Ash clouds threaten air traffic
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone seen the risk assessment process
I for one have never "seen" a risk assessment in my life, in fact I didn't know they were physical entities that coukd be seen. I thought a risk asessment was a bull**** phrase for bureaucrats just to say "no".
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure you that assessments are quite real and seeable, when they have been done. Every ATS unit in Australia has a Group Operating Risk Assessment which covers items such as staff availability restrictions, loss of navaids, natural disasters affecting service delivery (eg cyclone wipes out the building where all the nice air traffic controllers work from), civil unrest etc etc.
That is where contingency plans are born, so that when an unusual or rare occurrence happens ATS providers are able to implement contingencies that restrict rather than curtail totally, operations. Obviously one of the contingencies may indeed be to close totally airspace, but not until after a proper and detailed assessment of the risk that is involved to aircraft.
If this process is not in place the real big question is what new evidence was revealed that allowed the airspace to reopen? A few test flights are not sufficient to go from total closure to fully open.
It beggars belief that such a mature aviation industry as is found in Europe does not seem to have such systems in place. To close the airspace over Frankfurt for example, without any hard evidence that the ash was anywhere near Germany let alone southern Germany, is very difficult to reconcile with the unilateral opening of the same airspace based on a couple of VFR jet flights.
That is where contingency plans are born, so that when an unusual or rare occurrence happens ATS providers are able to implement contingencies that restrict rather than curtail totally, operations. Obviously one of the contingencies may indeed be to close totally airspace, but not until after a proper and detailed assessment of the risk that is involved to aircraft.
If this process is not in place the real big question is what new evidence was revealed that allowed the airspace to reopen? A few test flights are not sufficient to go from total closure to fully open.
It beggars belief that such a mature aviation industry as is found in Europe does not seem to have such systems in place. To close the airspace over Frankfurt for example, without any hard evidence that the ash was anywhere near Germany let alone southern Germany, is very difficult to reconcile with the unilateral opening of the same airspace based on a couple of VFR jet flights.
I for one have never "seen" a risk assessment in my life, in fact I didn't know they were physical entities that coukd be seen. I thought a risk asessment was a bull**** phrase for bureaucrats just to say "no".
You probably have never seen a risk assessment/continuity plan becuase you are at too a low level - CEO and board members have to sign off on it and its their neck on the line when it comes down to it (and confidential).
Last edited by peter we; 6th May 2010 at 11:21.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, OK I'm neither a CEO or board member and I have seen all the risk assessments that I, as an employee, would be affected by when I worked in Australia.
Maybe that is the difference between Europe and Australia, the US is the openness of these plans and the use of the work face person to develop them and analyse the risks and ascertain if the contreols are viable and workable.
Maybe that is the difference between Europe and Australia, the US is the openness of these plans and the use of the work face person to develop them and analyse the risks and ascertain if the contreols are viable and workable.
And as one who gets involved with these, alas, I find that if you get three different "Risk Assessors" to look at a situation/organisation you end up with three quite different analyses of where any risks might lie. Despite this, most of their resulting material seems to be a cut/paste job from previous projects they have done.
An increasing number of Risk Assessors who look at aspects of industrial buildings etc now seem to come with some sort of tie-up with a contractor who, by the most amazing coincidence, is in a position to carry out the works specified.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another difference seems to be the relevance of the participants in risk assessments. Any Hazard identification workshop that I was involved in had workface controllers involved in the process. After all we were the people who would ahve to implement/control anything that was devised.
We did not use outside consultants with vested interest and I would think the aviaiton industry is a little more adept at identifying risk than a building assessor. There seems to be a misconception that you need an "expert" to assess your risk. This is far from the truth and the concept of risk assessment.
We used a facilitator - always someone from an ATC background who had reveived formal training in risk management - and as many as 6 subject matter experts (just another phrase for the workface controller) - in each workshop and worked thorugh a series of 'what if' scenarios.
The example of the building assessor is not very relevant to an aviation risk management plan and embedded safety management system.
We did not use outside consultants with vested interest and I would think the aviaiton industry is a little more adept at identifying risk than a building assessor. There seems to be a misconception that you need an "expert" to assess your risk. This is far from the truth and the concept of risk assessment.
We used a facilitator - always someone from an ATC background who had reveived formal training in risk management - and as many as 6 subject matter experts (just another phrase for the workface controller) - in each workshop and worked thorugh a series of 'what if' scenarios.
The example of the building assessor is not very relevant to an aviation risk management plan and embedded safety management system.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite apart from the rigor (or otherwise) of any risk assessment that might have been done, there is a huge (and un-nerving) disparity between activity in UK/Europe, and the US.
I just heard a snatch of audio from a US Senate sub-committee hearing (presumably Transportation). They'd got a rep from GE Aviation on the stand and asked him two or three obvious and relevant questions. Knowing that it would be VERY unwise to BS or slime his way out, he appeared to answer competely and honestly.
1. Is there a problem with ash in engines? Yes, there is. GE plan to keep each engine on-wing for 5 years. Ash ingestion may reduce this time.
2. What happens? In particular, turbine cooling holes get blocked and damage is likely to be cumulative.
3. What about designs and / or materials that would avoid the problem? Aware of nothing in immediate future and maybe nothing long term.
So why are the European 'authorities' so supine and/or incompetent that they seem unable to extract similar short, succinct summaries of problems and maybe potential solutions on demand? The US is well-known as the litigation centre of the world, so that no-one over there dares speak out plainly. Clearly, the Senate and its committee witnesses are major exceptions! Good for them!
I just heard a snatch of audio from a US Senate sub-committee hearing (presumably Transportation). They'd got a rep from GE Aviation on the stand and asked him two or three obvious and relevant questions. Knowing that it would be VERY unwise to BS or slime his way out, he appeared to answer competely and honestly.
1. Is there a problem with ash in engines? Yes, there is. GE plan to keep each engine on-wing for 5 years. Ash ingestion may reduce this time.
2. What happens? In particular, turbine cooling holes get blocked and damage is likely to be cumulative.
3. What about designs and / or materials that would avoid the problem? Aware of nothing in immediate future and maybe nothing long term.
So why are the European 'authorities' so supine and/or incompetent that they seem unable to extract similar short, succinct summaries of problems and maybe potential solutions on demand? The US is well-known as the litigation centre of the world, so that no-one over there dares speak out plainly. Clearly, the Senate and its committee witnesses are major exceptions! Good for them!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting satellite map from NASA showing the Sulphur Dioxide trail yesterday.
NASA - NASA Aids Forecasters Tracking Iceland Volcano Ash Plume
NASA - NASA Aids Forecasters Tracking Iceland Volcano Ash Plume
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
brooksjg – the problem in the EU is that there are 27 different Nation States, each with undisputed sovereignty over their airspace. Plus, just about every one has a hub airline; if you close down your major airport (for reasons well-justified or otherwise) you close down one of the drivers of your economy. The more refined the European prediction model becomes, and the more it shrinks the no-fly zone, the more likely it is that future events will impact just one or two countries/economies/hub airlines. At least Apr 15-22 hit just about everybody equally.
The current EU procedure establishes a no-fly zone based on a concentration of 2g per m3. There is general consensus that this is ‘safe’ but countries are still closing airspace and airports which are outside (but close to) this contour + its precautionary buffer zone. At the same time, there is little enthusiasm amongst the engine-makers to define a more accurate (i.e. higher) threshold, because that would move them out of their 2gm comfort zone and bring them into the realm of accountability.
The current EU procedure establishes a no-fly zone based on a concentration of 2g per m3. There is general consensus that this is ‘safe’ but countries are still closing airspace and airports which are outside (but close to) this contour + its precautionary buffer zone. At the same time, there is little enthusiasm amongst the engine-makers to define a more accurate (i.e. higher) threshold, because that would move them out of their 2gm comfort zone and bring them into the realm of accountability.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brooksjg
1. Is there a problem with ash in engines? Yes, there is. GE plan to keep each engine on-wing for 5 years. Ash ingestion may reduce this time.
The question should have been "at what density and type of ash is engine engine damage likely
2. What happens? In particular, turbine cooling holes get blocked and damage is likely to be cumulative.
What happens if any pollutant ash or otherwise blocks these apertures? and again at what density is there likely to be a problem.
3. What about designs and / or materials that would avoid the problem? Aware of nothing in immediate future and maybe nothing long term.
Hang on I need to consult Mystic Meg for an answer
All I can say reading your quoted questions above IF TRUE is thank God such a bunch of idiots are not dictating aviation policy.
Pace
1. Is there a problem with ash in engines? Yes, there is. GE plan to keep each engine on-wing for 5 years. Ash ingestion may reduce this time.
The question should have been "at what density and type of ash is engine engine damage likely
2. What happens? In particular, turbine cooling holes get blocked and damage is likely to be cumulative.
What happens if any pollutant ash or otherwise blocks these apertures? and again at what density is there likely to be a problem.
3. What about designs and / or materials that would avoid the problem? Aware of nothing in immediate future and maybe nothing long term.
Hang on I need to consult Mystic Meg for an answer
All I can say reading your quoted questions above IF TRUE is thank God such a bunch of idiots are not dictating aviation policy.
Pace
SSK The "no-go" limit is 2000 micrograms/m^3, i.e. 2mg, not 2g.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subtle difference in the units.
Definitions:
Milligram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a thousandth of a gram. 1mg means 0.001 of a gram
Microgram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a millionth of a gram. 1 mcg means 0.000001 of a gram. It is more usual to write μg for micrograms.
And as Sepp says 2000 micrograms = 2milligrams.
Definitions:
Milligram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a thousandth of a gram. 1mg means 0.001 of a gram
Microgram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a millionth of a gram. 1 mcg means 0.000001 of a gram. It is more usual to write μg for micrograms.
And as Sepp says 2000 micrograms = 2milligrams.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline industry has a lot of experience operating around areas of volcanic ash. The closure of the airspace a few weeks ago was an understandable over reaction as those making the decisions were dealing with an unprecedented situation in the UK and Northern Europe. A perfect storm if you like with a volcanic eruption under a glacier, an unusual weather system for the time of year and a our political leaders pre-occupied with an election etc.
What is happening now is a more measured and sensible approach to a difficult situation. As with all such situations lessons have been learnt and systems will now be developed no doubt to better predict dangerous levels of ash in European skies and strategies to manage our airways in a more sensible way.
Anyone who suggests that airlines have been reckless really need to think again, it is not in the interests of airlines or airline bosses to risk aircraft or passengers and such claims are sensationalist. There may be a long term cost due to engine life but that is a matter that I know in my own company has been thought through and a very thorough inspection program is in place.
What is happening now is a more measured and sensible approach to a difficult situation. As with all such situations lessons have been learnt and systems will now be developed no doubt to better predict dangerous levels of ash in European skies and strategies to manage our airways in a more sensible way.
Anyone who suggests that airlines have been reckless really need to think again, it is not in the interests of airlines or airline bosses to risk aircraft or passengers and such claims are sensationalist. There may be a long term cost due to engine life but that is a matter that I know in my own company has been thought through and a very thorough inspection program is in place.
All I can say reading your quoted questions above IF TRUE is thank God such a bunch of idiots are not dictating aviation policy.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your problem seems to stem from a refusal to accept that when manufacture's say there is no safe level of ash ingestion, they mean it. The more ash, the higher the probability of damage, there is no 'safe' cut off level that you seek.
I am just a practical pilot who has flown all over the world in everything from sandstorms to severe weather.
Firstly there is nothing in aviation which guarantees 100 % safety. If you want that then dont fly FULL STOP!
To date in over 50 years of operation in ash of differing density levels there has never been a fatality caused by inadvertant entry into ash polluted air.
The same cannot be said of other threats to aviation.
Do we ground aircraft because surface winds or shear are at a level that 100 % guarantees that NO aircraft will crash on landing or takeoff? NO
Do we fly in thunderstorm areas where we are 100% guarnteed we will never ingest hailstones, severe turbulence or lightning strikes?
Do we ground aircraft because of the migration season or in areas where large sea birds fly! No think of the HUDSON accident.
I could go on and on with other examples we DO accept and DO have fatality records over the years.
I am as much into safety as anyone but I am also a realist and a pilot and there has to be a sensible approach to dealing with ash which is not apparent by some of the panic statements made by some here.
In my book in threat areas dont fly at night, use basic piloting skills of see and avoid (dont fly into visible cloud or mist patches especially pollution looking ones) and use sensible ash density levels which until proved otherwise allows some movement around known ash areas.
As stated if you want 100% stay at home, lock the doors and probably die of inactivity and boredom.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th May 2010 at 17:20.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Samsonite
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SO2 can produce substantial cooling.
The above link shows the increase in SO2 production today compared to previous (selectable on right)
The above link shows the increase in SO2 production today compared to previous (selectable on right)
As stated if you want 100% stay at home, lock the doors and probably die of inactivity and boredom.
Last edited by AEST; 6th May 2010 at 17:28.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the ash density figures.. I was trying to estimate how much ash goes through an engine if you fly say 100km through a cloud at 0.2 miligrams per cubic meter... Suppose the intake is 1 meter in area and we just look at the swept volume... I make it about 1 x 100,000 x 0.2 x 10^-3 = 20Kg
I have patiently explained about five times on this thread exactly what the problem with ash ingestion is :- extremely costly damage to engines.
It appears that there are some people who are too selfish or stupid to understand that exposure to ash risks ongoing engine maintenance problems that will make the dislocations caused by occasional airspace closures pale into insignificance.
The only answer I can think of for these people is to buy your own aircraft if you wish to accept the risk of flying through ash clouds.
It appears that there are some people who are too selfish or stupid to understand that exposure to ash risks ongoing engine maintenance problems that will make the dislocations caused by occasional airspace closures pale into insignificance.
The only answer I can think of for these people is to buy your own aircraft if you wish to accept the risk of flying through ash clouds.