Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the Chalfonts
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More BA flights now en-route to LHR...
Bought the Farm : "Well that makes 10 inbound to LHR from the US. Can't wait to see if more are on their way".
A further 8 BA flights are en-route to LHR, predominatly from the east e.g. BKK, BAH, AUH, DEL, BOM, NRT, PEK plus GRU in Brazil.
Let's hope they all make it!
Added: now hearing they may have to be diverted - to where?
A further 8 BA flights are en-route to LHR, predominatly from the east e.g. BKK, BAH, AUH, DEL, BOM, NRT, PEK plus GRU in Brazil.
Let's hope they all make it!
Added: now hearing they may have to be diverted - to where?
Last edited by ChalfontFlyer; 20th Apr 2010 at 12:49. Reason: up-dated info
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep my moneys on madrid and I would also think that they knew that's where they may end up. Because at the same time we are sending consulate staff to set up centers for travelers there- Also Ryan air are going to get all stuck in canaries to mardid (as long as travelers agree all responisblity to get home from there is their own)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the Chalfonts
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stalling altitude: "gotta be Madrid".
I think BA Ops Team would much prefer Scottish airport(s) but if they are not available then AMS could be the fall back...obviously much closer to UK than MAD.
I think BA Ops Team would much prefer Scottish airport(s) but if they are not available then AMS could be the fall back...obviously much closer to UK than MAD.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR inbounds
BA website still shows LHR as destination. I'd like to think that an alt has been decided if applicable or is a 'window of opportunity' planned to be open in this FIR later today for sure? Nothing like making things up as you go - dynamically speaking...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumping a dozen very full B747 flights anywhere outside the UK at the moment would be madness, Every effort to get them this side of the channel must be made. Maybe BA coming over as a "Gang" is meant to put more pressure on whoever it is thats running this mess.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Near the Thames
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety Digest May 1993 Volcanic Hazards and Aviation Safety
I've followed this thread closely and I don't think I have seen this paper referred to - if it has been then my apologies, but from some of the wild statements posted here then many others have not read it either!
The link is at Flight Safety Digest 1993 | Flight Safety Foundation Click on May1993
Does anyone have knowledge of any later papers following this one?
The link is at Flight Safety Digest 1993 | Flight Safety Foundation Click on May1993
Does anyone have knowledge of any later papers following this one?
Last edited by Type1106; 20th Apr 2010 at 13:15. Reason: Clarify the link; grammar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: up north
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My money is on EDI given that GLA is closed.Outlook looks better on the east coast and transport links.Landing 10 744's in mainland europe and would give BA a major headache and massive additional costs.Anyone have any ideas as to the timings of these aircraft ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the density figures which it's safe to fly through? I can tell you the answer, none are defined. The rules are no flying through ash contaminated airspace, very woolly but with no possibility of misinterpretation. Hence the call for some standards to be defined, cause we have none.
However, there will always be contaminants in the atmosphere, which includes volcanic ash. Volcanic activity in the past has seen volcanic ash tracked to circle the globe up to three times and remain in the atmosphere for years.
Do you subscribe that we dont fly if there is any contaminants in the atmoshpere ?
What about aircraft that have been stored within 200nm of marine air, which corrodes blades and disks, which is equally damaging to engines (in different ways)?
Operators monitor engine conditions routinely as its a very inexpensive way of managing a very expensive piece of equipment.
The rules are no flying through ash contaminated airspace
Can you please post the regulation and under which regulatory body this citation pertains to which should therefore stipulate the conentrations at which airspace would therefore be 'contaminated', how that airsapce is defined .. is it a FIR or an airway ... and who would therefore determine the contamination levels and by what method. thx.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A mess
This is a total mess, how can we have NATS taking advice from the Met Office producing charts like these:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271763280.png
And EuroControl taking advice from whoever else producing charts like this.
https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf
I fully understand the safety calls and am not disputing it, but one would have hoped in todays age in that some kind of co-ordination between air traffic services could come up with what at least looks like a common approach. How can we have a position on one side of the channel shich is so vastly different to that in continental Europe? And Im not talking about the fact that the ash could exist either side Im referring to the fact that one thinks it is there and poses a major risk and one does not.
We now have relatively busy airspace on one side of the channel and nothing much flying here at all.
I await the NATS announcement with interest at 15:00.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271763280.png
And EuroControl taking advice from whoever else producing charts like this.
https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf
I fully understand the safety calls and am not disputing it, but one would have hoped in todays age in that some kind of co-ordination between air traffic services could come up with what at least looks like a common approach. How can we have a position on one side of the channel shich is so vastly different to that in continental Europe? And Im not talking about the fact that the ash could exist either side Im referring to the fact that one thinks it is there and poses a major risk and one does not.
We now have relatively busy airspace on one side of the channel and nothing much flying here at all.
I await the NATS announcement with interest at 15:00.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Geneva
Age: 48
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alot of people are asking about this vfr ifr thing. i'm not working for the german regulatory. but it seems like good sense that visual conditions (Visual Flight Rules), i e out of the clouds and 1000 feet (or whatever) separation from those clouds, be applied. I wouldn't like to run into a little nimbostratus knowing that it might or might not contain VA. better to stay out and away from it. I'm not saying it's unsafer but VA is one thing (I guess you might be able to see a big concentration) but VA + water might be another thing completely.
please, no nonsense about flying vfr as in following rivers and country roads to known landmarks before looking at the airport's wind sock!
please, no nonsense about flying vfr as in following rivers and country roads to known landmarks before looking at the airport's wind sock!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from the BBC
Ferry companies operating out of Dover will be allowed to take 10% more passengers on their larger ships to help ease the current transport crisis.
According to David Osler, reporter for Lloyd's List, this suspends "whole chunks of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, introduced after the Titanic disaster of 1912".
The irony of at all! One rule for one form of transport another for a different one
Ferry companies operating out of Dover will be allowed to take 10% more passengers on their larger ships to help ease the current transport crisis.
According to David Osler, reporter for Lloyd's List, this suspends "whole chunks of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, introduced after the Titanic disaster of 1912".
The irony of at all! One rule for one form of transport another for a different one
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are saying that the BA flight to Cardiff and other VFR operations which have occured since last week have been conducted outside of regulations ?
Can you please post the regulation and under which regulatory body this citation pertains to which should therefore stipulate the conentrations at which airspace would therefore be 'contaminated',
how that airsapce is defined .. is it a FIR or an airway ...
and who would therefore determine the contamination levels and by what method.
BD
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vfr ifr
airseb
I agree - i posted earlier asking why the different rules for vfr / ifr (n.b. not vmc imc) - the ash density will be the same regardless of the rules.
Also as others have pointed out the lower level of atc control for vfr has to be less safe
I agree - i posted earlier asking why the different rules for vfr / ifr (n.b. not vmc imc) - the ash density will be the same regardless of the rules.
Also as others have pointed out the lower level of atc control for vfr has to be less safe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know what excuse the French and Dutch have used to open Paris and Amsterdam - they seem to quite busy now. But they are still well within the VAAC ash cloud predicted area.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad science from Met Office
There is a common theme developing on this thread and outside - the lack of scientific information on the CONCENTRATION of ash
The Met office has obviously reacted to this by publishing this update at 12:36 titled "Science underpins ash cloud advice".
Met Office: Icelandic volcano eruption
Here is my comment emailed to their pressoffice
"I am increasingly concerned about postings on your website have a bias against aviation and contain 'bad science'
I refer to the article titled above Last updated: 1231 BST on Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Clearly this is in response to critiscms but it does not answer the key questions:
the first is for the Met Office
1) what are the actual and forecast concentrations of ash at different location and altitudes (g/m3) and other data such as particle size distribution and composition.
the second is for the aviation industry and regulators
2) what is a safe concentration
there is no doubt there is a concentration which is damgaging but equally there will be a level where the risk of damage is statistically insignificant (not zero)
All the information at present states whether ash is present or not but gives no information on concentrations.
This has caused the present problem because ICAO have not defined an acceptable concentration for IFR flight
It is bad science to refer to absence of ash or zero concentration. This is a physical and mathematical impossibility.
Every aircraft flies in the presence of ash on every flight. The concentration may be below the limit of detection of the sensor but it is not zero.
The limit of detection needs to be stated.
The bias is in referring to damage to F16 aircraft while not referring to the very large number of General Aviation flights that have taken place over the past few days without any known damage and at various altitudes and some with turbine engines. Neither is a Met Office matter.
Lets have figures and proper scientific reporting please."
The Met office has obviously reacted to this by publishing this update at 12:36 titled "Science underpins ash cloud advice".
Met Office: Icelandic volcano eruption
Here is my comment emailed to their pressoffice
"I am increasingly concerned about postings on your website have a bias against aviation and contain 'bad science'
I refer to the article titled above Last updated: 1231 BST on Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Clearly this is in response to critiscms but it does not answer the key questions:
the first is for the Met Office
1) what are the actual and forecast concentrations of ash at different location and altitudes (g/m3) and other data such as particle size distribution and composition.
the second is for the aviation industry and regulators
2) what is a safe concentration
there is no doubt there is a concentration which is damgaging but equally there will be a level where the risk of damage is statistically insignificant (not zero)
All the information at present states whether ash is present or not but gives no information on concentrations.
This has caused the present problem because ICAO have not defined an acceptable concentration for IFR flight
It is bad science to refer to absence of ash or zero concentration. This is a physical and mathematical impossibility.
Every aircraft flies in the presence of ash on every flight. The concentration may be below the limit of detection of the sensor but it is not zero.
The limit of detection needs to be stated.
The bias is in referring to damage to F16 aircraft while not referring to the very large number of General Aviation flights that have taken place over the past few days without any known damage and at various altitudes and some with turbine engines. Neither is a Met Office matter.
Lets have figures and proper scientific reporting please."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think the Eurocontrol image speaks for itself, what excuses do they need if their own tests show no problems at all on the aircraft performance, their airspace and (the UK's) is clear on the Eurocontrol charts, and they will just revise their mainteinance schedule in future to keep an close eye on any long term damage to their aircraft.
Is NATS where authorised by someone ( nobody really know who is in charge here...) to use the same chart as the Eurocontrol use, the UK airspace would be open right now. It is a matter of politics now. Eventually Mr Brown will do something about it (2 days late) and be hail as a hero....
Is NATS where authorised by someone ( nobody really know who is in charge here...) to use the same chart as the Eurocontrol use, the UK airspace would be open right now. It is a matter of politics now. Eventually Mr Brown will do something about it (2 days late) and be hail as a hero....