Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Midlands air ambulances grounded by ash
BBC reports that the West Midland Air Ambulance has stopped flying due to the ash plume.
BBC News - Volcanic ash grounds West Midlands air ambulances
Volcanic ash halts air ambulances
Air ambulance services in the West Midlands region have been grounded after the Icelandic volcanic eruption.
The Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, Midlands and Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland services were grounded at 1200 BST on Thursday.
Crews from the five helicopters were redeployed in rapid response cars.
West Midlands Ambulance Service said it was waiting for advice from the Civil Aviation Authority to find out when it would be safe to fly.
The Midlands Air Ambulance service, which has three helicopters, operates from RAF Cosford in Shropshire, Strensham Services on the M5 in Worcestershire and Tattenhill in Staffordshire. The Warwickshire and Northamptonshire service has a helicopter at Coventry Airport and the Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland facility is based at East Midlands Airport.
BBC News - Volcanic ash grounds West Midlands air ambulances
Volcanic ash halts air ambulances
Air ambulance services in the West Midlands region have been grounded after the Icelandic volcanic eruption.
The Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, Midlands and Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland services were grounded at 1200 BST on Thursday.
Crews from the five helicopters were redeployed in rapid response cars.
West Midlands Ambulance Service said it was waiting for advice from the Civil Aviation Authority to find out when it would be safe to fly.
The Midlands Air Ambulance service, which has three helicopters, operates from RAF Cosford in Shropshire, Strensham Services on the M5 in Worcestershire and Tattenhill in Staffordshire. The Warwickshire and Northamptonshire service has a helicopter at Coventry Airport and the Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland facility is based at East Midlands Airport.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Louby,
Mind I ask what part of UK you are currently at?
I myself would not want to have been doing a flying lesson today, would have been paranoid putting Carb Ice on every 5 milliseconds.
Mind I ask what part of UK you are currently at?
I myself would not want to have been doing a flying lesson today, would have been paranoid putting Carb Ice on every 5 milliseconds.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought, that with Aircraft grounded, a laser could be used to measure the dust density and give a meaningful figure to indicate whether or not it would be harmful. Assuming of course there is a known figure.
The fact of the matter is that there is an uncertain amount of risk associated with flying through a volcanic dust cloud. Probably most aircraft would be unaffected, but there is a chance that something would happen in a small number of scenarios.
The two or three well known instances have survived by good airmanship and luck. They could very easily have gone the other way.
So who is willing to take the chance? Is it 1/10,000, is it 1/100,000? What is an "acceptable" level of risk, and who determines that.
Who would take the responsibility if the 1/100,000 chance went wrong?
In this age of litigation at the drop of a hat the legal liability would be horrendous.
No doubt this huge disruption will spur new research into the effects of volcanic dust and the forecasting of danger zones, but in the meantime we have to err on the side of caution.
The two or three well known instances have survived by good airmanship and luck. They could very easily have gone the other way.
So who is willing to take the chance? Is it 1/10,000, is it 1/100,000? What is an "acceptable" level of risk, and who determines that.
Who would take the responsibility if the 1/100,000 chance went wrong?
In this age of litigation at the drop of a hat the legal liability would be horrendous.
No doubt this huge disruption will spur new research into the effects of volcanic dust and the forecasting of danger zones, but in the meantime we have to err on the side of caution.
Would you be happy to fly on a aircraft that has pumped tonnes of acidic and abrasive dust through its engines (and with a certain amount nicely coating every component) without being stripped down and inspected? I would not.
You cannot know what the effect will be on some engines; is it really worth flying through this and then requiring they are immediately overhauled to inspect/repair the damage - on thousands of aircraft, as an emergency procedure. How many billions would that cost and how many months disruption would it cause?
Edit:
KLM Flight 867 in 1989, Boeing 747-400 less than 6 months old -
"In this case the ash caused more than US$80 million in damage to the aircraft, but no lives were lost and no one was injured."
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the hardest things to do, is to prove positive safety.
How do you claim credit for all the accidents that didn't happen, probably because of systems and policies implemented.
On the other hand any failure is dramatically exposed to the criticism and analysis of all and sundry, expert and simpleton alike.
How do you claim credit for all the accidents that didn't happen, probably because of systems and policies implemented.
On the other hand any failure is dramatically exposed to the criticism and analysis of all and sundry, expert and simpleton alike.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looking west after sunset - the sky was clear (ie no clouds) but there was a brownish haze along the horizon. Maybe this is as a result of looking through the upper layers of the atmosphere (looking directly up showed no haze).
Meanwhile:-
BBC News - Volcanic dust cloud suspends military training
Meanwhile:-
BBC News - Volcanic dust cloud suspends military training
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looking directly upwards the blue sky , and our cars are covered in a fine grey ash.
I sympathize with the tone of posts like the ones I have excerpted below.
Post 255
I don't know that much about volcanoes, but there is very little information available to Joe Public which indicates that the ash cloud would be a danger. Yes, there's a plume around the Shetlands, but Joe Public living in London who wants to fly from Gatwick to Spain can't see how that affects him.
Presumably some people reading this thread have access to rather more information than is publicly available. If so, could they consider making it available to Joe Public, or do a better job than just saying 'When Eric Moody....'
London is 1,000 miles away from the volcano - so any ash dispersal is likely to be at a relatively steady pace dependent on the wind and presumably moderately predictable based on meteorological forecast, rather than relatively unobservable underground geological events causing the volcano to suddenly increase its activity
I can't see any national security reason as to why information on the extent of the ash or volcanic gas should not be public. Show people the scientific evidence and they'll stop saying it's an over-reaction
Post 258
As one of those who has to sit in the ash cloud...or not! I'd greatly appreciate more info/debate on the risk assessment process which has led to this decision. The situation has repeatedly been described as "unprecedented". It isn't. There are active volcanoes all over the place and we work round them. What is so much worse about this one?
I do agree that it is necessary to both understand, explain and react to real or perceived aviation threats that affect us all.
It is the job of the aviation safety professionals to perform this task susch that those among us who are the better communicators can at least advise us.
The idea behind the warnings about aviation and volcanic ash were based on accumulated experience over 30 years and multiple near accidents. The general nature of the warnings were thought to be necessary on a time and knowledge based concept.
If-you-don't Know-then-don't Go
This was based on the belief that in a relatively short time period we would know enough about the make up of the ash, its altitudes and expected progression. I'm afraid that I may have had some unrealistic expectations that this knowlege would be within 24 hours of a hazardous eruption. On the other hand there could be a counter argument that the aviation community does know enough to restrict operations in certain locations for the period of time it does take for the cloud to disperse.
I'm not a vulcanologist and defer to the obvious expertise that has already demonstrated itself in this thread
There are two sides to the expected threats; rapid system deterioration significantly affecting the safe operation of a flight (including engines, airframe and avionics) and long term issues requiring significant maintainence actions. Risk assessment experts can always extrapolate the past history to determine relative risk for either of these effects. And of course apply a cost benefit regarding the maintainence vs operation costs. However, I'm sure that most of your would not support a cost benefit analysis of losing a transport aircraft.
So the question is how much is too much regarding volcanic ash?.
The experts need to know the particulate size. Smaller, (the stuff that stays at high altitudes) is worse since it's dependent on residence time withi the combustor flame. The experts also need to know the relative makeup of melting points of the particulate mater. If this can be identified and modeled within a fortnight then we might be able to make some progress to temper our reaction to the threat.
If the models are not calibrated than the shoot-from-the-hip approach might be to take an aircraft into the cloud with engines and systems running at various conditions (not all have to be at full up) and examine the results afterwards.
OK some of you wanted to debate this so I threw out the first grenade
Post 255
I don't know that much about volcanoes, but there is very little information available to Joe Public which indicates that the ash cloud would be a danger. Yes, there's a plume around the Shetlands, but Joe Public living in London who wants to fly from Gatwick to Spain can't see how that affects him.
Presumably some people reading this thread have access to rather more information than is publicly available. If so, could they consider making it available to Joe Public, or do a better job than just saying 'When Eric Moody....'
London is 1,000 miles away from the volcano - so any ash dispersal is likely to be at a relatively steady pace dependent on the wind and presumably moderately predictable based on meteorological forecast, rather than relatively unobservable underground geological events causing the volcano to suddenly increase its activity
I can't see any national security reason as to why information on the extent of the ash or volcanic gas should not be public. Show people the scientific evidence and they'll stop saying it's an over-reaction
Post 258
As one of those who has to sit in the ash cloud...or not! I'd greatly appreciate more info/debate on the risk assessment process which has led to this decision. The situation has repeatedly been described as "unprecedented". It isn't. There are active volcanoes all over the place and we work round them. What is so much worse about this one?
It is the job of the aviation safety professionals to perform this task susch that those among us who are the better communicators can at least advise us.
The idea behind the warnings about aviation and volcanic ash were based on accumulated experience over 30 years and multiple near accidents. The general nature of the warnings were thought to be necessary on a time and knowledge based concept.
If-you-don't Know-then-don't Go
This was based on the belief that in a relatively short time period we would know enough about the make up of the ash, its altitudes and expected progression. I'm afraid that I may have had some unrealistic expectations that this knowlege would be within 24 hours of a hazardous eruption. On the other hand there could be a counter argument that the aviation community does know enough to restrict operations in certain locations for the period of time it does take for the cloud to disperse.
I'm not a vulcanologist and defer to the obvious expertise that has already demonstrated itself in this thread
There are two sides to the expected threats; rapid system deterioration significantly affecting the safe operation of a flight (including engines, airframe and avionics) and long term issues requiring significant maintainence actions. Risk assessment experts can always extrapolate the past history to determine relative risk for either of these effects. And of course apply a cost benefit regarding the maintainence vs operation costs. However, I'm sure that most of your would not support a cost benefit analysis of losing a transport aircraft.
So the question is how much is too much regarding volcanic ash?.
The experts need to know the particulate size. Smaller, (the stuff that stays at high altitudes) is worse since it's dependent on residence time withi the combustor flame. The experts also need to know the relative makeup of melting points of the particulate mater. If this can be identified and modeled within a fortnight then we might be able to make some progress to temper our reaction to the threat.
If the models are not calibrated than the shoot-from-the-hip approach might be to take an aircraft into the cloud with engines and systems running at various conditions (not all have to be at full up) and examine the results afterwards.
OK some of you wanted to debate this so I threw out the first grenade
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: God's Country
Age: 73
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second post
lomapaseo
One of the more thoughtful posts I've seen in this thread. I especially like the following logic:
"So the question is how much is too much regarding volcanic ash?.The experts need to know the particulate size. Smaller, (the stuff that stays at high altitudes) is worse since it's dependent on residence time withi the combustor flame. The experts also need to know the relative makeup of melting points of the particulate mater. If this can be identified and modeled within a fortnight then we might be able to make some progress to temper our reaction to the threat."
Volcanic ejecta varies widely based on many geologic factors. Add to this the atmospheric conditions (not my field) and things get very unpredictable. Without this information one can't begin to speculate, and I would hope that it's being gathered as we speak. If not - and were I an official at a major airline - I would be buying and deploying my own test equipment tomorrow, hiring a vulcanologist or two, and engineers, costs be damned.
Based on the geologic record, this is not likely to be a short term event, although noone can say with certainty how long it may last. Just thinking of odds based on history, but volcanoes are unpredictable critters. I'd prepare for the long-haul and hope for something better, as geologic time scales run on a very different calendar. I'd also hope and pray it's big brother doesn't awaken - God help us if it does.
Regards,
LoboTx, geologist at large
One of the more thoughtful posts I've seen in this thread. I especially like the following logic:
"So the question is how much is too much regarding volcanic ash?.The experts need to know the particulate size. Smaller, (the stuff that stays at high altitudes) is worse since it's dependent on residence time withi the combustor flame. The experts also need to know the relative makeup of melting points of the particulate mater. If this can be identified and modeled within a fortnight then we might be able to make some progress to temper our reaction to the threat."
Volcanic ejecta varies widely based on many geologic factors. Add to this the atmospheric conditions (not my field) and things get very unpredictable. Without this information one can't begin to speculate, and I would hope that it's being gathered as we speak. If not - and were I an official at a major airline - I would be buying and deploying my own test equipment tomorrow, hiring a vulcanologist or two, and engineers, costs be damned.
Based on the geologic record, this is not likely to be a short term event, although noone can say with certainty how long it may last. Just thinking of odds based on history, but volcanoes are unpredictable critters. I'd prepare for the long-haul and hope for something better, as geologic time scales run on a very different calendar. I'd also hope and pray it's big brother doesn't awaken - God help us if it does.
Regards,
LoboTx, geologist at large
I should confess at this point that job is assist companies to plan for disasters (contingency planning) so it gives me a different perspective.
When I hear people demanding that the arguments about what should be done and whether there is a scientific argument to close the airspace I am surprised. All these issues and discussion have to take place long before any event takes place. When there is a fire, do you have a debate about the merits of evacuation, the danger of smoke inhalation, and burning to death or do you evacuate? In the WTC's there was a plan of action on 9/11; some people followed it - some looked out the window rubber necking.
My point is when there is a situation, you follow the plan and discuss the issues later.
When I hear people demanding that the arguments about what should be done and whether there is a scientific argument to close the airspace I am surprised. All these issues and discussion have to take place long before any event takes place. When there is a fire, do you have a debate about the merits of evacuation, the danger of smoke inhalation, and burning to death or do you evacuate? In the WTC's there was a plan of action on 9/11; some people followed it - some looked out the window rubber necking.
My point is when there is a situation, you follow the plan and discuss the issues later.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Imagine circling over Heathrow in your para glider?
Well, I was circling over a bit of Scotland tonight in my paramotor. I got to 6700+ feet before I gave up with the motor missing due to carb ice.
Or was it perhaps dust?
Imagine circling over Heathrow in your para glider?
Well, I was circling over a bit of Scotland tonight in my paramotor. I got to 6700+ feet before I gave up with the motor missing due to carb ice.
Or was it perhaps dust?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peter we
My point is when there is a situation, you follow the plan and discuss the issues later.
My point is when there is a situation, you follow the plan and discuss the issues later.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking NW this evening in Berkshire
The sky looked like this for about 20 mins, then clouded over, and then cleared with nothing visible. This might just be cirrus, but then the sun angle may have been just right at the time.
Earlier in the afternoon there was a discolouration to what looked like high thin cloud, and at this time the sun was much lower and this structure could be seen. I'm thinking this may have been the low sun angle illuminating it from below. Everything pretty much disappeared into clear sky with a little haze thereafter.
(music rights are cleared BTW)
This is 4x normal speed, so about 4minutes here showing very slow drifting of these clouds.
This view is looking North West at 18:45 today. Location is 10 miles West of LHR.
This is about an hour from sunset, so the sun is about 15deg above horizon - technically 'astronomical twilight' as that occurs when the Sun is 18 deg above the horizon.
At the 53sec mark in the film, the automatic exposure of the camera kicks in to change that.
Crikey, I don't think I'm going ga-ga.
Ashmap for the UK at 2300 tonight.
I think what I filmed was really ash now.
Good article here addressing the possible long-term issues.
Last edited by rp122; 15th Apr 2010 at 22:35. Reason: adding supporting information
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Met Office: Icelandic volcano eruption
Dust and smells have been detected in the Northern Isles. We are currently liaising with Health Protection Scotland and the Health Protection Agency in England. Dust has been collected at Lerwick and is currently being analysed by Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
The eruptions seems to be getting much more violent
Breaking news: Another large flood, evacuation ordered | IceNews - Daily News
Yes of course we do. People, can even smell it in Norway and the effects of this volcano have been felt before.
Breaking news: Another large flood, evacuation ordered | IceNews - Daily News
My (any many other people) point is exactly about DO WE HAVE A SITUATION in the first place? And do you really have to evacuate the whole skyscraper if somebody farted in his office?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has already been raised, but whilst half of Europe is hopping up and down at having their travel plans disrupted for just 36 hours, the last time this particular volcano erupted, in 1821, it allegedly spewed ash into the sky for two years. 
Hypothetically, say this time it does the same thing - which on the face of it, would seem a reasonable possibility. What would happen if the current airspace closures were to continue for two years ?
I don't believe we have the technology to 'put out' a volcano do we ?
As a species, we excel at arrogance in the face of nature.
Hypothetically, say this time it does the same thing - which on the face of it, would seem a reasonable possibility. What would happen if the current airspace closures were to continue for two years ?
I don't believe we have the technology to 'put out' a volcano do we ?
As a species, we excel at arrogance in the face of nature.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Only upon request
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
European Space Agency animation:
ESA Portal - Animation of the ash plume from Icelandic eruption
and picture:
http://www.esa.int/images/Meris-Icel...w-Full-res.jpg
Helsinki is also closed since 2100 GMT:
FOCUS Information Agency
ESA Portal - Animation of the ash plume from Icelandic eruption
and picture:
http://www.esa.int/images/Meris-Icel...w-Full-res.jpg
Helsinki is also closed since 2100 GMT:
FOCUS Information Agency
