chance of death caused by soldiers in Afghanistan etc having to extend their tours of duty, and reduced interaction between govenrnemnts possibly increasing tensions / frictions etc.
Whatever these risks are, they demonstrate that somebody who knows only about the risks of volcanic ash and aviation can not be the decision maker about whether or not to shut down aviation. It needs to be somebody who can balance the risks of flying with the risks of not-flying.
For example, in the UK, around 3,000 people die in road accidents caused by motor cars each day, but presumably lives would be lost by banning all motorised road transport, not least of which would be horse related.
On that basis, I wonder who the decision maker really is, and where they are looking for the data to balance with?
Lucky G Bush still doesn't run the states, I'm sure iceland would be invaded to find the weapon of mass disruption.
I am sure the ash has thinned out for the most part. But what if there are still areas that have not. I would have thought they would have done a bit more work on this to workout how much you could fly through.
I am sure the ash has thinned out for the most part. But what if there are still areas that have not. I would have thought they would have done a bit more work on this to workout how much you could fly through.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This absolute total closure is insane
Take a look at this document:
"Issues arising from the 4th International Workshop on Volcanic Ash"
This document was the result of a meeting held by the ICAO INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS VOLCANO WATCH OPERATIONS GROUP held in Paris, september 2008.
Especially paragragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 are interesting. Allow me to quote the document:
Next please read the remark at the bottom of the LONDON VAAC Charts. It says:
Combine these two and anybody with a little common sense should realise that the COMPLETE closure of the "affected" airspace is completely insane! Military aircraft should be up there NOW 24 hrs/day looking for those parts of the airspace where ask can be observed. Combine these observations with satellite imagery from visible ash clouds and concentrations and warn operators to stay clear of these areas and these areas only. Then perhaps impose a tighter maintenance schedule imposing boroscopic engine inspections every month or so.
And before anybody comes back with the NASA DC8 case: this flight happened on a dark moonless night!
I live here about 50 NM west of Brussels. The weather here is great: absolutely cloudless, blue sky with almost unlimited visibility. Give me an A320 and I'll be glad to make a test flight in this airspace at any altitude between MSL and FL390. Yes, I'll even take my kids along on the flight, but I will stay clear of ALL visible ash clouds.
I'm pretty convinced that time will tell that all this is an extreme overreaction.
This is not just a better-safe-then-sorry-matter, but an extreme and very costly example of a cover-your-arse-policy by the decision makers!
Best regards,
Sabenaboy
PS: @ one post only, replying to his post 757: I will apologise if later it turns out that completely closing the airspace was a good decision. Will you be so brave to apologise to all those you insult by your remark, when time will tell that this was indeed an insane overreaction?
"Issues arising from the 4th International Workshop on Volcanic Ash"
This document was the result of a meeting held by the ICAO INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS VOLCANO WATCH OPERATIONS GROUP held in Paris, september 2008.
Especially paragragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 are interesting. Allow me to quote the document:
"Secondly, the past paragraph of the workshop summary suggested that ‘clear limits of ash content are required from both the manufacturers and aviation licensing authorities’. This refers to an indisputably difficult and longstanding problem; that there is no defined lower limit on ash concentration. As remote sensing techniques improve, it is likely that the aggregate areas where ash is sensed or inferred will increase, possibly leading to over-warning for ash and cost-blowouts for airlines"
"RMK: ASH CONCENTRATIONS WITHIN INDICATED AREAS ARE UNKNOWN"
Combine these two and anybody with a little common sense should realise that the COMPLETE closure of the "affected" airspace is completely insane! Military aircraft should be up there NOW 24 hrs/day looking for those parts of the airspace where ask can be observed. Combine these observations with satellite imagery from visible ash clouds and concentrations and warn operators to stay clear of these areas and these areas only. Then perhaps impose a tighter maintenance schedule imposing boroscopic engine inspections every month or so.
And before anybody comes back with the NASA DC8 case: this flight happened on a dark moonless night!
I live here about 50 NM west of Brussels. The weather here is great: absolutely cloudless, blue sky with almost unlimited visibility. Give me an A320 and I'll be glad to make a test flight in this airspace at any altitude between MSL and FL390. Yes, I'll even take my kids along on the flight, but I will stay clear of ALL visible ash clouds.
I'm pretty convinced that time will tell that all this is an extreme overreaction.
This is not just a better-safe-then-sorry-matter, but an extreme and very costly example of a cover-your-arse-policy by the decision makers!
Best regards,
Sabenaboy
PS: @ one post only, replying to his post 757: I will apologise if later it turns out that completely closing the airspace was a good decision. Will you be so brave to apologise to all those you insult by your remark, when time will tell that this was indeed an insane overreaction?
And also I am sure there are many carriers that will be laughing all the way to the bank. With fewer european carriers, less competition for the asians, arabs, aussies and yanks. Lufhthansa doesn't have a plan in the air, that is quite costly for a 400+ fleet.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I can't understand is that there are many airports in the world which have reduced visibiity due to pollution e.g. Dehli, Hong Kong etc - the pollution particles causing the restriction in visibility.
However, I can sit here in Scotland on a beautiful fresh Sunday morning with clear blue skies and unlimited visibiility in every direction but according to the met office I am covered by an ash cloud - are we actually saying that the ash particles don't restrict visibility in any way at all ?????????
However, I can sit here in Scotland on a beautiful fresh Sunday morning with clear blue skies and unlimited visibiility in every direction but according to the met office I am covered by an ash cloud - are we actually saying that the ash particles don't restrict visibility in any way at all ?????????
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: middleast
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allrounde99:
Nobody will question the danger of "Flying into Volcanic ash" BUT:
When we are talking about area "affected" by Volcanic ash..WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT...Wich concentration or density..???
i THINK THE CLOSURE OF THE AIRSPACE IS NOTHING BUT A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE AS NOBODY KNOWNS....
We are flying every year through sand storm in the middle east without any closure of airspace or airport with visibilty as low as ..500m even less..(very HIGH concentration of sand ).
So My QUESTION IS: WICH ONE IS WORST FOR THE ENGINE:..FLYING THROUGH THE EUROPEAN BLUE SKY WITH A VERY VERY LOW CONCENTRATION OF VOLCANIC ASH PARTICLES HERE AND THERE OR FLYING INTO A SAND STORM??
Nobody will question the danger of "Flying into Volcanic ash" BUT:
When we are talking about area "affected" by Volcanic ash..WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT...Wich concentration or density..???
i THINK THE CLOSURE OF THE AIRSPACE IS NOTHING BUT A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE AS NOBODY KNOWNS....
We are flying every year through sand storm in the middle east without any closure of airspace or airport with visibilty as low as ..500m even less..(very HIGH concentration of sand ).
So My QUESTION IS: WICH ONE IS WORST FOR THE ENGINE:..FLYING THROUGH THE EUROPEAN BLUE SKY WITH A VERY VERY LOW CONCENTRATION OF VOLCANIC ASH PARTICLES HERE AND THERE OR FLYING INTO A SAND STORM??
Last edited by loc22550; 18th Apr 2010 at 06:44.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@CargoOne
.
Maybe plenty are prepared to do their work as expected, but are not allowed to
Please, CargoOne, fly Monday afternoon and have a nice and safe flight!
Just in case you are having troubles up in the air,due to some irrelevant ash particels, and I really do not hope/wish so, please avoid flying south of Munich, as I am living there....
@411A
Brilliant answer, did the ash cloud reach Arizona already?
but are not prepared to do their work as expected
Maybe plenty are prepared to do their work as expected, but are not allowed to
Please, CargoOne, fly Monday afternoon and have a nice and safe flight!
Just in case you are having troubles up in the air,due to some irrelevant ash particels, and I really do not hope/wish so, please avoid flying south of Munich, as I am living there....
@411A
Brilliant answer, did the ash cloud reach Arizona already?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Military aircraft do not have the necessary sensors. Cranfield, however, does, and has been flying.....
This is just the beginning, warn scientists
.....Yesterday a British scientist described how even modern aircraft technology cannot detect the clouds of ash. Guy Gratton, head of Cranfield University’s facility for airborne atmospheric measurement, took a flight with fellow researchers to gather data.
“Speaking as an aeronautical engineer, I would not want to be putting an airliner up there at the moment,” said Gratton.
“There is a lot of fairly nasty stuff there that we were running away from, knowing what we did. We have standard airline instruments on the aeroplane, we have got a storm scope and we have got a weather radar and they were looking straight through it."
"Neither of those were seeing any of this stuff. It was only our specialist cloud physics instruments that were able to see the particles.”
This is just the beginning, warn scientists
.....Yesterday a British scientist described how even modern aircraft technology cannot detect the clouds of ash. Guy Gratton, head of Cranfield University’s facility for airborne atmospheric measurement, took a flight with fellow researchers to gather data.
“Speaking as an aeronautical engineer, I would not want to be putting an airliner up there at the moment,” said Gratton.
“There is a lot of fairly nasty stuff there that we were running away from, knowing what we did. We have standard airline instruments on the aeroplane, we have got a storm scope and we have got a weather radar and they were looking straight through it."
"Neither of those were seeing any of this stuff. It was only our specialist cloud physics instruments that were able to see the particles.”
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
The volcanic ashes in big concentration can also cause a visibility restriction.
It's not really the problem actually.
The problem with the volcanic ashes (or volcanic particles) is that they act in a particular way when they are ingested in the jet engines ..
By a physical process (cause heat) they will not only make damages but they will also melt and stick on parts of the engine (turbine blades etc )
So continue to enjoy your beautiful blue sky from the ground .. it's the best place to be actually 
the pollution particles causing the restriction in visibility.
It's not really the problem actually.
The problem with the volcanic ashes (or volcanic particles) is that they act in a particular way when they are ingested in the jet engines ..
By a physical process (cause heat) they will not only make damages but they will also melt and stick on parts of the engine (turbine blades etc )
However, I can sit here in Scotland on a beautiful fresh Sunday morning with clear blue skies and unlimited visibiility
Last edited by jcjeant; 18th Apr 2010 at 06:41.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what, maybe, just maybe, the governments of the Northern european countries which have clamped down on flying are trying to protect their population from the 'brave', gung ho, let me leap into my flying machine and ignoring all dangers take to the skies type of person. Just as they do by requiring flying machines to have a valid airworthiness certificate and the pilots of those machines to have a valid licence for the type.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets theorise that this disaster continues to cripple the european aviation industry for the next month or so or even 3 months. How far a reach will this have on other markets?
Anyone know what percentage of global airline traffic is being affected right now? (or dependent on Euro transit) US domestic market is largely untouched so would it be as high as 40%? more maybe?
Anyone know what percentage of global airline traffic is being affected right now? (or dependent on Euro transit) US domestic market is largely untouched so would it be as high as 40%? more maybe?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Birmingham, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danish Airspace
It has just been reported by several news outlets that Danish airspace is to remain closed until 01:00 (UK Time) tomorrow at the earliest.
Looking at the latest images from the VAAC, I don't think it is likely that anything across the UK and northern Europe will fly today or indeed, tomorrow either, with Tuesday potentially out of the question too looking at the high level wind forecasts.
Looking at the latest images from the VAAC, I don't think it is likely that anything across the UK and northern Europe will fly today or indeed, tomorrow either, with Tuesday potentially out of the question too looking at the high level wind forecasts.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcjeant
The problem with the volcanic ashes (or volcanic particles) is that they act in a particular way when they are ingested in the jet engines ..
By a physical process (cause heat) they will not only make damages but they will also melt and stick on parts of the engine (turbine blades etc )
By a physical process (cause heat) they will not only make damages but they will also melt and stick on parts of the engine (turbine blades etc )
The problem is that no lower level acceptable ash concentration has been defined and decision makers are greatly overreacting.
Read my post nr 817!!