Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ready to Depart
Age: 45
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theoretical mathematical model
For everyone who is disgusted that the Met Office are using "theoretical mathematical models" to FORECAST the ash movement... wtf do you think they use for all their other FORECASTS? Little pixies? Oracles? You've got to start from something, and microscopic radioactive particles seams like a good enough starting point for me - seeing as it's only been running for a week.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretical methemtatical models
Dusty B - Agree. But that is also why we need the physical empirical evidence to go with it. Now (and for the last 5 days) we've had the chance. May be too late to enact a solution based on the 2 observations - theory vs actual. But, it will bode well for the future if this scenario arises again. Sorry to bang on, but we need the evidence eventually and the level of 'test flights' thus far and how they've been executed does not appear to show the needed due diligence.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough, the model is being verified by observed data...
And of course aircraft are transitting UK airspace - its open above FL200!
BoughtTheFarm, you're right - test flights need to be instrumented and done properly, covering the whole range of flight levels across all areas, rather than just a jolly around the eastern Atlantic at FL whatever which proves nothing. Even then, If you go fishing (test flight) you might not catch a fish (ash) , but it does not mean there are no fish (ash) in the sea. (air)
And of course aircraft are transitting UK airspace - its open above FL200!
BoughtTheFarm, you're right - test flights need to be instrumented and done properly, covering the whole range of flight levels across all areas, rather than just a jolly around the eastern Atlantic at FL whatever which proves nothing. Even then, If you go fishing (test flight) you might not catch a fish (ash) , but it does not mean there are no fish (ash) in the sea. (air)
Nice-but-dim
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Rural Yorkshire
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest respect guys, and I know it's not really 'any of my business' but the mods have repeatedly asked for the 'spotteresque' posts to be kept out of here. Can see their point, it clutters up interesting debate and they are working overtime keeping the thread tidy.
I'll shut up myself now.
I'll shut up myself now.
Unfortunately, it just seems that there is a sort of subculture of (usually) right-wing people in the UK who are obsessed with the idea that the Met Office is plotting against them. This thread has now reached the point where the same people who were yelling that Gordon Brown was at fault for closing the airspace and it wasn't really a problem - no link or citation has yet been produced to support the idea that it was Brown's decision rather than CAA, NATS, or VAAC - are now yelling that Brown should really intervene and have it reopened rather than "hiding behind NATS".
And, apparently, a volcano going off in Iceland is Harriet Harman's fault. Frankly, you could cry.
Also, with regard to the link to The Register: when I was a tech journalist (like Andrew Orlowski) we had a saying that if it was on the BBC it was probably out of date, if it was on ZDNet it might be right, if it was in Wired it was probably right but overhyped, and if it was in the Reg there was no way of telling whether it was right, wrong, or pure pub drivel. I am not aware that the former fanzine editor has any competence to say anything at all intelligent about modelling ash dispersal, and it would vastly improve his product if he were to shut up more often.
And, apparently, a volcano going off in Iceland is Harriet Harman's fault. Frankly, you could cry.
Also, with regard to the link to The Register: when I was a tech journalist (like Andrew Orlowski) we had a saying that if it was on the BBC it was probably out of date, if it was on ZDNet it might be right, if it was in Wired it was probably right but overhyped, and if it was in the Reg there was no way of telling whether it was right, wrong, or pure pub drivel. I am not aware that the former fanzine editor has any competence to say anything at all intelligent about modelling ash dispersal, and it would vastly improve his product if he were to shut up more often.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: EU
Age: 54
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dusty B:
Fair enough to use mathematical models for forecasting weather patterns and cloud movements. This is quite scientific and has years of proven ground.....BUT to use theoretical mathematical formulas that have never been tested to predict the levels of concentration of the volcanic ash that is dangerous to aircraft would appear to me to be verging on irresponsability.
On the other hand, one has to say in their favour, that if they are not provided with electric screwdrivers, then they are doing a very good job using a hammer for the screws......
Fair enough to use mathematical models for forecasting weather patterns and cloud movements. This is quite scientific and has years of proven ground.....BUT to use theoretical mathematical formulas that have never been tested to predict the levels of concentration of the volcanic ash that is dangerous to aircraft would appear to me to be verging on irresponsability.
On the other hand, one has to say in their favour, that if they are not provided with electric screwdrivers, then they are doing a very good job using a hammer for the screws......
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS is a privately-owned ATM service provider. It is regulated by the CAA to ensure that it operates safely, in accordance with UK legislation etc etc.
NATS is not itself a regulator, and has no powers or indeed expertise to regulate. <snip> So who is actually preventing aircraft from flying? We know how it's being done, in controlled airspace, and that NATS are doing that. But is the decision to do it taken solely by NATS on its own authority, with or without consultation with others? If so they are on very shaky ground indeed.
NATS is not itself a regulator, and has no powers or indeed expertise to regulate. <snip> So who is actually preventing aircraft from flying? We know how it's being done, in controlled airspace, and that NATS are doing that. But is the decision to do it taken solely by NATS on its own authority, with or without consultation with others? If so they are on very shaky ground indeed.
BD
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wippersnapper
So let me get this right. There is absolutely no danger in the BA aircraft approaching LHR in this lovely weather, but they are being refused permission because NATS is concerned about the long term damage to their engines. Is this correct?
I don't expect to see any engine failures today, but I am concerned that multiple failures may occur in the coming days or weeks.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: YYC
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a an engine is producing 10,000lb of thrust, it would be consuming 0.01lb of dust per second ppm. Or 36lb per hour (16.36Kg).
600ppm would mean 9816kg per hour passing - and melting - through the engine.
An example. Which I based upon figures from the Canadian VAAC, which seems to use a distinctly better model than the British one, with results divided in low, medium and high concentrations. Low goes from 10 to 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air. If you consider a plane flying at 180 m/s, an engine with a capture area of 3 square m, and a concentration corresponding to the upper limit of the "low" concentration, over ten minutes (an estimate of the time to cross a lower level cloud, after takeoff or before landing), you absorb roughly 0.3 grams of ash per engine.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DjerbaDevil
There are a couple of points where you misunderstand:
1. The VAACS model is not predicting concentration. It explicitly stated in the earlier graphs (although appears to have stopped doing so) that density of the "cloud" is unknown. This is not to excuse the process, but merely to state a fact. Maybe the ICAO should alter their process to not consider such models where concentration is unknown, but the VAACS model is officially approved by the ICAO.
2. The VAACS model does not try to suggest at which concentration of ash engines might be damaged. That is for the engine manufacturers to decide. Since they do not know, they recommend concentrations of zero.
There are a couple of points where you misunderstand:
1. The VAACS model is not predicting concentration. It explicitly stated in the earlier graphs (although appears to have stopped doing so) that density of the "cloud" is unknown. This is not to excuse the process, but merely to state a fact. Maybe the ICAO should alter their process to not consider such models where concentration is unknown, but the VAACS model is officially approved by the ICAO.
2. The VAACS model does not try to suggest at which concentration of ash engines might be damaged. That is for the engine manufacturers to decide. Since they do not know, they recommend concentrations of zero.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if the link was posted yet, I've not been following the thread assiduously, but here is the NASA technical report. I hope it is helpful. It seems to me to conclude that flying through a diffuse cloud can cause hard to see damage that nonetheless has a major impact on engine lifetime and hence safety.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/vol...8AshDamage.pdf
SUMMARY
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano. There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million. Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages. There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr. There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/vol...8AshDamage.pdf
SUMMARY
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano. There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million. Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages. There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr. There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
Very wrong. You need to calculate the air flow through the engine. Nothing to do with thrust.
An example. Which I based upon figures from the Canadian VAAC, which seems to use a distinctly better model than the British one, with results divided in low, medium and high concentrations. Low goes from 10 to 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air. If you consider a plane flying at 180 m/s, an engine with a capture area of 3 square m, and a concentration corresponding to the upper limit of the "low" concentration, over ten minutes (an estimate of the time to cross a lower level cloud, after takeoff or before landing), you absorb roughly 0.3 grams of ash per engine.
An example. Which I based upon figures from the Canadian VAAC, which seems to use a distinctly better model than the British one, with results divided in low, medium and high concentrations. Low goes from 10 to 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air. If you consider a plane flying at 180 m/s, an engine with a capture area of 3 square m, and a concentration corresponding to the upper limit of the "low" concentration, over ten minutes (an estimate of the time to cross a lower level cloud, after takeoff or before landing), you absorb roughly 0.3 grams of ash per engine.
So (180m/s x 3m) *10microgram=5400microgram/second.
5400microgram * 10*60= 3.24grams in 10 minutes.
At a higher concentration (still low) of 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air it would be 32.4g per engine per transit through the layer.
This is assuming 10 minutes transit, I believe the cloud is now down to FL10 and below isn't it?
"It looks like common sence is about to prevail. The Met Office model is about to be given the heave ho."
So we are going to use common sense for future weather predictions as well are we?
200 years of science, some of the most powerful computers in the world and all we needed was common sense instead.
So we are going to use common sense for future weather predictions as well are we?
200 years of science, some of the most powerful computers in the world and all we needed was common sense instead.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peter we
Quote:
At what concentration is ash in the atmosphere an ash cloud?
Someone posted that it was measured at over 2000ppm. The NASA aircraft that was damaged, flew through 600ppm I believe.
At what concentration is ash in the atmosphere an ash cloud?
Someone posted that it was measured at over 2000ppm. The NASA aircraft that was damaged, flew through 600ppm I believe.
One bit of good news for the brave souls flying the test flights is the following quote from page 13 of the NASA DC8 report:
There is no evidence of significant engine performance change following the ash encounter. In fact, there does appear to be a slight drop in cruise EGT. This is
consistent with experience that says that a very mild ash encounter cleans and polishes the compressor blades, slightly increasing their efficiency.
consistent with experience that says that a very mild ash encounter cleans and polishes the compressor blades, slightly increasing their efficiency.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: YYC
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So (180m/s x 3m) *10microgram=5400microgram/second.
5400microgram * 10*60= 3.24grams in 10 minutes.
At a higher concentration (still low) of 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air it would be 32.4g per engine per transit through the layer.
This is assuming 10 minutes transit, I believe the cloud is now down to FL10 and below isn't it?
5400microgram * 10*60= 3.24grams in 10 minutes.
At a higher concentration (still low) of 100 micrograms per cubic meter of air it would be 32.4g per engine per transit through the layer.
This is assuming 10 minutes transit, I believe the cloud is now down to FL10 and below isn't it?
You can easily adapt to different times and conditions.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'law' governing flights in ash conditions is the ICAO document referenced in previous posts. Who exactly could be sued and for what reason?
Any other ICAO document would have a similar status.
IF the person or organisation who decided on the airspace restrictions got it wrong, or was not even empowered to do that in law even though he/she/it obviously can in practice, repeat IF, then that's where the airline lawyers will aim.
Reason? Don't be naive; money, and lots of it, in compensation at taxpayer expense.
From a political perspective this is all further proof that the lunatics are running the asylum.
Management is doing "things right", leadership is doing the "right thing".
If we had leaders with any backbone they would have the moral courage to open the airspace, albeit with some restrictions. Having those BA aircraft diverting away from LHR is utter nonsense.
Management is doing "things right", leadership is doing the "right thing".
If we had leaders with any backbone they would have the moral courage to open the airspace, albeit with some restrictions. Having those BA aircraft diverting away from LHR is utter nonsense.