PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Ash clouds threaten air traffic (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/412103-ash-clouds-threaten-air-traffic.html)

Re-Heat 18th Apr 2010 12:40


There are at present at least six active volcanoes all around the world that are represented on SIGWX charts.
The only one that unleashed such a response in so many countries is our Icelandic one.
I operated in the vicinity of many active volcanoes in my career, the average no fly zone have always been at maximum a couple of hundred miles from the erupting crater.
And what exactly are those volcanoes? You do understand the huge difference between lava-emitting Italian volcanoes and gas and ash-emitting types such as this one do you? This was on the secondary school Geography syllabus when I was 13 - there are at least 10 different types listed on Wikipedia! Volcano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wizzaird 18th Apr 2010 12:40

Latest VAAC chart for 19/0600 looks much more promising than the previous one. Some parts of central and most of eastern europe seem to be clear. Looks like a high pressure system from the Balkans area pusing the cloud north. Lets hope we get some traffic moving tomorrow, even if it is only central and easter parts to start with.

PENKO 18th Apr 2010 12:45


My car operates with a huge margin under its performance limitations; aircraft engines tend to operate at higher RPMs and closer to engineering tolerances. I have the luxury of drifting to the side of a road in a car, which my aircraft do not.
Come on Re-heat, I'm sure you were much more worried about the cost of all this vulcanic ash lying on your car. I would have been. It could have ruined your filters, glaced your pistons and what not. You know how much that would have cost you? I'm sure you went walking!

I bet it's pollen as someone politely suggested.

Anotherpost75 18th Apr 2010 12:46

From Dr. Richard North, Daily Mail, Sunday 18 April 2010


Few could have guessed the impact of eruptions from a volcano 1,000 miles away under the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier in Iceland.

Last Wednesday, we found out. At mid-morning, the high-level cloud of volcanic ash had spread across the Atlantic and was approaching Scotland. Flight operations in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow were suspended.

By midday the whole of British airspace was closed down. It has remained so ever since.

At first it was all rather thrilling. Suddenly, city-dwellers looked up to clear quiet skies, without a vapour trail or a glint of sun hitting metal in sight.
But now hours have turned into days and, though few are willing to admit it, days could just as easily turn into weeks… or perhaps longer.

Thousands of flights have been cancelled, hundreds of thousands of passengers stranded and frustrated. The cost to airlines climbs through the millions of pounds with each passing moment.

Tune into the latest updates on-line or on television and there is an inescapable doomsday feel to it all, with graphics of a shadowy mass spreading across the outline of our island.

It is something we have, for the most part, simply accepted. After all, this isn’t some work and conditions dispute that can be argued out is it? We just have to sit it out don’t we?

Anyone in any doubt of the wisdom or necessity of this nationwide grounding is promptly reminded of what happened to BA Flight 009.

That was the jumbo jet en route from Kuala Lumpur to Perth on June 24, 1982, flying at 37,000ft when it suddenly experienced the nightmare scenario of all four engines failing.

Pilot Captain Eric Moody glided the jet down more than 20,000ft before he successfully managed to restart one engine at 13,000ft followed by others, before landing safely.

The aircraft had flown into a cloud of volcanic ash from the eruption of Mt Galunggung in Indonesia. There are other incidents too that can be cited.
On December 15, 1989, a KLM jumbo lost all four engines when it flew into a cloud that turned out to be volcanic ash while descending to Anchorage, Alaska. The engines resumed working and the aircraft landed safely, but badly damaged.

In 1991, Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted, and more than 20 ‘volcanic ash encounters’ occurred from what was then the largest volcanic eruption of the past 50 years.

The ability to predict where ash was to be found was challenging because of the enormous extent of the ash cloud. Commercial flights and various military operations were affected. One US operator grounded its aircraft in Manila for several days.

Six years later, when Mt Popocatepetl in Mexico blew, there were several incidents. Although damage was minor in most cases, one flight crew experienced significantly reduced visibility for landing and had to look through the flight deck side windows to taxi after landing.

In addition, the airport in Mexico City was closed for up to 24 hours on several occasions during subsequent intermittent eruptions.

Each of these incidents was distinct and separate. And the action taken in response was distinct and separate. But that is where a gap begins to emerge between this history marshalled as reason for the current blanket grounding and the situation in which we find ourselves today.

It was these incidents that had the international aviation community look at procedures and guidelines in the event of volcanic eruption. One very sensible outcome was to increase observations and reporting.

The Galunggung incident had happened simply because no one had warned Captain Moody of the erupting volcano. Had he known about it, he could easily have changed course and avoided it.

Over the past few days we have been led to believe that grounding all planes is inevitable. That there is absolutely no alternative. But that just isn’t true.

What we are witnessing here is not a natural law, enshrined since time immemorial but a policy drawn up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and then interpreted and enforced by the UK’s National Air Traffic Service (NATS). And that interpretation requires some scrutiny.
In September 2009 the ICAO published their ‘Contingency plan for handling traffic in the event of volcanic ash penetrating the airspace of North Atlantic Region’.

In many respects the guidelines are highly detailed though they make no distinction at all between major or relatively modest eruptions.

Nor do they take into account the dilution effect as the cloud spreads from the original point. The only reference is to generic dust clouds, without any attempt to carry out a risk assessment.

Using as its model the largest and most dangerous of Icelandic volcanoes, the Katla volcano, it offered a series of procedures for monitoring and tracking volcano ash clouds and ‘advice’ to be given to airlines in the event of a volcano eruption.

This current eruption is a relatively modest affair – certainly not at all in the league of Katla.

Yet it is worth noting that for even the most serious of foreseen eruptions the plan issued by the IOCA involved re-routing aircraft round, or under, dust plumes.

We have been scared into believing that to fly would be madness, but part of the rationale that is keeping us grounded is an economic equation rather than simple personal safety.

To fly beneath the cloud until clear of it would mean burning more fuel. But not flying at all is surely burning money more swiftly.

Low-flying to simply avoid the danger of ash being sucked into the jet engines is a temporary solution gaining currency on professional pilot’s forum Pprune. One pilot writing there yesterday pointed out: ‘The chances of it even appearing at puddle jumper altitudes is negligible’.

It isn’t just daredevil pilots who are beginning to question the necessity of the current stalemate. Steve Wood, Chief Pilot at Sussex and Surrey Air Ambulance, yesterday described the measures being taken as ‘a complete overreaction’.

Modern jet aircraft engines are amazingly robust. And indeed they must be so. They have to face not only the hazards of bird strikes, but rain, hail and even salt spray on take-off from coastal airports.

All of which can potentially wreak havoc on engines. Furthermore, sand is a common hazard from dust storms and from desert airfields.

Some aircraft are better equipped than others to deal with high-dust conditions, and consultation with aircraft and engine manufacturers might have enabled more precise restrictions to be imposed, rather than a blanket ban.

But a spokesman for NATS admitted: ‘We don’t really deal with particular manufacturers.’ They were more concerned with ‘applying the international regulations’ rather than working on a specific plane-by-plane, make-by-make basis.

The blanket ban under clear blue skies and glorious sunshine is making some wonder whether this ‘one-size-fits-all’ regulation is appropriate to a situation that the regulations did not foresee.

And there will be many among the 200,000 Britons currently stranded abroad, who would be quite happy to take the risk.

In the final analysis, despite the scares, no one has actually been killed in a volcano incident – something which cannot be said for the much more hazardous drive to the airport.
Richard North is co-author of Scared To Death – From BSE To Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us The Earth.

As the cloud thickens, some pilots are asking... Why can't we just fly beneath it? | Mail Online

22 Degree Halo 18th Apr 2010 12:49

It's just erupted again after a fairly quiet spell:

Eyjafjallajökull frá Valahnúk

PENKO 18th Apr 2010 12:51

And it will continue to do so. So if we still want to have some aviation left next week, or even a functioning economy, we better wisen up.

1985 18th Apr 2010 12:52

Just had a briefing at work this morning on some of the reasons for why the cloud is staying where it is and why the airspace restrictions are in place.

1. The high pressure system thats sitting on the UK is stopping the ash dispursing properly and at some points causing the ash to circle and come back again.

2. There is an inversion at 8000ft which is stopping the ash from falling which is why there is not much on the ground.

3. The ash particles are so small that you cannot actually see them (you apparantley need a very powerful microscope).

4. Noone knows that size of particle that affects jet engines, from the aviaition authorities, the countries that have dealt with this kind of problem in the past to the engine manufacturers.

5. Because the engine manufacturers don't test for this problem they won't commit to a size/concentration that is safe.

6. NATS put the restrictions in place for controlled airspace because neither the DofT or CAA would make a descision. Once they had the other ANSP's followed their lead. (I think they would have rather the government had taken the lead but theres an election on and all :ugh:)

7. They had already done some work on what to do if a volcano had erupted in Iceland but this situation has far far exceeded the worst case predictions. I think that they expected a couple of days before it blew away, not the potential week - 10 day scenario that is shaping up.

8. They won't allow overflights FL350+ because of the potential for an emergency, which is then compounded by the ash.

9. The reason that you can't just route around it (like the yanks and aussies do) is that we don't have enough airspace to do that. (i think people forget that the UK is smaller than most US states)
Thats pretty much all i can remember.

Helol 18th Apr 2010 12:55

Woke up this morning to find my car covered in a fine layer, together with these 'splashes' all over it. It has the texture of very fine sand.

Located in South Oxon, approx. 15 miles east of Oxford.

(I had washed my car just the other day)
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...MG_5304Web.jpg

Con-Trail 18th Apr 2010 12:55

It's all good and well arguing about how damaging this is to the engines but personally I'm not convinced.

Could it be that NATS closed the airspace because of fear of any claims against them if they did keep it open in case an incident did occur?

The fact is, I'm at home losing money. No flying- no nothing. What about all my colleagues who are stuck somewhere and can't go back.

It's a frustrating thought that this was all because of a legality...
Am I being selfish?:confused:


Any comments guys?

VAACman 18th Apr 2010 12:59

VAAC operations
 
Dear all,

A few comments from a non-pilot but VAAC insider... (not in London....):

1) The threat is real in general - there have been many documented encounters with volcanic ash clouds and while the focus tends to go on the BA, Singapore Airlines and KLM incidents there have been many others. Eg: after Miyakejima in 2000 there were 2 aircraft needing all engines replaced. Longest time between eruption and (minor - pitot tube and abrasion) damage appears to be 20 days for a cross-Pacific cloud drifiting from Ecuador to north of New Guinea. Obviously though the greatest risk is going to be where the cloud is densest.

2) While VAAC operations tend to be conservative (and have been strongly encouraged to be by IATA and IFALPA) they are not ridiculously so. The analysis of an area of ash cloud tends to rely heavily on satellite imagery analysis - while a particular algorithm that identifies silicates is used most of all, other tools such as Sulphur Dioxide detection, straight infrared imagery, satellite or ground based lidars etc are also used. If the cloud is not observed for some time then the VAAC will tend to want to cease the event pretty quickly. The comments on the London VAAC blog
Met Office: Icelandic volcano blog
give an idea of what the analysts are thinking.

3) Dispersion modelling is approximate - it depends on the source term, the dispersion model physics, and the met model used - but past verifications show the models to usually be pretty good.

4) Pilot reports are always useful. Don't assume the satellites see everything, particularly on a cloudy day with a high overcast. Observations of volcanic ash and volcanic encounters *must* be reported. Personal follow up after flight if you've seen something interesting is always appreciated too - meteorologists are human and that personal contact is a golden way to give feedback (even including photos). Also, not all volcanoes are monitored on the ground - particularly in the developing world, and pilot reports might be the only information available.

5) The safe concentration of ash issue has been ongoing for a while and it's not simple. Most of all it's the users (airline industry) that needs to set a warning standard that the VAACs aim to achieve - at the moment it's avoid all ash, which in practice means avoid all 'visible' (reasonable evidence that it's there) ash.

6) The World Meteorological Organisation and International Civil Aviation Organisation have just had meetings on the volcanic ash issue. The reports are just being finalised. If you want to look at the results of the previous science meeting on the issue, go to http://www.caem.wmo.int/moodle/course/view.php?id=27 and particularly the meeting summary at http://www.caem.wmo.int/moodle/file....Summary_1_.pdf Things have moved since then but you get the gist of it.

Hope this is helpful and please remember that we're all in this mess together...!

411A 18th Apr 2010 13:00


I don't remember at the time the closure of the whole Mediterranean Sea airspace, nor airplane falling off the sky in swarms.
I would call today's reaction paranoia.
Nope, only notams to the effect advising to avoid the area,, same as the USA for StHelens and ANC areas.

Paranoia is the operative word for the likes of many whom have difficulty with straight thinking.
Sadly.

Martin2116 18th Apr 2010 13:00

Closure of European Airspace
 
I fail to understand the connection between NATS and safety, in the context of the suspended ash particles. The decision to close UK airspace should have been taken in deep consultation with other safety related bodies (CAA, BA, BAA, AAIB). Was that done?

There are precedents which are wasteful and potentially economically devastating if one body is allowed to make a decision of this sort. To give a non-aviation example, the final morbidity and mortality statistics of swine flu are no worse than any other seasonal flu outbreak. But a huge overreaction occurred. A similar argument applies to the millenium bug. Basically there wasnt one, but consultants earned a lot of money.

The effect of suspended ash particles on aircraft depends on the concentration of those particles and the number of hours the aircraft flies thorugh them. This should have been carefully calculated, based on the best availaible evidence. Where are the calculations to justify this? If this is not done quantitatively, it is highly irresponsible (masquarading under the cloak of safety first) to take such draconian actions.

The situation of aircraft flying directly through a volcanic dust cloud (as happened in 1982, Indonesia) is not directly relevent. I would like to see projected ash concentartion levels for this event - enough to sand blast the windscreen - compared to levels currently at very high altitudes.

Where are the calculations to estimate the quantity of glass particles which could enter the combustion chambers, and clog the cooling systems? if the average particle size is 10 microns, what quantity in grams could enter the engine? What quantity could melt and accumulate?

If there are similar potential threats to safety in a non-aviation industry, are they acted upon? Why not ban all Toyota drivers from UK roads, if the source of the problem of faulty braking has not been identified: The number of potential deaths from this could easily outweigh one plane crash.

If any organisation imposes such a disruption of travel, and potential economic catastrophe, it is their responsibility to collect ALL the evidence together properly, consulting widely whilst the ban is in effect, so further data on ash levels & altitude can result in some limited and safe a/c operation. I do not believe this is currently being done, despite the profound economic consequences.

At the very least a full report on the closure of UK airspace must be made avaliable to all parties after the event, when the problem has (excuse the pun) blown over. This MUST contain detailed meterological data, extensive comment and analysis from the engine and a/c manufactures, plus contingency reccommendations to protect the economy if a similar situation arises in the future.

Martin

zerotohero 18th Apr 2010 13:01

I think it is a better safe than sorry approch, maybe all would be fine and the only issue is a degraded engine life, but they do cost a lot of money to replace.

on the other hand if just 1 plane falls out of the sky due this, that would be a disaster knowing we had the information to hand to stop this

my view is stay grounded until were 100% sure, this is why we have checks on top of checks and backup systems and all the safty nets we can to avoid the swiss cheese.

Maybe I should re-train as a bus driver! same job just sat 4 feet off the ground rather than 38,000.

daikilo 18th Apr 2010 13:02

Initiative
 
Well done agile Icelandair! As always you see opportunities!

SAS, what if you flew very low out of CPH/OSL/ARN and refueled on the coast before departures to the US or even Korea/Japan etc? These are unique times (hopefully).

fireflybob 18th Apr 2010 13:02


6. NATS put the restrictions in place for controlled airspace because neither the DofT or CAA would make a descision. Once they had the other ANSP's followed their lead. (I think they would have rather the government had taken the lead but theres an election on and all )
Election time - political intervention if ever I saw anything!

430tststs 18th Apr 2010 13:03

dutch pilots want flights now....
 
The dutch association of pilots want to open the airspace.
They say the density of the dust is so small that there is no problem at all.

They say just regulate altitudes and procedures to adapt on the situation.
Change routes and prefer flights by daylight through the risk area.

Are they pushed by commercial reasons? or think safety first?



Als het aan de Vereniging van Nederlandse Verkeersvliegers, de VNV, ligt, gaat het luchtruim weer open. De KLM heeft testvluchten uitgevoerd en die zijn goed verlopen.
PILOTEN: LUCHTRUIM MOET WEER OPEN
http://data.rtl.nl/_internal/anyfile...83k66ozwci.gifFoto

http://data.rtl.nl/_internal/gridima...4or2w9yot.jpeg


Geen gevaar

Volgens de piloten leveren de asdeeltjes in de atmosfeer geen gevaar op voor het luchtverkeer. Ze zeggen dat de hoeveelheid vulkaanas maar gering is. Toch is besloten ook vandaag nog geen vliegtuigen de lucht in te sturen.
Procedures

De VNV pleit voor procedures waaronder veilig gevlogen kan worden. De vliegers denken onder meer aan aangepaste vlieghoogtes en routes en alleen vliegen met daglicht.

UPP 18th Apr 2010 13:05

"For example, in the UK, around 3,000 people die in road accidents caused by motor cars each day"

Er, no. That's every YEAR, not every day. I think if over a million people a year were killed on the roads we'd be doing something about it.

Serenity 18th Apr 2010 13:05

Helol,

Same here, 20 min south of LGW, having washed my car during the week and not used it much, yesterday there was a very visable covering of dark grey/black, slightly abraisive powder!!

Heathrow Harry 18th Apr 2010 13:06

Actual Data
 
as far as I can see almost all the definition of the closed area is being done using computer models - hardly any real data is actually being collected

When its clear blue sky it's a bit hard to see what real problems that would be caused by allowing flights in certain directions at specific altitudes and then maybe clearing to higher altitudes when west of Ireland and south of France

I have a feeling if there wasn't an election campaign in the UK someone would have acted already to restrict the panic..............

22 Degree Halo 18th Apr 2010 13:08

Biggin Hill reporting Volcanic Ash: Wind Map - Britain Observations


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:59.


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