Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everywhere in N Europe they are now flying
From the BBC website (so caveat about accuracy):-
EUROPEAN AIRSPACE 0900
BELGIUM - Airspace open: Some planes landing, flights to depart from 1200 GMT
UK - Airspace open over Scotland and Northern Ireland. Limited airspace over north of England. London airports remain closed
FRANCE - Plans to re-open airports progressively on Tuesday
GERMANY - Airspace closed, with some exceptions, until at 1200 GMT on Tuesday. Lufthansa planning to operate 200 flights
IRELAND - Airspace closed until 1200 GMT on Tuesday
ITALY - Airspace open
NETHERLANDS - Airspace open. Passenger flights arriving and departing in Amsterdam
SPAIN - Airspace open; 17 airports operating
SWEDEN - Airspace open
SWITZERLAND - Airspace open
DENMARK - Airspace closed
NORWAY - Airspace closed
POLAND - Airspace closed
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised that it is NATS who decide, why can't Airlines and Aircraft manufacturers decide based on engineering knowledge and experience of previous and data from current eruptions.
If not an over reaction then why is NO IFR flight allowed in UK ? Piston aircraft are not having problems ??
If not an over reaction then why is NO IFR flight allowed in UK ? Piston aircraft are not having problems ??
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPAIN - Airspace open; 17 airports operating
Not correct , all airports are now open to traffic.
www.aena.es
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course this is political. The decision to close UK airspace will have been taken at the highest level of government. NATS has been presented as the front for the imposition of these restrictions and it, and the Met Office (they of the 'barbecue summer' computer prediction models) can conveniently take the justified ire of the public and the airline industry.
The real decision makers ie government will happily hide behind NATS and Met office to avoid the embarassment that the initial decision to close airspace was taken without an iota (or micron) of empirical data.
The real decision makers ie government will happily hide behind NATS and Met office to avoid the embarassment that the initial decision to close airspace was taken without an iota (or micron) of empirical data.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: World
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASH CLOUD: No technical problems on A380, A340 tests
Engine inspections carried out on the Airbus A380 and A340-600 sent up yesterday to assess the effects of the volcanic ash cloud did not uncover any problems.
Airbus used two previously-scheduled development test flights to fly into the ash cloud to monitor engine performance and to assess any potential damage caused by ash particles.
"The post-flight inspection showed no irregularities. We have passed the information to the engine manufacturers and the airworthiness authorities and it will be the role of the authorities to make a decision based on that," says an Airbus spokesman.
A380 MSN004, powered by Engine Alliance GP7200 engines, landed back in Toulouse at 18:00 local time yesterday after a 3hr 55min flight. A340-600 MSN360, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 500s, landed at 19.40 after flying for five hours.
The A380 operated within French airspace, while the A340-600 operated in French and German airspace.
Airbus' spokesman says that during the test flight the two aircraft "would have visited altitudes that airlines would normally visit".
Source: Air Transport Intelligence
Airbus used two previously-scheduled development test flights to fly into the ash cloud to monitor engine performance and to assess any potential damage caused by ash particles.
"The post-flight inspection showed no irregularities. We have passed the information to the engine manufacturers and the airworthiness authorities and it will be the role of the authorities to make a decision based on that," says an Airbus spokesman.
A380 MSN004, powered by Engine Alliance GP7200 engines, landed back in Toulouse at 18:00 local time yesterday after a 3hr 55min flight. A340-600 MSN360, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 500s, landed at 19.40 after flying for five hours.
The A380 operated within French airspace, while the A340-600 operated in French and German airspace.
Airbus' spokesman says that during the test flight the two aircraft "would have visited altitudes that airlines would normally visit".
Source: Air Transport Intelligence
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think the current flight operation in parts of europe is more than questionable. For example in germany you have to fly VFR until you are out of the restricted area which is GND to FL 195. Now all the airlines are flying VFR without any training to do so (yes, everyone started out flying VFR, however for many that is more than 20 years ago), questionable documentation and in parts of germany IMC conditions.
Safety first? Yes, of course, as long as it doesn't have an impact on the bottom line, lets hope we will be spared a bigger incident or accident.
Safety first? Yes, of course, as long as it doesn't have an impact on the bottom line, lets hope we will be spared a bigger incident or accident.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Hampshire.
Age: 50
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, from nats.co.uk:
Overnight the CAA, in line with new guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) decided flights above the ash cloud will be permitted in the UK; between 1300-1900 this will enable aircraft movements above 20,000ft in UK airspace.
That explains it!
Overnight the CAA, in line with new guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) decided flights above the ash cloud will be permitted in the UK; between 1300-1900 this will enable aircraft movements above 20,000ft in UK airspace.
That explains it!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety first? Yes, of course, as long as it doesn't have an impact on the bottom line,
Commercial pressures must never impact on safety.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is not not sensible really that in the UK we wait until the wind changes, at which time we can be sure the ash has cleared? Frankly I really don't like the idea of someone being on an ETOPS mission, an engine cutting out, and then spending however many hours looking out the window at that one remaining engine, crossing your fingers aware that it has been operating in and out of ash for several days. Isn't the whole point of ETOPS to remove any possible non-independent sources of failure? I don't see how engines operating in these conditions can be ETOPS certifiable, are they going to be doing full detailed inspections after every flight? If they're running normal schedules, impossible surely? I don't know, maybe the engineers can help here.
And a few more days shut down (wind changes fri/sat) is probably a lot cheaper than a fleet of wrecked planes. I actually think this is pretty much what will happen, the UK will stay shut, unless the volcano actually remains far less active, the airlines are somewhat less suicidal than some on here appear to be. Note BA appear to be accepting operations may not commence today without protest.
And please can people use a bit of nuance and try to understand the perfectly logical basis behind the UK being shut while other areas are open, it's not that difficult, but some are determined to ignore any evidence that doesn't support their position:
a) the UK is nearer Iceland than Continental Europe is
b) prevailing winds have been driving the ash cloud west when it gets to the north sea, so the densest part travels straight over SE England, avoiding the continent.
Is that so hard?
And a few more days shut down (wind changes fri/sat) is probably a lot cheaper than a fleet of wrecked planes. I actually think this is pretty much what will happen, the UK will stay shut, unless the volcano actually remains far less active, the airlines are somewhat less suicidal than some on here appear to be. Note BA appear to be accepting operations may not commence today without protest.
And please can people use a bit of nuance and try to understand the perfectly logical basis behind the UK being shut while other areas are open, it's not that difficult, but some are determined to ignore any evidence that doesn't support their position:
a) the UK is nearer Iceland than Continental Europe is
b) prevailing winds have been driving the ash cloud west when it gets to the north sea, so the densest part travels straight over SE England, avoiding the continent.
Is that so hard?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a point of order.
The material being ejected from this volcano is not in someway completely different to other volcanoes as some have said. Most rhyolitic rock is about 70% silica - and that is believed to damage aircraft engines. The rest is commonly mixtures of quartz, feldspar, biotite and hornblende along with some other minerals I have clearly forgotten. But the crux is the the SiO2.
If you read the contributions from volcanologists on this thread or indeed if you do some research yourself, or have a basic understanding of eruptions, what they are saying is that this is a specific type of eruption. One which involves water/steam (phreatic eruptions/phreatomagmatic eruptions respectively). This is because the Volcano sits beneath a large Glacier.
The rapid thermal contraction which occurs in these instances produces an explosive eruption, which in turn produces particles of ash in sizes from clay to sand which can be thrown high into the atmosphere and in this case inconveniently into a jet stream bound for Northern Europe.
Please desist with the "but this is magical ash" comments. It is not accurate.
Moreover this is not the first explosive eruption to have occurred.
The material being ejected from this volcano is not in someway completely different to other volcanoes as some have said. Most rhyolitic rock is about 70% silica - and that is believed to damage aircraft engines. The rest is commonly mixtures of quartz, feldspar, biotite and hornblende along with some other minerals I have clearly forgotten. But the crux is the the SiO2.
If you read the contributions from volcanologists on this thread or indeed if you do some research yourself, or have a basic understanding of eruptions, what they are saying is that this is a specific type of eruption. One which involves water/steam (phreatic eruptions/phreatomagmatic eruptions respectively). This is because the Volcano sits beneath a large Glacier.
The rapid thermal contraction which occurs in these instances produces an explosive eruption, which in turn produces particles of ash in sizes from clay to sand which can be thrown high into the atmosphere and in this case inconveniently into a jet stream bound for Northern Europe.
Please desist with the "but this is magical ash" comments. It is not accurate.
Moreover this is not the first explosive eruption to have occurred.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a disaster for everyone
The Green Party is loving all this. I run a small aircraft leasing company, and am expecting airlines not to pay us this month, what about all the ancilliary businesses that rely on aviation from taxi drivers to fruit importers.
I am sure this is all nonsense. I cant see how engines cut out because of this, no one is saying fly through the plume of the volcano, we are 800 miles away! What I can see is engines going to shop visits sooner than before, but if this crazyness does not stop soon there will be no aviation industry in Europe. Most people asked "would you fly at the moment" say "no"
BBC - Have Your Say: Would you fly?
so suggest all of you say you would be prepared to fly (that is of course if you are so willing) otherwise the media will be reporting that the majority of people dont want to fly and the politicians wont step in.
I am sure this is all nonsense. I cant see how engines cut out because of this, no one is saying fly through the plume of the volcano, we are 800 miles away! What I can see is engines going to shop visits sooner than before, but if this crazyness does not stop soon there will be no aviation industry in Europe. Most people asked "would you fly at the moment" say "no"
BBC - Have Your Say: Would you fly?
so suggest all of you say you would be prepared to fly (that is of course if you are so willing) otherwise the media will be reporting that the majority of people dont want to fly and the politicians wont step in.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Danger - Deep Excavation
Posts: 338
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mystic Met"
Worth a read
"Mystic Met closed Europe with computer model - And not much data"
Mystic Met closed Europe with computer model ? The Register
I worked with the son of Barry T-F, (FE on BA009) so I know a little about volcanic ash, but I can't really knock El Register's critique of what's been happening.
At least we are starting to see Departures from ZRH now...
"Mystic Met closed Europe with computer model - And not much data"
Mystic Met closed Europe with computer model ? The Register
I worked with the son of Barry T-F, (FE on BA009) so I know a little about volcanic ash, but I can't really knock El Register's critique of what's been happening.
At least we are starting to see Departures from ZRH now...
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used satire to highlight the idiocy of the 'tests' being conducted but that seems to be unacceptable here. I'll put it another way. Non-test pilots using no scientific equipment randomly flying hither and tither is about as useful as throwing paper airplanes around and drawing sweeping conclusions from their journeys.
Quack medicine has its place, but not in aviation.
Quack medicine has its place, but not in aviation.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 What is the ICAO standard for Ash emissions - how many ppm etc
2 If there is an ICAO Ash standard why is it not applied to the whole world.
3 Based on that supposed standard why are flights in South East Asia permitted within 2000 km of Jakarta, while they are not permitted in the UK/EU etc.
( Just Goggle Earth and look at Indonesia )
4Can the Met Office / CAA publish data for the total areas of the no fly zone to justify the decisions.
Sorry if these points have already covered but my flight this evening to collect my wife has been cancelled.
***
2 If there is an ICAO Ash standard why is it not applied to the whole world.
3 Based on that supposed standard why are flights in South East Asia permitted within 2000 km of Jakarta, while they are not permitted in the UK/EU etc.
( Just Goggle Earth and look at Indonesia )
4Can the Met Office / CAA publish data for the total areas of the no fly zone to justify the decisions.
Sorry if these points have already covered but my flight this evening to collect my wife has been cancelled.
***
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An empirical perspective
It's clear from the posts here and the generally available information that there's no firm and conclusive position on this issue. Of course safety first. Of course, consideration to the economic impact downstream. But, this issue may be a 'first', but there are warnings that it may not be over and could resurrect itself in the coming days weeks and months. In the unthinkable position of airspace being closed down like this going forward for a number of times of equal or greater length, then there needs to be a Plan B.
Whilst I accept the modelling of the MO and the response by NATS and Eurocontrol I'm still a little bothered by the lack of empirical evidence. The BA flight spent much of its time above FL200 so I'm not sure how valuable that 'test' was. Right now we have clear skies (forgive the pun) and for me at any rate a need to perform some flight tests up to FL200 across the whole of UK airspace and indeed the same in mainland Europe and start getting empirical evidence of what the true impact of this is on airframes and engines. Not to solve the problem today as such but to gain the much needed instrumentation to plan for if this happens again.
Apart from people stuck out of position (not to mention a/c) we need to consider medical supplies, transplants and vital product import / export via cargo flights. None of these can take priority over air safety, but I'm yet to be conviced we have conducted here in the UK or across Europe the definitive due diligence to fully understand the impact to this at an engineering level. Without that, and the feedback from a/c and aero engine manufacturers we will still be, to some extent, guessing on the impact. Air safety needs more than this. These are unusual times and we therefore need unusual solutions and I think a more diligent set of airborn tests are needed. The MO can tell us what they predict is going on up there. NATS can take the correct route of caution, BUT, if much of this is hidden behind lack of empirical facts then whilst the current issue may resolve itself through a meteorogical change later this week (and I do hope so), we currently have the window of opportunity to conduct much more stringent and in depth testing of cause and effect. And yes, this means being airborn in one way or another. I'd like to see more effort put into this to equip us with a better engineering perspective than we currently have. Right now, it appears there are differing lines of action and behaviour across Europe and we need a consensus with the fact to support it. Until we have them and the chance to debate them, any repeat of this may leave us no further forward with only a repeat of the same. We cannot afford to have that - on any level. FL200 or otherwise.
Whilst I accept the modelling of the MO and the response by NATS and Eurocontrol I'm still a little bothered by the lack of empirical evidence. The BA flight spent much of its time above FL200 so I'm not sure how valuable that 'test' was. Right now we have clear skies (forgive the pun) and for me at any rate a need to perform some flight tests up to FL200 across the whole of UK airspace and indeed the same in mainland Europe and start getting empirical evidence of what the true impact of this is on airframes and engines. Not to solve the problem today as such but to gain the much needed instrumentation to plan for if this happens again.
Apart from people stuck out of position (not to mention a/c) we need to consider medical supplies, transplants and vital product import / export via cargo flights. None of these can take priority over air safety, but I'm yet to be conviced we have conducted here in the UK or across Europe the definitive due diligence to fully understand the impact to this at an engineering level. Without that, and the feedback from a/c and aero engine manufacturers we will still be, to some extent, guessing on the impact. Air safety needs more than this. These are unusual times and we therefore need unusual solutions and I think a more diligent set of airborn tests are needed. The MO can tell us what they predict is going on up there. NATS can take the correct route of caution, BUT, if much of this is hidden behind lack of empirical facts then whilst the current issue may resolve itself through a meteorogical change later this week (and I do hope so), we currently have the window of opportunity to conduct much more stringent and in depth testing of cause and effect. And yes, this means being airborn in one way or another. I'd like to see more effort put into this to equip us with a better engineering perspective than we currently have. Right now, it appears there are differing lines of action and behaviour across Europe and we need a consensus with the fact to support it. Until we have them and the chance to debate them, any repeat of this may leave us no further forward with only a repeat of the same. We cannot afford to have that - on any level. FL200 or otherwise.
Frankly I really don't like the idea of someone being on an ETOPS mission, an engine cutting out, and then spending however many hours looking out the window at that one remaining engine, crossing your fingers aware that it has been operating in and out of ash for several days. Isn't the whole point of ETOPS to remove any possible non-independent sources of failure? I don't see how engines operating in these conditions can be ETOPS certifiable, are they going to be doing full detailed inspections after every flight? If they're running normal schedules, impossible surely? I don't know, maybe the engineers can help here.
ETOPS certification depends on a documented IFSD rate of less than 0.02 per 1,000 hours. But this exceptional level of reliability was not achieved with engines that were operated in areas of significant volcanic ash exposure for a period of several days or weeks.
The issue I was trying to get at (and that neila83 has explained) is not whether the ash causes immediate IFSDs - but whether engines operated in this environment have an IFSD rate > 0.02 per 1000 in the coming months.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Age: 55
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a number of active volcanoes right now over the world, yet it looks like there are no flying restrictions in Ecuador and Colombia, other than the advisory of avoiding immediate vicinity of the volcanoes.
Current Volcanic Ash Advisories - Washington VAAC - Satellite Services Division / Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution
From these reports, it's clear that satellites can do a good job on detecting ash concentration. Why are they resorting to computer simulations then?
Current Volcanic Ash Advisories - Washington VAAC - Satellite Services Division / Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution
From these reports, it's clear that satellites can do a good job on detecting ash concentration. Why are they resorting to computer simulations then?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ash Concentration Chart
Maybe they do have some good data now....
https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf
But if this is accurate begs the question why UK airspace is not open for business...
https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf
But if this is accurate begs the question why UK airspace is not open for business...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue I was trying to get at (and that neila83 has explained) is not whether the ash causes immediate IFSDs - but whether engines operated in this environment have an IFSD rate > 0.02 per 1000 in the coming months.
As with all things in life there is a balance to be struck, those who take a position at the extremes of both sides are possibly being either too cautious or too reckless.
Last edited by Man-on-the-fence; 20th Apr 2010 at 11:58.