Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Cats Five
There will be no damage to these aircraft and history will prove it but sadly not until irreparable damage has been done to the economy. Just been listening to Radio 2 and a professor of geology who was having his moment of fame! Even he admitted they just don't know!
So lets get the information Airbus clearly don't see a problem in the short term and if more inspections are required and ultimately long term engine life is reduced I am sure that will be acceptable to the airlines given the current level of costs of not flying.
This is nothing new this happens around the world all the time without this over reaction.
There will be no damage to these aircraft and history will prove it but sadly not until irreparable damage has been done to the economy. Just been listening to Radio 2 and a professor of geology who was having his moment of fame! Even he admitted they just don't know!
So lets get the information Airbus clearly don't see a problem in the short term and if more inspections are required and ultimately long term engine life is reduced I am sure that will be acceptable to the airlines given the current level of costs of not flying.
This is nothing new this happens around the world all the time without this over reaction.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: europe
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 59
From: UK
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: South Africa
Data required
As I see it the data required for a decision is:
1) The concentration of ash in the air at different locations and altitudes.
2) The allowable concentration for safe flight.
The first can be gathered by data collecting flights which appears to be being done.
For the second, is it practicable to run a test bed engine (on the ground) and feed known concentrations of ash through it to determine this limit?
What do you think ?
1) The concentration of ash in the air at different locations and altitudes.
2) The allowable concentration for safe flight.
The first can be gathered by data collecting flights which appears to be being done.
For the second, is it practicable to run a test bed engine (on the ground) and feed known concentrations of ash through it to determine this limit?
What do you think ?
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
BoughtTheFarm
The problem is the MET office do not have the equipment to accurately model the movement of content/density of the ash and cannot predict it's effects on aircraft systems which is why we need to get more test aircraft up there.
Someone mentioned that a some measurements had been made and we were not referring to the fact they found dangerous levels of ash at some levels. The question is dangerous to what? What are they basing this assertion on? The aircraft making the measurements returned safely. Was it inspected? Did it suffer damage? Apparently not.
Data, hard data not hysterics and over reaction!
The problem is the MET office do not have the equipment to accurately model the movement of content/density of the ash and cannot predict it's effects on aircraft systems which is why we need to get more test aircraft up there.
Someone mentioned that a some measurements had been made and we were not referring to the fact they found dangerous levels of ash at some levels. The question is dangerous to what? What are they basing this assertion on? The aircraft making the measurements returned safely. Was it inspected? Did it suffer damage? Apparently not.
Data, hard data not hysterics and over reaction!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: scotland
roy that sounds far too much like a real scientific exp that could give out useful data!- much better to just send planes up willy nilly with no data instruments and bring back down safely to prove all is ok. Then we can open up safe paths through ash- that change hourly so that pilots and passangers can all go on mystery flights taking off with no idea exactly where they will land if the parting of the ash moves abit. So much data recording time to planned sets of exps has been lost already.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
From today's Daily Telegraph (in fact the paper headline is "Met Office got it wrong over ban on flights")
Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure
Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure
Joined: Feb 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 2
From: Worcestershire, UK
From Lloyds List:
Jet fuel trade invokes force majeure
Martyn Wingrove - Tuesday 20 April 2010
TRADERS of jet fuel have called force majeure on deliveries to the UK on long range product tankers because of the cancellation of flights, writes Martyn Wingrove .
The UK is one of the largest hubs for jet fuel in Europe and deliveries through at least five ports in southern England and Wales will be affected, as product is usually immediately piped to airports to supply aircraft.
One London shipbroker said product tankers would be unable to discharge cargoes at Avonmouth, Fawley, Thames terminals, Milford Haven and Immingham, so suppliers have called force majeure on deliveries.
“Tanks are full in airports and everything is stacking up. There is no where to put the jet fuel so it will have to remain in the tankers. Ships with jet fuel on board will have to sit there on demurrage or owners will renegotiate some sort of storage rate,” a London broker said.
Another broker said the impact on deliveries would be temporary: “Once the ash cloud disappears, demand will catch up. But if it goes on for weeks, then we will see more floating storage of jet fuel.”
Brokers expect jet fuel deliveries to Le Havre, Copenhagen and ports in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam- Antwerp area will also be affected if flights from nearby airports also remain affected by the volcanic ash cloud.
Since all north European flights were banned, jet fuel consumption has dropped by 1m barrels per day, or about a fifth of global consumption. European stocks have risen by 5m barrels.
Martyn Wingrove - Tuesday 20 April 2010
TRADERS of jet fuel have called force majeure on deliveries to the UK on long range product tankers because of the cancellation of flights, writes Martyn Wingrove .
The UK is one of the largest hubs for jet fuel in Europe and deliveries through at least five ports in southern England and Wales will be affected, as product is usually immediately piped to airports to supply aircraft.
One London shipbroker said product tankers would be unable to discharge cargoes at Avonmouth, Fawley, Thames terminals, Milford Haven and Immingham, so suppliers have called force majeure on deliveries.
“Tanks are full in airports and everything is stacking up. There is no where to put the jet fuel so it will have to remain in the tankers. Ships with jet fuel on board will have to sit there on demurrage or owners will renegotiate some sort of storage rate,” a London broker said.
Another broker said the impact on deliveries would be temporary: “Once the ash cloud disappears, demand will catch up. But if it goes on for weeks, then we will see more floating storage of jet fuel.”
Brokers expect jet fuel deliveries to Le Havre, Copenhagen and ports in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam- Antwerp area will also be affected if flights from nearby airports also remain affected by the volcanic ash cloud.
Since all north European flights were banned, jet fuel consumption has dropped by 1m barrels per day, or about a fifth of global consumption. European stocks have risen by 5m barrels.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: scotland
kinsman - how many flying miles did nasa have before they tried to use a D- rings beyond there certified test temp. limits. Equip comes with limits for reasons. If no limits have been established then it should only be used within the routine levels used in testing. Thus, if now required, new limits should be sought, by means test experiments- as is the case for SiO2 levels of safety in the ash. It will take time yes- but for facts on safety rather than deductions - that is what is required. You may be completly correct and it may be totaly safe to fly in the ash now - but that at the moment that can only be assumed and is not proven.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Dark Side
how safe?
How can we state that flying VFR (in Germany below F200) can be the safest option you can think of? Esp. since part of Germany is cloudy right now with a BKN layer below well below 5000' (giving HAM as a example). And what is gonna happen @ night in this case. Will we consider it to be the safest option to fly night VFR up to F200? I frankly do not understand this VFR up to F200 thing, especially since it has been confirmed much of the ash is invisible to the naked eye... Can someone comment on this one?
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Well that makes 10 inbound to LHR from the US. Can't wait to see if more are on their way. I wonder what consideration exist if they do arrive about passing through FL200 into LHR? And if you can have 10 descents through FL200 why not have climbs out to FL200+++? Don't want to end up focussing on this all day, but at least it's tangible data in real time (at least if the feed is accurate). Anyone know crew on these inbounds?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Long Term Planning
I read a lot of hysteria about the volcanic activity and it's outfall - this Forum is generally matter of fact and logical - suit me! with the odd spattering of trolls - where hasn't.
The current situation seems to have caught the airborne fraternity off guard - primarily due to the distinct lack of applicable information!
Met office can tell what's floating around in the atmosphere - debates on the accuracy are just that! we've had very little reason to delve deeper and pick out individual substances.
The engine and frame manufacturers have limited info on damage limitations and mitigations to counter adverse impact.
Operators are working to the letter supplied by the manufacturers.
Ok! my point is that we (Goverment, Military & Commercial Carriers) need to use this period of 'low activity' to collect info on the respective ash concentrations and compound effect on airframes.
The current activity is relatively minor, however has had a profound effect on our ability to maintain air travel around and to & from the UK, if as the volcanologists predict 'prolonged activity may set off Katla' this would effectively stut down operations from the UK for months and years, as opposed to days.
In collecting samples, and determining damage, would it not be possible to utilise a platform with two turbine engines and two Internal Combustion engines - the level of damage to the turbines could be monitored after each flight and then set updated maintenance levels for flying in a similar environment. The two Internal combustion engines with decent air filters would ensure that the airframe could maintain flight throughout the assessment.
Thanks!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 648
Likes: 74
From: uk
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...
I agree rather strange. It seems that in the UK nobody is willing to take responsability for allowing flights. If the airspace is not openned soon they will start looking like clowns.
In most cases the most simplistic approach is the best one, but NATS(goverment,...) are just trying to stay legal. Common sense must prevail. Who cares about long term damage to engines now, if we don't start flying soon there will not be airlines. Let's save the industry and then worry about long term implications.
The response from the UK is arriving late, far too late...
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Dark Side
ASH LAYER on arriving aircraft into AMS (arkefly from Antalya) this morning causing big concern. After inspection the ship has been released back to service. How long does it take to do a boroscopic I wonder?
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: 3433N 06912E
The MET office, like every other meteorological institute has access to data that can provide the ash density with an accuracy of around +-30%. The ash extent/movement can be mapped to within 6km at worst and 500m at best.
I was, however, unaware that the MET office was supposed to predict the effects of ash upon aircraft.
I was, however, unaware that the MET office was supposed to predict the effects of ash upon aircraft.
As you are well aware, no one has suggested that the MET office should provide predictions as to the effects of ash on aircraft. indeed, we are well aware of what the effects are and how those effects occur in large concentration.
if the MET office can provide ash density figures with an accuracy of +/-30% from 6km to 500m over specific airways and and specific levels, why has that not been done and the information disseminated to NATS in order that ASHTAM's can be issued and airways and flight levels opened to IFR traffic?
toodle back to the Global Warming Thread and continue to praise Jones and the CRU for manipulating climate change data.
Beady Eye
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 1
From: UK
I will reiterate from previous posts because the message doesn't appear to be getting through.
NATS is an ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider), one of 56 throughout Europe, note the words Service Provider. All ANSPs provide a service in accordance with the licence issued by its respective government (in addition to the rules, regulations and laws they're also required to obey). The decision by European ANSPs to close airspace is directly in compliance with the requirements of their licence. Some European governments have gone further than simply close controlled airspace and have allowed no flying at all. In the UK NATS mandate to close airspace only covers controlled airspace and the UK Government has not chosen to go down the path of closing all airspace, hence you have seen aircraft flying VFR outside of CAS.
In the UK the airspace regulator is SRG (Safety Regulation Group) of the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), a department of the Department of Transport. Why HM Government and the D of T have been silent and are chosing to hide behind NATS skirts I have no idea but NATS spokesmen are only talking heads. NATS does not enact policy, it complies with it.
BD
NATS is an ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider), one of 56 throughout Europe, note the words Service Provider. All ANSPs provide a service in accordance with the licence issued by its respective government (in addition to the rules, regulations and laws they're also required to obey). The decision by European ANSPs to close airspace is directly in compliance with the requirements of their licence. Some European governments have gone further than simply close controlled airspace and have allowed no flying at all. In the UK NATS mandate to close airspace only covers controlled airspace and the UK Government has not chosen to go down the path of closing all airspace, hence you have seen aircraft flying VFR outside of CAS.
In the UK the airspace regulator is SRG (Safety Regulation Group) of the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), a department of the Department of Transport. Why HM Government and the D of T have been silent and are chosing to hide behind NATS skirts I have no idea but NATS spokesmen are only talking heads. NATS does not enact policy, it complies with it.
BD
Beady Eye
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 1
From: UK
if the MET office can provide ash density figures with an accuracy of +/-30% from 6km to 500m over specific airways and and specific levels, why has that not been done and the information disseminated to NATS in order that ASHTAM's can be issued and airways and flight levels opened to IFR traffic?
BD