Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stereotyping you thing, Admiral? I rather think it a nationally identifiable characteristic, something along the lines of German efficiency and fondness for logic. In the case of the Dutch, though, their reflexive recourse to arrogance may well be considered cautionary. Something for the thought processes of KLM passengers, perhaps.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: >>>My profile has been hacked by a stupid 20 yo moderator<<<...somewhere where people don't speak english! don't point at my mistakes unless you are at ICAO level 7.
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes yes, open the sky.
who cares about safety these days!!!!??...up to passengers to take the risk or not
pilots who pay to fly (pf2) would be glad to fly with passengers despite geting sick or catching cancer!
i dont see the difference of risk when flying in ash or with P2f pilots!
who cares about safety these days!!!!??...up to passengers to take the risk or not
pilots who pay to fly (pf2) would be glad to fly with passengers despite geting sick or catching cancer!
i dont see the difference of risk when flying in ash or with P2f pilots!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi Global Warrior
lets get some facts straight:
see the data from MetOffice - seems that they may have some real data gathered all the time
.. got the engines relighted and immediately landed in Jakarta for major engine overhaul. Why did they not continue further to Australia as planned? if SOP were obeyed then why not obeying them now?
he is a scientist working on air pollution so has some credibility. He had some scientific equipment up there with him and took measurements that can be easily read and analyzed. When asked for opinion he gave it.
Nobody says that any jet flying into the ash cloud will fall out of the sky - it will suffer some damage which may be even catastrophic if damage is slowly progressing over time spent in the area with ash. So far nobody has technology to measure this and hence the reluctance to say its OK to fly commercial jets.
and this is exactly what is going on. Just remeber that the volcano started Apr 14th only nad we are talking about the decisons valid for (almost) whole Europe with several big and may smaller operators.
(1) the ash is deadly concentration is hardly visible, in harmful concentration is NOT visible
(2) the additional time for precise inspection would make the flight shedules go bust so the new schedules would be needed. How much time is needed to work out a new schedules for all interested? A month?
you are absolutely right on this
BUT with ad personam remarks you do not help to reach conclusions and start to work together on finding a solution
lets get some facts straight:
Theres too much going on here that is just too vague. For a start the area of volcanic ash is a best guess anyway based on a model that has no input with actual location of volcanic ash being as it cant be measured. Therefore, it could be far far more wide spread than we think, or significantly less wide spread.
Thats fine people but the notion that suddenly an aeroplane is going to fall out of the sky if a test flight is conducted is just ludicrous. For those that have even bothered to examine the BA9 incident, even they, after flying in the most concentrated part of the ash cloud, got all 4 engines running again once they descended out of it so comments like
One "aeronautical engineer" is wheeled out after a flight in a Dornier, that BTW DID NOT CRASH and says that he wouldnt want to put airliners up there. Sadly he has lost all credibility as it was HIS PERSONAL OPINION released immediately after he returned........ there had not been any time to examine the data recovered. Maybe he smelt sulphur and that clouded his judgement but firing off like that was nothing more than him getting his 15 minutes of fame.
Nobody says that any jet flying into the ash cloud will fall out of the sky - it will suffer some damage which may be even catastrophic if damage is slowly progressing over time spent in the area with ash. So far nobody has technology to measure this and hence the reluctance to say its OK to fly commercial jets.
...Therefore we should start slowly and with certain restrictions in place and then move on once data has been gathered.
So a start could be, for example, to let 4 engined aircraft operate, within the assumed affected area in Daylight hours only and outside of visible cloud and then inspect said aircraft for engine damage on a continual basis and as we build a knowledge base, move forward.
(2) the additional time for precise inspection would make the flight shedules go bust so the new schedules would be needed. How much time is needed to work out a new schedules for all interested? A month?
Scaremongering isnt going to help anybody and neither is bravado. Moving forward, step by small step will allow us all to learn
BUT with ad personam remarks you do not help to reach conclusions and start to work together on finding a solution
On the news: all french airports closed
then you look at Aéroport Toulouse-Blagnac
and see that 3 long-haul flights to the west are scheduled and boarding..
then you look at Aéroport Toulouse-Blagnac
and see that 3 long-haul flights to the west are scheduled and boarding..
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<snip>so when HEATHROW DIRECTOR says.....not with me on board..... GOOD get back to West Drayton and do the job that you are actually qualified to comment on 
BD
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's already pretty obvious that flying through it for a few minutes on the way up/down won't have a big effect unless the ash is really concentrated.
Any ideas what the LPC and HPC sections are in an engine?
Here's a clue, Low Pressure Compressor Section, High Pressure Compressor section.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In my summer house
Age: 74
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leo,
Please do not be so insulting to the Dutch.
Sooner rather than later, someone is going to have to take the responsibility for the decision to permit flight through or above a very diluted volcanic ash cloud. That will be an unenviable decision and hopefully it will be based on scientific, measured facts. The Dutch have been the brave ones to take that first step to collecting data for the basis of that decision.
The acceptable level of dilution and distance/time from the source volcano have yet to be decided, BUT THAT DECISION TO FLY WILL HAVE TO BE MADE. The alternative of keeping all commercial aviation grounded for all of whatever the future duration of the Icelandic volcanic activity is simply not imaginable (by me at any rate).
For example, BA 9 still flies over the volcanoes of Indonesia and the low level volcanic cloud is easily visible from altitude when overflying. Remember also that the KLM 744 in Dec 89 and the BA9 in Jun 82 were both relativly close to the source volcanoes and flew through the plumes which were not visible due to darkness.
The examination of the flight data from the KLM trial flight should also include a microscopic examination of the bleed systems and also the surfaces of the windscreens and fuselage. We need to know what was the concentration levels of ash in the trial airspace. We need data urgently to build a knowledgebase of acceptable dilution to the ash cloud. In addition, we need an industry analysis of the level of acceptable risk involved in flying in clear air above the ash. The current ash cloud warning states that there is no significant risk above FL350. Collecting data now will prevent the decision being based solely on financial pressure. That pressure should rightly be feared by each one of us.
Looking ahead, the alternative of staying on the ground until the volcano stops spewing could spell economic disaster for European Union states not to mention the demise of many European airlines.
Please do not be so insulting to the Dutch.
Sooner rather than later, someone is going to have to take the responsibility for the decision to permit flight through or above a very diluted volcanic ash cloud. That will be an unenviable decision and hopefully it will be based on scientific, measured facts. The Dutch have been the brave ones to take that first step to collecting data for the basis of that decision.
The acceptable level of dilution and distance/time from the source volcano have yet to be decided, BUT THAT DECISION TO FLY WILL HAVE TO BE MADE. The alternative of keeping all commercial aviation grounded for all of whatever the future duration of the Icelandic volcanic activity is simply not imaginable (by me at any rate).
For example, BA 9 still flies over the volcanoes of Indonesia and the low level volcanic cloud is easily visible from altitude when overflying. Remember also that the KLM 744 in Dec 89 and the BA9 in Jun 82 were both relativly close to the source volcanoes and flew through the plumes which were not visible due to darkness.
The examination of the flight data from the KLM trial flight should also include a microscopic examination of the bleed systems and also the surfaces of the windscreens and fuselage. We need to know what was the concentration levels of ash in the trial airspace. We need data urgently to build a knowledgebase of acceptable dilution to the ash cloud. In addition, we need an industry analysis of the level of acceptable risk involved in flying in clear air above the ash. The current ash cloud warning states that there is no significant risk above FL350. Collecting data now will prevent the decision being based solely on financial pressure. That pressure should rightly be feared by each one of us.
Looking ahead, the alternative of staying on the ground until the volcano stops spewing could spell economic disaster for European Union states not to mention the demise of many European airlines.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline finances... The engineering cost implications of resumption of flying...
TRC makes a point in post 892 that I mentioned earlier and that a lot of people seem to fail to grasp.
Well before the eruptions, airlines were doing everything in their power to reduce the cost index of flights and routes - some by taking what would be deemed to be extreme measures to reduce weight and cost (changing size of in flight magazines, changing uniforms to lighter material, taking away little freebies such as the little bags of nuts they used to hand out free with drinks etc).
Some of these measures may seem extreme, of little consequence and maybe even ridiculous, but multiplied over many sectors, it was felt by the 'bean counters' that it would make a significant difference.
BA and many other carriers are taking the steps to cancel well in advance of (in the UK) any announcement by NATS. This is being done partly because logistically it makes sense, however they also must feel that it is justified.
I for one do not believe that aircraft are going to fall out of the sky in vast numbers, however I believe that there will be damage done to engines and airframes etc which will be amplified over many flight hours.
So I suppose my question is to you, the pilots who want to go flying in multi million pound (or dollar) aircraft (that you do not have to pay to maintain, fix or replace) - do you think it is wise for airlnes to fly bearing in mind that any profits they make may well be wiped out and indeed may end up costing them more through the cost of replacing parts etc - some of which may be major?
Airlines will need to weigh up the possibility that engine life may be dramatically reduced etc. We are not talking about mass hysteria, aircraft falling out of the sky, but purely flight economics?
Research into acceptable levels of ash concentration for flight have not been extensively researched because there has not been the need nor the opportunity before - most eruptions and consequent ash clouds have affected areas with very little air traffic - cetainly not the density found over western Europe.
I'm sure over the coming days when more data is gathered there will be a relaxation when more understanding is gained, but until such time, from a safety and financial point of view, it is probably prudent for the ban to continue.
Well before the eruptions, airlines were doing everything in their power to reduce the cost index of flights and routes - some by taking what would be deemed to be extreme measures to reduce weight and cost (changing size of in flight magazines, changing uniforms to lighter material, taking away little freebies such as the little bags of nuts they used to hand out free with drinks etc).
Some of these measures may seem extreme, of little consequence and maybe even ridiculous, but multiplied over many sectors, it was felt by the 'bean counters' that it would make a significant difference.
BA and many other carriers are taking the steps to cancel well in advance of (in the UK) any announcement by NATS. This is being done partly because logistically it makes sense, however they also must feel that it is justified.
I for one do not believe that aircraft are going to fall out of the sky in vast numbers, however I believe that there will be damage done to engines and airframes etc which will be amplified over many flight hours.
So I suppose my question is to you, the pilots who want to go flying in multi million pound (or dollar) aircraft (that you do not have to pay to maintain, fix or replace) - do you think it is wise for airlnes to fly bearing in mind that any profits they make may well be wiped out and indeed may end up costing them more through the cost of replacing parts etc - some of which may be major?
Airlines will need to weigh up the possibility that engine life may be dramatically reduced etc. We are not talking about mass hysteria, aircraft falling out of the sky, but purely flight economics?
Research into acceptable levels of ash concentration for flight have not been extensively researched because there has not been the need nor the opportunity before - most eruptions and consequent ash clouds have affected areas with very little air traffic - cetainly not the density found over western Europe.
I'm sure over the coming days when more data is gathered there will be a relaxation when more understanding is gained, but until such time, from a safety and financial point of view, it is probably prudent for the ban to continue.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh? How the hell does that follow?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Collecting data now will prevent the decision being based solely on financial pressure. That pressure should rightly be feared by each one of us.'
Here, here. Metereology, physics, chemistry first. Economics second!!!
Opinions based on nothing at all: LAST.
Here, here. Metereology, physics, chemistry first. Economics second!!!
Opinions based on nothing at all: LAST.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"demise of many European airlines."
Indeed it will test the proverb "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody". After the grounding of 9/11 many said the actions of some were a stroke of genius. This event no doubt creates opportunity for some in the aviation world.
Although I wouldn't have used graphic scare tactics to drive home a point least it comes back and bites me in the ass.
Indeed it will test the proverb "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody". After the grounding of 9/11 many said the actions of some were a stroke of genius. This event no doubt creates opportunity for some in the aviation world.
Although I wouldn't have used graphic scare tactics to drive home a point least it comes back and bites me in the ass.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 72
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU: Spot on with the last post. I suspect some of the gung-ho heroes here don't actually mean it when, flight after flight, they come on and say "Ladies and Gentlemen, your safety is our number one priority, so if you would give the cabin crew your full attention . . ."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camel Toe
Excuse my arrogance....
The Germans too are flying at the moment. Lufthansa too is doing test flights and intending to reposition some 747's from Munich to Frankfurt in preparation of flight resumption
"something along the lines of German efficiency and fondness for logic"
Last edited by vanHorck; 18th Apr 2010 at 10:41.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MagnusP
Perhaps ATC should have a standard greeting for each aircraft that calls up "Welcome to London Centre we're here for the expedituous routing of your aircraft, but primarily for your safety" 
BD
BD
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we have an ongoing eruption with unknown and varying levels of ash concentrations through out European airspace, how can we resume normal operations? A few isolated test flights by KL/LH can not give a true indication of the impact of cummulative effects on aircraft and engines operating day in day out, 8 sectors a day into varying level of ash concentrations. Are we for example, going to boroscope every engine after each day of flying? No we couldn't.
As suggested in an earlier post, it might be that we need to conduct a series of test flights across Europe in a research context and evaluate the cumulative effects and establish just what is the risk. Exposure time x hazard = % risk. When we consider thousands of flights per day someone somewhere will find the most hazardous area and suffer as a result. We don't want that.
As suggested in an earlier post, it might be that we need to conduct a series of test flights across Europe in a research context and evaluate the cumulative effects and establish just what is the risk. Exposure time x hazard = % risk. When we consider thousands of flights per day someone somewhere will find the most hazardous area and suffer as a result. We don't want that.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camel: Yes, stereotyping I call it what goes on in your mind. Not my way of thinking. You call the Germans fond of logic? Just look at the logical mistake I made in my post and how Simonpro corrected me, rightfully so.
I fly with lots of Dutch FOs, and none of them are arrogant or willing to take unjustified risks out of overestimating their own abilities...
Don't you think it makes you (personally, not your people - where you from anyways?) appear arrogant?
Simonpro: Of course you are right to point out my mistake - what I meant to say is that the data for the mathematical calculations the predictions are based on are missing. No data has been collected from the atmosphere, not here in Germany. That is if the papers are reporting correctly, but I do assume they do. The DLR (germ. aerospce agency) testplane will not be done getting fitted with the necessary probes until Monday evening. So all the real data that exists comes from the test and repositioning flights - with no findings.
Nic
I fly with lots of Dutch FOs, and none of them are arrogant or willing to take unjustified risks out of overestimating their own abilities...
Don't you think it makes you (personally, not your people - where you from anyways?) appear arrogant?
Simonpro: Of course you are right to point out my mistake - what I meant to say is that the data for the mathematical calculations the predictions are based on are missing. No data has been collected from the atmosphere, not here in Germany. That is if the papers are reporting correctly, but I do assume they do. The DLR (germ. aerospce agency) testplane will not be done getting fitted with the necessary probes until Monday evening. So all the real data that exists comes from the test and repositioning flights - with no findings.
Nic
Quote:
One "aeronautical engineer" is wheeled out after a flight in a Dornier, that BTW DID NOT CRASH and says that he wouldnt want to put airliners up there. Sadly he has lost all credibility as it was HIS PERSONAL OPINION released immediately after he returned........ there had not been any time to examine the data recovered. Maybe he smelt sulphur and that clouded his judgement but firing off like that was nothing more than him getting his 15 minutes of fame.
he is a scientist working on air pollution so has some credibility.
One "aeronautical engineer" is wheeled out after a flight in a Dornier, that BTW DID NOT CRASH and says that he wouldnt want to put airliners up there. Sadly he has lost all credibility as it was HIS PERSONAL OPINION released immediately after he returned........ there had not been any time to examine the data recovered. Maybe he smelt sulphur and that clouded his judgement but firing off like that was nothing more than him getting his 15 minutes of fame.
he is a scientist working on air pollution so has some credibility.
As for the rest of the cr@p you trot out as fact - just were do we start? In your own words,
everyone needs to learn....... GOOD get back to [your hole?] and do the job that you are actually qualified to comment on
Last edited by pilotmike; 18th Apr 2010 at 10:33.