flying has always had an eleement of risk. and the person who has the final say is the captain.

what I would like someone to do is use some, yet to be made, gadget to tell the pilot about the healthiness of the air being sucked into the engine. sensing the particulate matter and displaying in EZ to understand terms/images if one should continue or turn around.

a parakeet in the coal mine for jet engines.

Let's rename the CAA Pontius Pilate shall we? They (and the Irish authorities) can have this year's Buck Passing award.

A I

Ella:
So you actually knew from day one that there was no risk. On what was this based.

So as the ash cloud becomes even more diffuse and withdraws from UK airspace (as evidenced by the latest VAAC charts), King CAAnute announces the salvation of British aviation?

Has anyone got a link to this revised airspace guidance yet as we can't rewrite our operational procedures against the specification of a press release.

It would appear that the issue here was not about how much ash there was in the amosphere but where it was. The VAAC model was computer generated and was looking more rediculous by the day as it expanded mathematically over to Newfoundland and into Russia. This was the problem as the satellite imaging used by the FAA showed the ash in a completely different area. Europe started using the satellite imaging as soon as they realised the conflict but because the VAAC couldn't back down we had the farce of Adonis and his advisors insisting on using the VAAC model when there was clearly a vast confliction in the data being provided. A final compromise was thrashed out last night after enormous pressure from the airlines that resulted in a extended red line being drawn round the satellite images.
Standby for massive compensation claims and heads rolling, a typical UK over reaction based on flawed data.

German Airspace Restrictions
 

Does anybody know the current state of play inside German airspace?

Is it still VFR below fl100 only?

That'll be a model from the Met Office, which also produces the models used to predict Global Warming then? :hmm:

The airlines don't come out of this smelling of roses. They're the ones who have dragged their feet for years to prevent a safe ash level being set...

Guardian: Why airlines resisted setting safe dust level for flights – until now

Interesting that it was NATS that effectively closed the airspace on thursday by issuing instructions to NATS controllers not to accept IFR flights in controlled airspace (no such instructions to non NATS units until friday), yet it is now the CAA who are stepping forward as the regulator to re-open airspace.
I personally spoke to a CAA inspector on friday who said , and i quote ' we have not issued any mandatory instructions but we are recommending that NATS guidelines are followed' .

When did the CAA step in?

Perhaps we can ask Harriet Harman?

a) It was not a UK-only reaction; decisions were made across Europe as well

b) Met Office modelling shows the cloud becoming more diffuse as time progresses - hence why we now find airspace opening in conjunction with changed risk assessments on engine tolerances. I still do not see how that possibly indicts the decisions of the last 6 days as bad. I don't see this as being ridiculous at all. Met Office: Icelandic volcano - Ash concentration charts

c) North Atlantic weather patterns have not dissapated the cloud, unlike eruptions from Redoubt, Alaska or other volcanoes have

d) Empirical observations have vindicated the modelling: see where their own heli was grounded on the way to make the observations Met Office: New observations of volcanic dust

e) Further empirical observations here: Met Office: Icelandic volcano imagery

f) I don't see any conflict between the satellite images (which the Met Office has also published throughout) and the forecast maps; empirical evidence has supported the presence of thinner volcanic ash in areas not shown on the satellite map, the same thin ash layers which caused Finnish F18 engine damage

Edit: g) Read ORAC's article link


I am happy for the CAA and NATS to make a professional judgement that flight is safe in the environment today; I don't see that process as having disproved any of the past 6 days' decisions whatsoever. That process was necessary if insufficient tolerance data was available, and the ash cloud was more concentrated until today.

On the contrary, the attitude of many here seems to be no different from the psychological state of bull market participants in the stock market who match their ideas to facts as they perceive them, rather than recognising changed environments.

I still can't see why people see a conspiracy, particularly on the side of conservatism (when it is usually levelled at bullish companies who are alleged to compromise flight safety...)

"Belief in conspiracy theories can be comforting. If everything that goes wrong is the fault of a secret cabal, that relieves you of the tedious necessity of trying to understand how a complex world really works. And you can feel smug that you are smart enough to “see through” the official version of events."

Safe flying

No, don't. I can't bear the sound of her voice. Nothing gives me greater solace than the thought of her sitting in the benefit office on May 7th.:ugh:

I would have been happy to fly from day 1. I have 25 years of experience of flying in all kinds of crap. The pilots are the ones who decides when and where it's safe to fly aeroplanes, not faceless bureaucrats.

it´s changing all the time...
 

Check here for the latest:

dfs.de

It´s still VFR below FL200 in most places.
Did CVFR into FRA yesterday.

Which airline do you fly for again? I'll make a note to avoid paxing on it. I assume you also ignore the faceless bureaucrats who forecast storm cells as well, right?:ugh:

Day 1 in Finnish airspace, 2,000km from the volcano? I'll leave you to it.


ORAC
Good point, useful article with some good journalism (despite the publication!)

I have a feeling some airlines are just waiting to be sued in the American courts over knowingly flying into ash if a subsequent accident happens due to engine failure/rollback and ash, no matter how little, is found in the engines..... :uhoh:

Operations in contradiction to ops manual
 

As Captain, I am legally responsible for the safe preparation and execution of any flight I undertake.

As we are still in a volcanic ash cloud, ( it has not gone away) is it unreasonable for me to see the information that has led to the resumption of flight, especially as the ops manual states avoid flight into volcanic ash. If I have an incident who is to blame?

I am happy to fly but would like a little more data to hang my hat on

There is no point ruining the entire fleet on test flights is there?

Ryanair are not going to take part in the experiment apparently flights are cancelled until Thursday (when the wind is expected to blow the last of the cloud away.

Agreed - much as I am defending NATS/Met Office in this, their PR has been appallingly bad in eloquently communicating what data they have been using, which has spread the fans of the great conspiracy theory.

Airbus unplugged

Well said! Maybe HH can spearhead yet another state funded quango to write a report on the internal structure of volcanos. Spearhead is the appropriate word right down its opening.

Poor old aviation has been loaded with such huge costs from a mass of faceless burocrats from every direction that it is fast becoming an awful business to be in.

Pace

I entirely agree. The government should use some of the VAT and fuel taxes which airlines pay to help make up for all the losses incurred. Oh, wait....

When can we expect to see "approved for flight in volcanic ash concentrations of xxx/m3 or less" in our AFMs?
I like brooksjg's suggestion as an immediate check on ash encounter (especially inadvertent). Should be possible to differentiate between bugs and rocks by simple visual. Bad rocks and benign rocks might need microscopic exam.

All sorts of things, probably including insects, could potentially cause False Positives.
Depending on the previous filter replacement cycle (ie. when clogged with non-ash material and therefore doing their job), you could either set a maximum for ALL air contamination permitted on one flight and quarantine the aircraft whenever it was exceeded, or find that for filters tested after one flight only, the level of contamination from non-ash causes will always be insignificant. Makes no impact on the effectiveness of the filter testing as a first-line defence against ash in the turbine, I don't think.

Might be a good idea to monitor ALL the different crud passing through the turbines, anyway!

On further reflection, my suggestion seems so obvious (and already widely done in other contexts) that it's hard to understand why it's not been done with volcanic ash or other intake air contaminants since forever! Next thing, some engineer from BA Cardiff will pop up and say they've actually been doing it all the time (or at least since the WW PR flight! :sad: