Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cubbie wrote:
Yes I'm fully aware of that and it's great comfort to me when I fly.
I too have procedures for when I encounter extreme weather situations while I'm driving my car, but I won't venture out in the middle of a cyclone.
As SLF I would hope that my well trained flight crew would similarly prefer to avoid putting me and my fellow passengers into a potentially dangerous situation rather than just take the chance that their procedures will be sufficient to handle any problems later.
I accept that you have procedures for handling engine failures that may result from the ingestion of volcanic ash however given the often severe effects of gravity on unpowered aircraft, surely it's more prudent to avoid the possibility of that happening in the first place.
I'd also venture to suggest that, given the gung-ho, fly at all cost, attitude demonstrated by yourself and a few other people on here it's probably a good thing that they haven't been the ones who get to decide.
Perhaps you arent aware there are proceedures for encountering volcanic ash, there are proceedures for an engine failure, for blown tires on take off, a whole manner of dangerous events which can occur everyday.
I too have procedures for when I encounter extreme weather situations while I'm driving my car, but I won't venture out in the middle of a cyclone.
As SLF I would hope that my well trained flight crew would similarly prefer to avoid putting me and my fellow passengers into a potentially dangerous situation rather than just take the chance that their procedures will be sufficient to handle any problems later.
I accept that you have procedures for handling engine failures that may result from the ingestion of volcanic ash however given the often severe effects of gravity on unpowered aircraft, surely it's more prudent to avoid the possibility of that happening in the first place.
I'd also venture to suggest that, given the gung-ho, fly at all cost, attitude demonstrated by yourself and a few other people on here it's probably a good thing that they haven't been the ones who get to decide.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Translated from Norweigan using Google.
No-fly testify paranoia
An experienced SAS captain said that fly to the Northern Lights of Norway must be said to be the century's greatest hysteria, and believe this evidence of paranoia.
Reviews come from an SAS captain with 35 years experience at the controls.
The Captain Per Gunnar Stensvaag with 35 years experience as a pilot, which comes with the critical krtikken to what he calls the government's paranoia, according nordlys.no
- This fly is the greatest hysteria in our century, "said Stensvaag to the newspaper.
He points out, among other things, that it is important to distinguish between the right to fly over a vulkansky and the smoke coming from the volcano on the Island.
- Inside the cloud, it is a quantity of heavy particles that can be dangerous if you fly directly over the volcano, but this applies in the immediate vicinity of the volcano. What we have to Europe's smoke, and there is no one who can prove that it is dangerous. We often have black snow on the Eastern because of industrial pollution from Germany, without closing off the airspace for that reason, says Stensvaag - who tries to draw a picture of the situation;
- If you piss in a glass of water, no one would drink it. But if someone piss in Maridalsporten Lake, rods are not of the water in all of Oslo.
SAS captain believes mydighetene have used the story of British Airways Flight 9, as an excuse to use power to act at any cost.
- It is all too easy to introduce a ban, "he nordlys.no
Stensvaag also refers to that in Norway have helicopters that are equipped to fly into the desert sand, rising, but the same heliloptrene can not be used in a Northern Norwegian last year in nicely and klært weather to help a man who is about to die.
Captain also argues that he has broad support for his view of this, many within the aviation in Norway.
An experienced SAS captain said that fly to the Northern Lights of Norway must be said to be the century's greatest hysteria, and believe this evidence of paranoia.
Reviews come from an SAS captain with 35 years experience at the controls.
The Captain Per Gunnar Stensvaag with 35 years experience as a pilot, which comes with the critical krtikken to what he calls the government's paranoia, according nordlys.no
- This fly is the greatest hysteria in our century, "said Stensvaag to the newspaper.
He points out, among other things, that it is important to distinguish between the right to fly over a vulkansky and the smoke coming from the volcano on the Island.
- Inside the cloud, it is a quantity of heavy particles that can be dangerous if you fly directly over the volcano, but this applies in the immediate vicinity of the volcano. What we have to Europe's smoke, and there is no one who can prove that it is dangerous. We often have black snow on the Eastern because of industrial pollution from Germany, without closing off the airspace for that reason, says Stensvaag - who tries to draw a picture of the situation;
- If you piss in a glass of water, no one would drink it. But if someone piss in Maridalsporten Lake, rods are not of the water in all of Oslo.
SAS captain believes mydighetene have used the story of British Airways Flight 9, as an excuse to use power to act at any cost.
- It is all too easy to introduce a ban, "he nordlys.no
Stensvaag also refers to that in Norway have helicopters that are equipped to fly into the desert sand, rising, but the same heliloptrene can not be used in a Northern Norwegian last year in nicely and klært weather to help a man who is about to die.
Captain also argues that he has broad support for his view of this, many within the aviation in Norway.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boroscope?
A couple of observations, since there are no aeroplanes worth talking about. What, please, is a BOROSCOPE which many of you seem to be using? I am an engineer - not an aero one, but a horny handed son of toil nevertheless - and I have seen and know about BORESCOPES. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfRTqD6Jc8Y
People like me put borescopes into complex kit like engines, to examine them without the time and cost of tearing them apart. As an aside, doctors put them up your bottom to see how your machinery is working too!
On the thread subject itself, I think Orionsbelt made a cogent observation - no pun intended - when he said:
The bit about astronomy is probably more telling than many people realise. Furthermore, far from knowinjg what the maximum safe (Define safe in these circumstances?) concentration of ash is, do we actually know what the ambient concentration of ash over the affected area was? It seems to me Icelandic volcanos have been errupting for ever, but this is the first time such a dramatic reaction has been taken.
Italy have a couple of quite notorious volcanos that haven't stopped errupting in my lifetime. What is the ambient ash concentration and its altitude profile of Italian airspace and what, if anything, is the effect on aeroplanes the fly regularly in that region? As has also been said, there has never been a time when the background airborne ash concentration has been zero. The must be ash contamination in varying concentrations all over the world.
The ash from Mount St. Helens circulated round the entire globe, to my certain knowledge, thus dispersing collosal quantities of ash into our or the currently effected airspace. What was the procedure and affect then? What were the long terrm engine maintenance effects of Mount St. Helens?
One flight of the Dornier - albeit scientifically equipped - and one flight of the KLM 738, does not a research programme make. I have absolutely no idea of how much European Airlines are collectively losing per minute, but I bet they could afford to sacrifice more than one airframes worth of engines to do some much more intensive research.
And please don't trot out BA009 and the others. Orionsbelt has shown that there simply isn't enough up there to make aeroplanes plunge out of the sky. Wreck their engines by any engineering standards for sure, but not enough to make them quit 'on the job'. For that you need Canada Geese. But if, as is suggested, this goes on for very much longer, serious and quite expensive research needs to be done. Especially as, we are constantly reminded, that the much more volatile Katla might be nudged into action by the current one.
Roger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfRTqD6Jc8Y
People like me put borescopes into complex kit like engines, to examine them without the time and cost of tearing them apart. As an aside, doctors put them up your bottom to see how your machinery is working too!
On the thread subject itself, I think Orionsbelt made a cogent observation - no pun intended - when he said:
1 Has any research aircraft / UAV flown and measured the concentration of dust in the different areas around the volcano. I fail to understand how an area from 85 east to 55 west and 70 north to 40 south can all have dangerous concentrations of dust. As an astronomer last night the sky at my home in Essex was the clearest I've seen it in months.
Italy have a couple of quite notorious volcanos that haven't stopped errupting in my lifetime. What is the ambient ash concentration and its altitude profile of Italian airspace and what, if anything, is the effect on aeroplanes the fly regularly in that region? As has also been said, there has never been a time when the background airborne ash concentration has been zero. The must be ash contamination in varying concentrations all over the world.
The ash from Mount St. Helens circulated round the entire globe, to my certain knowledge, thus dispersing collosal quantities of ash into our or the currently effected airspace. What was the procedure and affect then? What were the long terrm engine maintenance effects of Mount St. Helens?
One flight of the Dornier - albeit scientifically equipped - and one flight of the KLM 738, does not a research programme make. I have absolutely no idea of how much European Airlines are collectively losing per minute, but I bet they could afford to sacrifice more than one airframes worth of engines to do some much more intensive research.
And please don't trot out BA009 and the others. Orionsbelt has shown that there simply isn't enough up there to make aeroplanes plunge out of the sky. Wreck their engines by any engineering standards for sure, but not enough to make them quit 'on the job'. For that you need Canada Geese.
But if, as is suggested, this goes on for very much longer, serious and quite expensive research needs to be done. Especially as, we are constantly reminded, that the much more volatile Katla might be nudged into action by the current one.Roger.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: US
Age: 50
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did they flip the switch?
Volcano webcam shows a very quiet/clear Eyjafjallajökull
http:
//eldgos.mila.is
/eyjafjallajokull-fra-thorolfsfelli/
The actual mountain is in the back behind the real clouds, but if it was erupting with any force, you'd see some smoke, etc? If you can't see it from 50m, I'd say it's probably not going to hit the continent...
http:
//eldgos.mila.is
/eyjafjallajokull-fra-thorolfsfelli/
The actual mountain is in the back behind the real clouds, but if it was erupting with any force, you'd see some smoke, etc? If you can't see it from 50m, I'd say it's probably not going to hit the continent...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flights that have been carried out by KLM and LH can hardly be classified as test flights. They have merely taken a snapshot of the conditions and found that there was no hazard to those particular flights only. It is laughable for them to use those 'findings' (used loosely) and base their proposed operational program on that.
Even if airspace was opened again, should any dense ash clouds track towards Europe and with the best intentions of getting aircraft moving, the slot and flow implications would be horrendous in avoiding the worst of the airborne deposits.
I am sure the insurance companies will have something to say about this too!
If KLM/LH manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the media, public and worst of all the industry, it will be rather worrying day!
Even if airspace was opened again, should any dense ash clouds track towards Europe and with the best intentions of getting aircraft moving, the slot and flow implications would be horrendous in avoiding the worst of the airborne deposits.
I am sure the insurance companies will have something to say about this too!
If KLM/LH manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the media, public and worst of all the industry, it will be rather worrying day!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tinytim
If I was Willie Walsh I would be having some serious "what if" conversations with government as BA must surely be amongst the least well placed if this continues.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tcmel - thats as it seems on the webcams, but most blogs etc - seem to think the volcano is as active as its ever been - just local conditions mean its not so easy for us to see
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sussex/Ireland & 50' over the oggin
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actual W/X Reports
As the North Atlantic is now devoid of air traffic I am wondering if the consequent lack of temperature and spot wind reports usually given in oceanic position reports has affected the accuracy of forcasting for the North Atlantic area and predictions of the areas affected by ash .
Will loss of this info have any appreciable effect on the progs?
Will loss of this info have any appreciable effect on the progs?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
flying through moderate ashes may require extra maintenance to the engine.
- Cannot be knocked up the local foundry/machine shop, they require specialized casting equipment for directional solidification/single crystal.
- The supply is tailored to 10k+ hours life
- The stock held is taiored to 10k+hours life
If the life is reduced to ~ 100hrs from a single exposure (as the Finnish results suggest) then one exposure + 1 week normal (no dust) short haul then AOG for years waiting for bits
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wales
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS has been the 'face' to the media of the UK's decision to close its airspace in the face of this unprecedented event. I would sugest that this has been been politically expedient for the higher echelons of govenment and, perhaps, the airlines (initially) to have NATS as the 'fall' guy as and when blame begins to be bandied around at a later date as will inevitable happen.
I am of the opinion that there has been massive over-kill in this matter and that tactical discretion to fly or not should have been made available to the operators.
It was always held that air traffic control provides a 'service'. In my experience the ATC system has become more 'executive' than 'advisory' over the past 25 years but that is a topic for another debate. However, the service that NATS and the Met office should have provided was constantly updated information on the location and concentrations of the ash.
Of course, NATS states that it has reacted to ICAO procedures and this whole affair is reminiscent of the 'liquids' ban. It happened to the UK and the rest of the world has been forced to comply irrespective of the threat (or complete lack of it).
I would suggest that there should be a complete re-think/re-write of this ICAO procedure as and when the crisis is over. The economic consequences of this blanket, unthinking policy has been dire. Safety, of course, is paramount but I am positive that many air services could have been operated since Thursday with no risk to crew or passengers whatsoever.
I am of the opinion that there has been massive over-kill in this matter and that tactical discretion to fly or not should have been made available to the operators.
It was always held that air traffic control provides a 'service'. In my experience the ATC system has become more 'executive' than 'advisory' over the past 25 years but that is a topic for another debate. However, the service that NATS and the Met office should have provided was constantly updated information on the location and concentrations of the ash.
Of course, NATS states that it has reacted to ICAO procedures and this whole affair is reminiscent of the 'liquids' ban. It happened to the UK and the rest of the world has been forced to comply irrespective of the threat (or complete lack of it).
I would suggest that there should be a complete re-think/re-write of this ICAO procedure as and when the crisis is over. The economic consequences of this blanket, unthinking policy has been dire. Safety, of course, is paramount but I am positive that many air services could have been operated since Thursday with no risk to crew or passengers whatsoever.
NATS has been the 'face' to the media of the UK's decision to close its airspace in the face of this unprecedented event. I would sugest that this has been been politically expedient for the higher echelons of govenment and, perhaps, the airlines (initially) to have NATS as the 'fall' guy as and when blame begins to be bandied around at a later date as will inevitable happen.
Also, many operators have a/c and crews stranded away from base. As part of the evaluation why not permits selected a/c to return to base as a ferry? I strongly suspect that all these flights would operate without incident. This would ease the pain for when operations start, return a/c to engineering bases and mitigate costs of parking etc and keeping crews in hotac etc
Of course we should take into account what the boffins are telling us but as pilots we are used to evaluating relative risk. If you want 100% safety then keep the aeroplanes in the hangar! Even the BA flight landed safely in 1982, albeit with substantial damage.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Channel Island airspace
Replying to #906 ( "Worth just noting this morning ...it is possible to fly between the islands in the Channel Islands where both Aurigny & Blue Islands are continuing to operate their schedules" ) , there is a mad twist to this story - there now is no way in or out of CI Zone for VFR GA flghts. On Thursday it was closed (no IFR or SVFR), but on Friday common sense was applied and a VFR lane class D for VFR created by NOTAM to 50North. I flew to London intending to return today but now some jobsworth has decided that they didnt have the power to change airspace after all so now no VFR movements in or out of the whole CI zone, while GA and commercial flights continue within the zone. This is just complete madness with regulations and ar** covering taking precedence over any real analysis of safety issues.
I am on this forum as a way of making my own assessment of risk to piston engines at low level and I make my own decision whether safe to fly as I have to with every flight.
What is lacking is proper information on 1) what are the particle concentrations grams/m3 at different levels. 2) what is a safe concentration for jet engines and for piston engines. The information may be poor but it needs the best scientists in the field to come up with best estimates. If it is left to regulators just applying a 'precautionary principle then we may not fly for months.
I am on this forum as a way of making my own assessment of risk to piston engines at low level and I make my own decision whether safe to fly as I have to with every flight.
What is lacking is proper information on 1) what are the particle concentrations grams/m3 at different levels. 2) what is a safe concentration for jet engines and for piston engines. The information may be poor but it needs the best scientists in the field to come up with best estimates. If it is left to regulators just applying a 'precautionary principle then we may not fly for months.
Could we please understand that there is no Administrative fix to this problem?
You cannot make this matter go away by redefining regulations.
What we have here is a straight forward engineering matter: Fly through volcanic ash and you are going to damage the engines.
The damage may simply reduce the life of the engines by a factor perhaps of Ten, bankrupting the airline some years from now, or result in catastrophic failure, killing passengers, until sanctimonious news media stop talking about "mercy flights" and start talking about "cowboy airlines" risking their passengers lives.
I have a turbine blade in front of me....
You cannot make this matter go away by redefining regulations.
What we have here is a straight forward engineering matter: Fly through volcanic ash and you are going to damage the engines.
The damage may simply reduce the life of the engines by a factor perhaps of Ten, bankrupting the airline some years from now, or result in catastrophic failure, killing passengers, until sanctimonious news media stop talking about "mercy flights" and start talking about "cowboy airlines" risking their passengers lives.
I have a turbine blade in front of me....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deaf
It's not just the maintenace it's also getting the parts. Things like turbine blades:
- Cannot be knocked up the local foundry/machine shop, they require specialized casting equipment for directional solidification/single crystal.
- The supply is tailored to 10k+ hours life
- The stock held is taiored to 10k+hours life
If the life is reduced to ~ 100hrs from a single exposure (as the Finnish results suggest) then one exposure + 1 week normal (no dust) short haul then AOG for years waiting for bits
- Cannot be knocked up the local foundry/machine shop, they require specialized casting equipment for directional solidification/single crystal.
- The supply is tailored to 10k+ hours life
- The stock held is taiored to 10k+hours life
If the life is reduced to ~ 100hrs from a single exposure (as the Finnish results suggest) then one exposure + 1 week normal (no dust) short haul then AOG for years waiting for bits
True, up to a point Deaf, but that presupposes no other changes made in a changed environment. The local blacksmith will not be called upon, but the engine manufacturers might call upon trusted subcontractors to produce turbine blades at ten times the rate previously. With, one would hope, some economies of scale.
Also, if engines were not to be use limited by operating area, the manufacturers might divert some effort to making either; much more damage resistant components or, forget about curing the problem and merely fix the symptoms by making much, much cheaper turbine assemblies which are all but 'disposable' after so many hours?
Nobody said future costs were going to go down after all this.
Roger.
Accept increased risk?
What is an acceptable accident rate? This link Accident statistics indicates a one in five million risk per flight of a passenger on one of the best airlines being involved in a fatal accident, rising to one in 160,000 for one of the worst airlines. If the ash cloud were to continue for a year, how much extra risk would airline captains accept, if staying on the ground meant failure of their company? When I used to fly hang gliders I was content to accept a fatal accident rate of one per 10,000 flying hours - but I don't think I would want anywhere near that risk as a fare paying passenger.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: US
Age: 50
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Met forecast
http:
//www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data
/VAG_1271591498.png
Looks rather hopeful, per the most recent map/remarks
Assuming that in the very near future, everything above FL200 is "clear" and We on the ground can't "see" anything, it would make it rather difficult for governing bodies to argue the matter.
In logic-land, anyway.
//www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data
/VAG_1271591498.png
Looks rather hopeful, per the most recent map/remarks
Assuming that in the very near future, everything above FL200 is "clear" and We on the ground can't "see" anything, it would make it rather difficult for governing bodies to argue the matter.
In logic-land, anyway.