Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

New eruption starting in Iceland? (merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

New eruption starting in Iceland? (merged)

Old 24th May 2011, 17:57
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SM, Didn't you read what Mad Scientist wrote?
forget is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:11
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dwshimoda

Your decent into rudeness does you (weak) argument no good.

I certainly like Ryanair for using state of the art safety toolkit to fly safe.

And a safety case is about managing risks not running risks. Perhaps you should read this excellent work

Amazon Amazon
Shell Management is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:15
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heard O'leary on the Radio Scotland this afternoon, the reporter was asking all the right questions and he sounded like a money grabbing b@stard, well those of us in the industry know him for what he is.

Since when was an accountant an expert on anything except counting beans?

The posters on here supporting this idiot cannot be aircrew as everyone I have ever spoken to are concerned for safety, something O'leary cant spell never mind understand.

Some comments on here beggar belief and have to be from stirrers, surely...
Meeb is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:18
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ZRH
Age: 61
Posts: 574
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Meeb,

unfortunately I know several airline captains of different airlines who have shown their expertise by denying the whole thing. No, there was no ash, no we could have flown, the governments are all w!*?!ers and so on and so on. As a consequence several of the operating airlines these guys fly on are now on my personal no fly list.

Best regards
AN2 Driver
AN2 Driver is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:23
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Where ever my Blackberry says i am
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shell you're an idiot. Go away and let the bigs boys talk on a serious subject that you obviously have no clue about

O'leary got busted for going on TV and telling the world that one of his planes flew through the "cloud" and there was no damage.

The UK Transport secretary outed the little hitler that his
state of the art safety toolkit to fly safe
as you put it never went near the red zone.

So wise up and less of your anti British rhetoric it be-littles you.
gone till november is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:32
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Over Mache Grande?
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't see his post, but Ryanair and
state of the art safety toolkit to fly safe
don't go together - especially after MOL today.

We are able to fly in low levels, but have not applied for the dispensation to fly into medium levels, and I am glad we haven't. It just puts passengers and engines at risk. We need to learn to live with the inconvenience that nature sometimes provides. When Boeing, RR, the CAA and my company's assessment say it is okay, then I will be happy to fly.

Until then I'm not going to go on the the say so of some mouthy little prick with publicity and profits as his main drivers.
dwshimoda is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:34
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the sun
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If Ryanair did submit a safety case as claimed then it was obviously rejected as being inadequate. Otherwise they would be flying.
WetFeet is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 18:54
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Uranus
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dwshimoda

Outstanding posts sir, absolutley spot on.

Shell Management, you're dangerous, if you really endorse what you seem to be suggesting then you worry me..........you really think its OK for a wide-boy CEO to make critical safety decisions with the sole objective of keeping the profits coming in?

Oh dear,
StressFree is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 19:16
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Midlands
Age: 78
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to flightradar24, a BA A320, callsign BAW9271 appears to be part way through a grand tour of the British isles from London to Aberdeen, currently 19,000 feet over Manchester.
Old and Horrified is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 19:20
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You've heard about affordable safety, well today's media orgasm was about affordable Volcanic ash. For those unfamiliar, MOL is a one trick pony. Pile it high, sell it cheap, and blame anyone and anything that gets in your way. This dangerous, disrespectful, anarchistic business whore needs to be taken down before he kills someone. IAA afraid. CAA DO SOMETHING.

SAFA MOL at every British airport until he learns to respect British rule of law. Better still, BLACKLIST Ryanair from British airspace.

Flying in proscribed British airspace? Outrageous.
Hibernia is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 19:34
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pb2
Wetfeet, you are quoting from the preamble to the Regulation rather than any part of the legislation itself. If you go down to the Regulation you'll see that article 5 paragraphs (1)a) and (3) together with articles 7, 8 and 9 make it explicitly clear that only the right to compensation is waived in the event of 'exceptional circumstances' like the ones you describe.

The right to care, as well as the right to refund or re-routing, persists even under these conditions.

Wetfeet, you also need to look at the next paragraph of the preamble:
(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
This pretty well excludes an airspace closure, which doesn't apply to a particular aircraft on a particular day.

Even Cryanair agrees, the Regulation requires them, in these circumstances, to provide a refund, rerouting and care; but not cash compensation.
ExXB is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 19:50
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 56
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And, SM, how do you make a safety case based on last year's eruption when this one has a completely different "make up" with different size of ash particles, different concentrations, different weather conditions affecting the spread of the "plume", a specific height limit, etc, etc, etc.

If you are "management" of any kind then you will understand how a "risk assessment" works, how it can only apply to ONE SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, and how no airline can manage to get a PROPER "safety case" sorted out in the space of two days when you consider that the input from the engine manufacturers will need longer due to the lack of knowledge they had 24 hours after the volcano farted it's guts out.

NO airline can possibly have a VIABLE "safety case" drafted in 48 hours of an event like this, every eruption is different. To try and say that any airline has a "state of the art safety toolkit" to allow them to "fly safe" in these circumstances (when they didn't actually go anywhere near the ash cloud) is absolute malebovinefaeces.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 19:50
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: norn iron
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I see those pesky bureaucrats have been "making stuff up" again.

Ash observations confirm Met Office ash forecasts « Met Office News Blog
cuthere is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 19:54
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Old and Horrified

The same aircraft operated a similar profile this morning with the same callsign. It operated LHR to MAN via many orbits North of Aberdeen at 28,000 ft. You would have been able to read about it here but, unfortunately a Moderator deemed it only worthy of the Spotters forum and deleted all the relevant posts!

Whereas it would have been of interest to most of the professional industry workforce. Perhaps we need some more professional moderators here!

Ho hum..
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 20:16
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,473
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Shell Management, we have crossed paths before on other threads but your comments here really do exceed even your own wild standards. That operators have not submitted a safety case to the Authority for operations in high ash concentrations is certainly, in my employer's case, due to the fact that we do not believe that the risk can be acceptably mitigated. I find your armchair "judge and jury" attitude that this somehow represents a failing on the part of the UK industry to be gratuitously offensive.

In any case, how do you define "high"? "High" concentration would be anything more than 4000 micrograms per cubic metre - and potentially with no upper limit. You could conceivably fly right through the plume of a volcano if you had that approval. I would hope that even you would agree, in light of the BA and KLM 747 experiences, that such activity is not advisable.
Flightrider is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 20:19
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let´s face it, there won´t be any change to the existing chaos anytime soon. Nobody wants to hold his head out of the window with a decision that flying jet aircraft 1000 miles away from an errupting volcano is indeed safe.

Thirty years ago we simply didn´t have the computer power available to forecast (or should I say estimate) the amount of ash particles in far-away airspaces. Everyone (except for BA and KLM if I recall correctly) kept his distance from visible ashclouds and that was it. Since no accidents happened in the 50+ years of jet airliners aviation before last and this year´s chaos I conclude that todays chaotic regulations are not based on common sense or scientific research but on lawyers` opinions.
eagleflyer is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 20:27
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shell M,
As part of a safety case the Airline will have to provide evidence that the engines are allowed (by the engine manufacturer) to operate in airspace contaminated by ash in the relevent quantities.
The engines being those currently attached to their aircraft.
Further requirements are needed but that is the most relevant to your question and statements.
TO DATE NO engine manufacturer has given the aproval needed to operate in the red zone - therefore NO airline can present the case to operate in the red zone.
A safety case requires there to be SAFETY not just words from the oil industry - itself a fine example of safety management.
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 20:31
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you

This is all cooked up because of the lawyers.

I will be going to work on Thursday night flying from NY to Europe. If I start seeing St. Elmo's fire on my windscreen I will change altitude and or direction.

I am sick of some pencil-d..k nerd telling me how to do my job. Let's throw CRM and MCC and all that back at them as well.

In case you think I am writing this tongue in cheek, I am not.
DA50driver is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 20:38
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: england
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DA 50 driver, what evidence do you have to back up what you say?

You may feel that the airlines are being over-cautious, but what evidence do you have to show that it is safe?
heavy_landing is offline  
Old 24th May 2011, 20:51
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Royaume-Uni
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DA 50 driver, what evidence do you have to back up what you say?
Presumably he's taken a lot of meteorologists/geologists back to his place?
Montgolfier is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.