|
Let the Great Experiment begin...
The simple fact is that a 20+ year-old, worldwide safety regime was overthrown at a 2 hour meeting packed with British politicians and airline executives.
|
risk management
Long time 'lurker' - felt compelled to chime in..
Hello to all... I'm not a pilot, aircraft engineer or vulcanologist. orig. post didn't turn up for some reason so here goes again: Thoughts go out to stranded travelers and those impacted by the current ash situation. The dynamics of the debate and the political, business and management pressures on the one hand versus the aircraft engine designers on the other (saying 0 tolerance for ash) is reminiscent to me of events surrounding the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. I think there are some lessons to be considered there. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Use as case study The Challenger accident has frequently been used as a case study in the study of subjects such as engineering safety, the ethics of whistle-blowing, communications, group decision-making, and the dangers of groupthink. It is part of the required readings for engineers seeking a professional license in Canada[52] and other countries. Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who had warned about the effect of cold weather on the O-rings, left his job at Morton Thiokol and became a speaker on workplace ethics.[53] He argues that the caucus called by Morton Thiokol managers, which resulted in a recommendation to launch, "constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation."[54] For his honesty and integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttle disaster, Roger Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Many colleges and universities have also used the accident in classes on the ethics of engineering.[55][56] Information designer Edward Tufte has used the Challenger accident as an example of the problems that can occur from the lack of clarity in the presentation of information. He argues that if Morton Thiokol engineers had more clearly presented the data that they had on the relationship between low temperatures and burn-through in the solid rocket booster joints, they might have succeeded in persuading NASA managers to cancel the launch.[57] Tufte has also argued that poor presentation of information may have affected NASA decisions during the last flight of Columbia. The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as the Rogers Commission (after its chairman), was formed to investigate the disaster. The commission members were Chairman William P. Rogers, Vice Chairman Neil Armstrong, David Acheson, Eugene Covert, Richard Feynman, Robert Hotz, Donald Kutyna, Sally Ride, Robert Rummel, Joseph Sutter, Arthur Walker, Albert Wheelon, and Chuck Yeager. The commission worked for several months and published a report of its findings. It found that the Challenger accident was caused by a failure in the O-rings sealing a joint on the right solid rocket booster, which allowed pressurized hot gases and eventually flame to "blow by" the O-ring and make contact with the adjacent external tank, causing structural failure. The failure of the O-rings was attributed to a faulty design, whose performance could be too easily compromised by factors including the low temperature on the day of launch.[34] More broadly, the report also considered the contributing causes of the accident. Most salient was the failure of both NASA and Morton Thiokol to respond adequately to the danger posed by the deficient joint design. However, rather than redesigning the joint, they came to define the problem as an acceptable flight risk. The report found that managers at Marshall had known about the flawed design since 1977, but never discussed the problem outside their reporting channels with Thiokol--a flagrant violation of NASA regulations. Even when it became more apparent how serious the flaw was, no one at Marshall considered grounding the shuttles until a fix could be implemented. On the contrary, Marshall managers went as far as to issue and waive six launch constraints related to the O-rings.[35] The report also strongly criticized the decision making process that led to the launch of Challenger, saying that it was seriously flawed.[36] “ ...failures in communication... resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers.[37] ” One of the commission's most well-known members was theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. During a televised hearing, he famously demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water. He was so critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture" that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle, which appeared as Appendix F.[38] In the appendix, he argued that the estimates of reliability offered by NASA management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. |
This was the biggest farce in our company´s history! I completetly lost faith in our management and political leadership in the last couple of days.
No one seems to have the slightest understanding of what safety in aviation means. Stick to known procedures for example, or at least brief unusual procedures thoroughly. How on earth can someone in his right mind consider it safe if a passenger jet goes VFR through airspace E at 1200ft AGL 20 miles away from the field trying to find his way towards the runway while trying to seperate itself from small Cessnas and to establish a sequence to other big jets doing the same?? |
So how long does this take? (put in place an intensive maintenance ash damage inspection before and after each flight) Paraphrasing from a knowledgeable fella on another board Assuming engine has cooled down a bit and there are no hiccups in doing the job 5 minutes to get the cowls opened, 3 minutes to get the boroscope plugs out, 5 minutes to get access to turn the N2 rotor through the gearbox, 10 to 30 minutes for inspection X mins to send pics for analysis if there's an obvious issue/concern 30 -60 minutes to get the plugs back in and locked, 5 or ten to get the N2 drive pad access cover back on Y minutes for a leak check (possible engine run rqd) 5 minutes to close the the cowls Total time required = 63 + X + Y minutes (varies per engine type) Summary - you could expect an average of somewhere between 75 - 90 minutes |
Re: Let the great experiment begin
It's true but something had to be done, otherwise the situation would have gone on forever. And it wasn't just the UK - exactly the same thing obviously happened the previous day when Eurocontrol's ash map magically changed after pressure from the EU.
It's been quoted several times on here already, but I think it's important to bear in mind the warning that the ICAO themselves made about their own policy back in 2008: "As remote sensing techniques improve, it is likely that the aggregate areas where ash is sensed or inferred will increase, possibly leading to over-warning for ash and cost-blowouts for airlines." |
The simple fact is that a 20+ year-old, worldwide safety regime was overthrown at a 2 hour meeting packed with British politicians and airline executives. |
But this is a TV news report. How are measures taken? What time scaling: 15 min? hourly? 8 or 24 hours? ...like terrestrial air pollution? Where are the specs? There will be very few measurements, it will be based on the Met Office predictions which will now be taken as Gospel as they allow flights to precede. The Met office provided the wrong answer, so the question has been changed. |
According to news reports from Germany, it was the "right kind of ash" after all. It appears that the Eyjafjallajökull ash consists of basalt, which only melts at 1,200°C, a temperature in the engines normally only reached during take-off. The ash of many other volcanoes (including Pinatubo, Mount St. Helens or volcanoes in the Andes) consists of andesite, which melts at below 1,000°C, a temperature in the engines reached much more frequently.
The abrasive properties of basalt appear to be the same as those of andesite though. Ergebnisse des Messflugs: Vulkanasche schwebt in 3,5 bis 6 Kilometer Höhe - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft |
What did BA tell yesterday's pax?
Just curious to know what the pax on those 10 flights were told. That they were going to be guinea pigs on a test of the aircraft's response to ash? That diversions were likely if WW's bluff was called?
I wonder if anyone declined to travel on that basis. |
Has anyone read the Daily Star's headlines today
Saw the headlines of the Comic The Daily Star which shows photo of a 747s engines all on fire as it flies through the volcanic ash cloud...... what it doesnt tell you is its a still from Air Crash Investigation off sky relating to the BA flight in the 80s c/o cpt Moody...... if thats not arse end scare mongering from journalists who should actually be washing the salad at Mcdonalds instead of scaring the general public... i dont know what is, the airlines have had enough of a battering from this and the downturn without them making s@*t like this up.... they should be hung drawn quartered and dipped in battery acid for a week and then forced to watch their relatives on Jeremy Kyle.... is that a bit harsh... rant over:}
|
Just curious to know what the pax on those 10 flights were told. LHR was previously forecast to be open by 19.00BST as part of the phased opening starting at 07.00 in the north. Notice that the BA flights started to arrive in time for that 19.00 opening - BA124 being the first to show up crossing the Dutch coast at about 18.45. By the time it was announced that the planned re-opening wasn't going to happen, all BA's were en-route. Who can blame them for continuing hoping for things to change. |
Re: Has anyone read the Daily Star's headlines today
According to the Guardian, they had to remove these newspapers from shops in Gatwick and Manchester airports to avoid panicked passengers.
Pretty irresponsible stuff from the editor. |
BA inbound
Pax inbound on BA longhaul last night asked to sign a waiver, I understand, saying that they understood they might be diverted away from LHR...
|
Similarities
Similarities between the leadup to the Challenger disaster & the current flying through ash situation I think lie in the element of powerful political, management, public & economic forces wanting to get 'the bird in the air' versus the quiet voice of those involved with the engineering side saying its not wise.
In the case of the shuttle, engineers were warning 'do not launch, safety cannot be guaranteed under these conditions' yet the concerns were ignored. In this current ash debate, powerful voices from the airline industry and politics monopolize the discussion, particularily in the media - whereas those who have expert, detailled knowledge of airplane engines and ash, namely the engineers who design and manufacture jet engines, are less heard (their message: ' ash & jet engines don't mix'). Yet, it appears the public & those in authority to make decisions are hardly hearing the voice of the true experts on the subject during this crisis. Uncharted territory... I'm hoping that existing protocols, wind, luck & maintenance regimes will help avoid any potential catastrophic outcomes. Just imagine what an ash-related accident would do to the industry (!)... |
Let the Great Experiment begin...
It's true but something had to be done, otherwise the situation would have gone on forever. |
Lord Adonis stated on 'The world at One' today that there had been an over reaction to the Ash event by the authorities concerned.
Fancy that. I'm no expert, but it seems me that only an idiot would knowingly fly into the plume found above a volcano. However, low levels (too low to see at all from air or ground) must have been encountered countless times over the years with no one any the wiser, and no problems reported, given that there are plenty active volcanoes all over the world. Given that any problems to be caused by ash from Iceland are plainly going to be tiny compared to flying in the plume, why not simply fly on and see if any problems occur- likely none will. I guess we are now in that situation.:rolleyes: Definately, as many on here have said and now had confirmed by the gummint no less, a gross over reaction. |
I counted them all out
Whilst there will be diverse opinions about the events of last night, the fact remains that BA had a number of Speedbirds inbound to LHR and LGW and whatever was going on in COBRA, with some still in holds long after they could have diverted a decision was made to act. Note - DECISION. Whilst it's easy from the armchair to "fly the plan" sometimes someone needs to step up and take a tough decision.
If WW did indeed bring pressure to bear to get UK FIR's open then I stand by him. After some days of little clear directive other than what some could describe as health and safety syndrome, the fact is that UK airspace cannot be closed for business indefintely without someone or body standing up to be counted. If WW did that then good on him. Safety first yes. But, it takes more courage to stand up and make the call than be part of a group erring on caution no matter what. BA got the planes in. The skies are open and I hope lessons are learned from this so that mother nature cannot be the only one deciding on how we go about our lives. Whatever the context and final outcome, good job to the crews who brought their birds in. Not everyone may agree that BA is still the 'worlds favourite airline' but I for one would say that they are the 'worlds most determined airline'. We sometimes need people to take tough decisions, and I for one prefer a world with them than without. |
Lufthansa Engine Damage ?
Well this is a rumour network, so here goes.
Flew into YYZ from FRA yesterday on LH. Talking to some of the AC staff in YYZ, it seems that LH operated the same flight, A340-600, a day earlier albeit at a later departure time. During the turn round inspection "ash damage" was found in the engines. Aeroplane towed to maintenance area. Any one able to confirm / deny this. I must admit that I was alittle suprised at out routing yesterday, FRA- London - South Wales, to 55N for the crossing, I was expecting to be further South. We were told that the highest reported ash had been FL350, so we went at FL360!!:hmm: ex-egll |
Lord Adonis stated on 'The world at One' today that there had been an over reaction to the Ash event by the authorities concerned. It begs the question: why did Adonis not make this change before? But we know from this morning's Guardian that airlines have opposed revision for their own legal/economic advantage. |
Mr. O'Leary was on RTE news saying that he thought it was fair enough that airspace was closed for a day or two last week while assessments were made of whether it was safe to fly on not. He did not think it justified that it has taken seven days to come to a conclusion on that.
It does not take huge bravery to close airspace, but having closed it, it takes huge bravery to reopen it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.