|
As someone rostered to operate 4 sectors this afternoon, I've been trying to gather as much updated info as I can. Having just been on to the CAA website, I'm interested in the CAA requirements that airlines are to perform "an intensive maintenance ash damage inspection before and after each flight". I expect to have company guidance on this later today, but it isn't immediately clear to me which airspace this applies to, given that there still appears to be areas with low concentration of ash over some parts of the UK today and that the areas affected are constantly changing. Glad to be back flying, but haven't seen much discussion of this inspection requirement.
|
very surprised to hear (bbc1 news) that it was in discussions with manufactures of the engines that the new policy was reached. I would be very amazed if any of the manufactures have put the signitures on this new policy. It would take months of validation work to come up with a level that was safe- not 5 days- I have worked in validation of experiments (all be it not in aviation) for 20 years- this is just not possible. I would love someone during a tv interview to press for the new ppm 'safe levels'. I have no idea if the skys are safe to return to, I have no idea if they were ever unsafe- but I DO KNOW THAT a new policy based on a diff safe limit found by experimentation cannot be set in 5 days.
|
I've read most of this thread, and have previously decided just to hold my tongue for fear of getting flamed, or moderated.
It seemed to me all along that the response to this (or indeed) any volcano's eruption should have followed the following, fairly simple, train of thought: 1) Does flight through the affected airspace pose an unacceptable risk of damage sufficient to cause an imminent loss of life? In this context, "imminent" means that the loss is likely to occur during either the current flight or any subsequent flight(s) prior to it being possible to adequately inspect and repair said aircraft. In this case there is a clear case for airspace being closed to traffic. 2) If (1) doesn't apply, then the event is not an immediate safety of flight issue and airspace should not be closed. Decisions then become commercial. It must be an operator's prerogative whether or not it is to its benefit to ground its aircraft and avoid increased repair costs or to fly and accept that there will be increased wear and tear. That is not to say that there is no place for the regulator in that process. It is entirely proper, and indeed should be expected, that the regulator impose a more stringent inspection regime on aircraft that are known to have been exposed to unusual atmospheric contaminants. We now seem to have arrived at a modus operandi that reflects that train of thought. Unfortunately, getting there has been a painful process which has cast no credit on government, the regulators, or indeed the aviation industry: a) Government, because it sat back for too long allowing the aviation authorities to take decisions with major impacts outside their field of competence. Like it or not, a decision to impose a prolonged closure of airspace over an entire continent should not be taken purely in an aviation context, without regard to other effects. In the modern interconnected world, such a closure has financial, social and economic consequences far beyond that restricted regime. Most directly, as any closure extends, we should expect that people will die in accidents using alternative transport or for lack of medication or treatment, but there will be bankruptcies, economic disruption and so on. It is explicitly the role of government to balance conflicting interests in such cases. b) The regulators, because their preparations for such events had almost certainly not been adequately stress tested. I will be amazed, and rather disturbed, if it subsequently emerges that the ICAO and others had realised that the procedures they put in place could lead to the shutting down of air traffic over one of the world's most economically active regions for nearly a week. Especially as a result of the eruption of a volcano smaller than the one they used as an example in their policy document! The Met Office hardly emerges with any credit from this process either. How can the VAAC be satisfied that it has discharged its role adequately when it has issued charts showing the “boundaries” of contaminated regions accompanied by the clearly contradictory statement that concentrations within those regions were unknown? And why had it not established any methodology for actually checking its predictions against measured data? Or against the predictions of other forecasters? c) The aviation industry, because there seems to have been so little prior investigation of the physical effects of this phenomenon. How can airframe and engine manufacturers have issued documents stating that should be no flight through ash-contaminated airspace with a straight face? Surely that was a prohibition honoured more in the breach than the observance, since a zero concentration of ash is clearly never possible, mathematically or practically, in the atmosphere of a planet whose geology is driven by plate tectonics. Despite newspaper terminology, this has not been a "shambles" or "chaos". And I am very glad that I haven't been caught up in it personally. But it has been woeful to watch. We weren't struck by an asteroid, folks! A routine, well-understood, geological event occurred in one of the richest, most developed, most sophisticated and technically capable parts of the world, and the various authorities' best response was, in essence: "well, we don't know what the actual effects are!" And this in a field where the maxim: "prior preparation prevents p**s poor performance" is supposed to rule. Spare us.... |
|
LOL...
The CAA/NATS would I'm sure have preferred to say something along the lines of "there's ash out there guys'n'gals, check the VAAC as to where it is forecast to be, launch at your discretion", however I'll bet the operators took the view "we're only going if you say its safe to go and if it turns out it wasn't safe then we're coming after you"; the blood-sucking lawyers will have had a field day sorting out where the responsibility rests in the event of some poor sod turning their 747 into a lawn dart. The whole thing was an exercise in ass covering in the event of an incident. I suspect the operators could've had unrestricted movement from the outset if they'd stated that they wished to continue operating normally, and would accept 100% responsibility for the safe operation of flights through airspace forecast to be contaminated with ash. However, it would appear that they didn't, and (some) are only too quick to start pointing fingers elsewhere. A case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it me thinks. Wonder how WW will feel two days hence if half his fleet is grounded because of silica contamination of fan blades...:hmm: |
DespairingTraveller:
Very well put, especially para 2c. Interesting to see how all these 'procedural deficiencies' will be corrected (or tucked back beneath the carpet). |
Considering the unprecedented nature of this event, the fact that we, most certainly, had to suspend operations in the first two or three days after the ash reached the UK. I think everyone has done well to find a way through the problem and get airborne again in the time we have. The Met Office/VAAC did their job, NATS did what any ATS should have done and the operators stopped flying in the face of a known risk. There will surely be lessons to be learned and we must understand this event in detail.
It will now be interesting to see what happens should we have another ash cloud heading this way. Despairing Traveller, It is perhaps true that we have lessons to be learned from this event, which is by no means over in my opinion. In the history of aviation we have continually learned from our mistakes, we investigate our acccidents in detail and have developed procedures to ensure we operate as safely as we can. It is instinctive for us to stop operations when faced with risks we don't fully understand or can't avoid, such was the case in this event. And I believe most would not want it any other way. Economic pressures come second to the safety of passengers and crew- the industry and regulators have now evaluated the risk, found a way to ensure your safety- operations commence. |
Thanks for the link. It has been saved!
|
The CAA/NATS would I'm sure have preferred to say something along the lines of "there's ash out there guys'n'gals, check the VAAC as to where it is forecast to be, launch at your discretion", however I'll bet the operators took the view "we're only going if you say its safe to go and if it turns out it wasn't safe then we're coming after you"; the blood-sucking lawyers will have had a field day sorting out where the responsibility rests in the event of some poor sod turning their 747 into a lawn dart. If you read the Guardian article, its explains that the airlines have refused to set a safe operating level precisely becuase that exposes them to liability if things go wrong. Why airlines resisted setting safe dust level for flights ? until now | World news | The Guardian |
Have BA or any other airline comfirmed that none of their engines have been affected by ash yet after landing in the UK last night?
Just wondering how long it takes to check? Also curious as to why there has been silence and WW has not confirmed all was ok? :confused: |
From The Guardian
Last night's reopening of the skies over the UK followed intense lobbying from an airline industry that for years has resisted efforts by regulators to set a "safe" level of volcanic ash at which it is considered that flights can continue, the Guardian can reveal. What airlines had been afraid of was the potential damage to their reputation and finances in the event of one of their planes being lost due to dust after an all-clear had been announced, with a fear of legal actions arising from the deaths of all those who had been on board. Unwillingness to grasp this nettle hampered what had been continuing discussions on the dust issue prior to the Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupting. However, faced with losses running into hundreds of millions as the effect of Eyjafjallajokull spread and lingered into a sixth day, it was the airlines who began to call for the regulators to determine and set such a safe threshold, to avert the severe financial consequences of planes idle across Europe and passengers claiming refunds for cancelled journeys. A source at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) said of the history of the failure of efforts to agree a safe level: "The bottom line is that there is a huge liability issue for the industry here, so they have been super cautious on providing information. If they say it is safe, and there is an accident, they will get slaughtered." The organisation has been trying since at least 2008 to get airlines and manufacturers to help establish a consensus on a safe concentration of volcanic ash. In an indication of the pressure now put on air safety bodies, British Airways said hours before the UK's flights resumed that it hoped the UK's Civil Aviation Authority now had all the data necessary to lift the flight ban. Pointedly referring to the relaxation of restrictions by states such as Italy and the Netherlands, BA had said: "Despite the fact that airspace over most European countries is open, UK airspace remains effectively closed. We hope that on the basis of the data provided by the industry, the CAA will be in a position to direct National Air Traffic Services (Nats) to reopen UK airspace." Airline sources said that a meeting this morning between the CAA, Nats, airline executives and the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, was "constructive" as safe flight corridors through the ash were discussed. This week BA, easyJet and Virgin Atlantic have demanded a greater say in decisions on flight bans and air safety. The perceived inconsistency of various European states' approaches to the volcano cloud has been one of the biggest complaints from airlines. Ryanair, Europe's largest short-haul carrier, became the latest to reveal the scale of its losses, £5m a day, while the Emirates airline of Dubai warned of an "implosion" if restrictions were not lifted. "Unless the states ... come in and bail these companies out, there won't be many carriers left," said Tim Clark, Emirates president. "You simply can't afford to shut down something the size of Europe." Asked on BBC Newsnight about how much pressure the government had come under to lift the flight ban, Adonis said "They've obviously wanted to be able to fly their planes - of course they have - but that has not been the issue … the issue is the assessment of the safety authorities as to what is the safe way in which planes can fly when there is a presence of ash. "The fact which has changed in the last week is we have had a volcanic eruption, and having to assess safe levels of ash within which planes can fly has been an urgent issue which the safety authorities have had to deal with. That's been what's changed over the last five days - it's not been pressure from the industry which has caused [it]." The crucial change came when Nats announced that safety tests had shown aero engines "had increased tolerance levels in low ash density levels". Nats spokesman Alex Bristol told Sky News: "We don't feel we have been under pressure from the government. Where the pressure has come has been to better understand the safety implications. Our first priority has been safety, and the reason we didn't simply lift the restrictions was because of our desire for safety." According to the International Air Transport Association (Iata), the crisis had cost carriers $200m (£130m) a day – most of it for European operators. A group of those airlines, including the association of budget airlines, urged the European Union to waive consumer legislation which imposes costs, including hotels for stranded passengers, during prolonged disruption; it was turning "a crisis into an economic catastrophe". Going back into the history of attempts to set a safe level of ash, minutes of a Paris meeting in 2008 show the industry at odds with regulators. The ICAO meeting concluded that improved measurement techniques should allow progress "with regard to the definition of the lower limit on safe ash concentrations". The ICAO complained it had "proven difficult to get formal aviation representation" at workshops on the issue organised by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation. It suggested "input of the aviation industry to this problem may have to be sought" through its sub-group on volcanoes, which has industry representatives. It asked several groups, including the International Air Transport Association, Iata, representing 230 airlines, to prepare reports for the volcano group's next meeting at Lima in Peru last month. Minutes for that meeting show the industry did not deliver. "Iata informed the group about the strong efforts made in order to get representation from the industry ... but unfortunately these efforts had not been successful, to the disappointment of the group." Herbert Puempel, chief of the WMO aeronautical meteorology division, who sits on the ICAO group, said the industry's reluctance was "fully understandable". "They have found it very difficult to come back with a single answer. If they have one number then it would be very low," he said. "The moment you set a limit then the lawyers will have a field day." Iata said: "At the end of the day we are dependent on the airframe and engine manufacturers and their experts. We have encouraged them to participate." However, an aerospace industry source told the Guardian that any attempt to blame aircraft and engine makers was "passing the buck". |
After flight inspections
Glad to be back flying, but haven't seen much discussion of this inspection requirement. |
Has anyone any actual evidence of the Met Office being wrong? As in, ash turning up where it shouldn't be or no ash being where the ash was forecast?
I'm repeatedly amazed by some of the denialism on this thread, especially as people have been posting Meteosat and MODIS imagery of it since the word go. As I say, it just seems to be a sort of sub-culture of harrumphing about the Met Office (and Harriet Harman, God knows why). |
Perhaps I wasn't too far off the mark then.. How much credibility is there in the claim that the possibility of an Icelandic volcano shutting down EU airspace was an unforeseen event? None. It wasn't just a possibility, it was an absolute certainty to happen eventually. |
How much credibility is there in the claim that the possibility of an Icelandic volcano shutting down EU airspace was an unforeseen event? |
Originally Posted by Re-Heat
(Post 5649547)
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:
I have far more trust in those actually flying the plane than those supposedly in charge who take several days to organise a meeting to talk about maybe having a european strategy. [ I spent 24+hrs on a coach with wife and kids - not pleasant but we got back, not the end of the world. However, I would have also taken the captains decision to fly, like we always do with every MEL etc. - most of which decisions we never even hear about sat in the back. ] |
German airspace is opened for IFR flights / no more restrictions from 11:00 hrs
21/04/10 - Due to the current development of the weather situation, German airspace can be opened for flights according to instrument flight rules (IFR flights). The decision of DFS is based on the current information of the German meteorological service (DWD). According to this information, airspace contamination has significantly decreased and will continue to decrease owing to the weather conditions. IFR flights can currently be conducted at the international airports of Hamburg, Bremen, Hannover, Berlin-Tegel, Berlin-Schönefeld, Cologne/Bonn, Frankfurt, Saarbrücken, Nürnberg, Stuttgart and Munich. The same applies to the regional airport Frankfurt-Hahn. At 11:00 hrs, all other airports will also be opened for IFR traffic. This means that from 11:00 hrs, there will be no more restrictions on IFR traffic in Germany. Updated on: 21/4, 10:15 hrs |
re 2166 - I will be outraged if the industry is bailed out by the tax payer. The people left unfairly out of pocket will be the traveling public who have been left to fend for themselves in all of this. The industry has turned a blind eye to this possible problem bescause it suited them to do so and now they are going to try and blame everybody else when it has back fired on them.
|
Originally Posted by steamchicken
(Post 5649748)
Has anyone any actual evidence of the Met Office being wrong? As in, ash turning up where it shouldn't be or no ash being where the ash was forecast?
|
Someone was asking for mass-flow numbers earlier on. RR's Web site gives an intake mass-flow for the RB211-535E4B (I picked an engine arbitrarily) of 1,177lb/sec or 533.87kg/sec.
Based on the figure of 0.3 milligrams per m3 given for Stranraer, at an air density of 1.2kg/m3 at sea level (obviously we're not interested in sea level, but at least it's wrong in a known way - the ash measurement is a sea-level one and I guess RR's figures are test-stand measurements, so it's consistent) that would be 444m3 of air a second and 0.133g of ash a second - 478g of ash per engine-hour. (Although, the -535 is a very high bypass turbofan, so perhaps we need the core mass flow...) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.