DairyGround

I read that too but it depends on how you interpretate it. We all saw the billowing dense black cloud spewing out from the source of the volcano.
Are the so called experts telling us that all those amazing pictures we saw were infact invisable to the naked eye because volcanic ash has some AMAZING property which defies the laws of Physics.

If so they should cover Stealth Bombers in the stuff :ugh:

Any Particle liquid or solid will reflect light. We all see clouds we all see vapour trails made up of tiny ice crystals. we all see dust clouds.
Try landing in Saudi Like I did in 2000 metres dust Which after landing
turned into a sandstorm with 100 metres its all visible.

If we take the zero tolerance of volcanic ash theoretically one partical would make it illegal and of course we would not see one particle anymore than we are likly to see one wasp 100 metres away but we will see a swarm.

We in this country are victims of media hype you only have to see the terror inflicted on us as the so called experts predicted 65000 deaths from Mexican flu. People were paying £500 for a small pack of Tamiflu The government advised by experts bought up £2 billion of the stuff. result 346 deaths less than a normal flu and £2 billion of Tamiflu they cannot give away. We can all remember many such scares whipped up by the media and predicted by the science.

So yes Volcanic ash in reasonable density will be visible but dispersed to literally nil will not.The big question is whether literally nil will do damage

Pace

MOL has been "encouraged" to back down and pay expenses to Ryanair travellers after all of the gusto and bravado that spewed out this morning, I guess, has else why would they know do a 180 and agree to reimburse in accordance with EU regs. (Just on Sky now).

Orions belt . The ICAO was very actively trying to raise the limit up to one month ago. There was a working group set up in 2008 to study volcanic ash. That working group made representations to all parties concerned and encouraged them to attend a conference about a month ago. They specifically asked IATA to survey airlines on how they viewed the risks and what levels they might accept. IATA did not attend the ICAO conference instead reporting that although it had canvassed all member airlines heavily sadly none had responded.

Airlines are running around willy nilly now saying nobody would take a decision in the nanny state etc. when in fact they had an opportunity just a month ago to report what ash concentration they themselves were prepared to accept ( having had a long time to study and consider the matter given they were first asked for input in early 2009 ). For fear of legal consequences it seems they did not respond. They seemed fearful of setting a number and then having an incident if that number was too high ( in terms of acceptable concentration ). I think when it call comes out ICAO will be spotless and the airlines themselves a little red faced.

Paidworker

None of the above is normal or standard RT Phraseology. You do not talk about "serious" CAVOK! You may talk about a serious smell of burning but unless the pilot was familiar with the smell of ash which is unlikely a smell of burning could come from another source within the aircraft. In all probability a serious smell of burning would require an immediate landing as it would be a potential emergency situation and nothing to do with whats outside the aircraft.

The pilot using the word serious attached to both sounds more like a windup a joke which does happen in the airways.

On a slightly different note smells in an aircraft can come from the ground. I can remember flying a twin prop in IMC over a biscuit factory. The delicious smell of biscuits was almost a locator of where we were as I flew that route many times ;)

It is also worth considering that in any heightened and cautious state the mind plays tricks. fly a single over long stretches of water and its amazing how rough your engine suddenly appears to be.

Pace

For Pace and all the others who persist with this nonsense that they can 'see' this contaminant when they fly.

The only way you can 'see' it in the air is at night with a torch shone up into the sky. Try it. Over the last few days, just south of LGW, the sky was stuffed with flurries of small particles. There were slightly less last night. You are breathing them in by the million all day. They will lodge in your lungs and cannot be removed. Your engines will ingest them. Whether they are dangerous I know not, but do not be fooled by clear blue skies. Look at your car?

I think asking the airlines is asking the wrong people
 

I can see why the questions about acceptably safe ash levels went unanswered. From the safety standpoint the manufacturers surely are the right people answer that question, NOT the operators.

The airlines can answer a lesser economic/commercial question, such as 'how much wear and inspection can you live with?'

'How much gunge is up there, what is it composed of and where is it?' is surely a question for the MET people.

'Can you accommodate routing flights around this gunge?' is a question for the Air Traffic Services people


I believe there are also questions to look at regarding pax compensation, insurance and priorities for travel.

I don't think the existing compensation rules make much sense. People who are stranded away from home clearly need compo for accomm, but people who are merely delayed in their home country probably don't. I don't see why airlines should be compensating for weather, including ash, unless there is a humanitarian need or the journey has started but hasn't been finished.

Insurance cover that's void is clearly a problem to address- otherwise people quite rightly won't buy it. We need an insurance system that's functional, then the airline funded compensation problem is a lot smaller. Actuarial and underwriting systems exist so I cannot see why we have to allow insurers to weasel out.



Finally although I'm a lucky person with a booking which replaces a kangaroo route trip scheduled for 2 days ago... I can't help thinking that slavishly honouring bookings for flights that operate at the expense of people who were unlucky enough to be on cancelled flights is a worry.

Maybe as a minimum people with good bookings could be asked if they will give them up, possibly in return for an inducement such as an upgrade or money. That way people who urgently need to travel might stand a chance of getting on, especially if they (or their insurers) are content to pay extra.

BOAC

PLease read what I said. Yes you can see see particles liquid or solid in the air.

You know that.

If they are so dispersed to a very low level NO you wont see them.
That is the very arguement which opened up our airspace. At what level of density does ash cause a hazard.

That has been raised and may be raised again or lowered as more data comes in from normal operational aircraft.

Pace

BOAC
 

Pollen? It's that time of year. What is showing up in the horizontal beams from landing lights?

Regards

S

- if pollen smells of Keflavik tapwater then you've got it sorted!

Hi Pace,

I was referring to this the atc recording from yesterday and making no inference as to whether the pilot was being tongue in cheek with the use of the word " serious " or indeed if he was mistaken about the strong smell being that of burning ash although he clearly felt he wasnt.

edited : removed link for legal reasons.

PaidWorker

The Sun the source of all factual information :rolleyes:

Taken from the Article dropped in the bottom as an afterthought

Pace

Flown 12 hours in the affected area, Tue and Wed, and the turbine blades and stators were spotless afterwards. How can zero deposits affect an engine?

Thanks to Sunfish, and Grauniad
 

There has been a lot of ill-considered drivel on this thread.
Thanks to Sunfish for a wise contribution.

I suspect paidworker works for her/his pay in the Belgrano and/or Montreal.

The grauniad mentionned above - here's the link.

Iceland volcano ash cloud: The full story of how the airlines won the battle for the skies | UK news | The Guardian

I normally cannot stand the Grauniad, but for once it appears to have got the story right.

As to the airlines, they have been PATHETIC. If they can't be bothered to give accurate standards to ICAO, then airspace WILL be shut down. There is no point in MOL/WW et al moaning..........it's far too late.......idiots!!

What about the health of the passengers inhaling this stuff?
Are there bleed filters fitted in the Aircon systems that can stop this stuff from damaging your lungs?

I don't think HEPA filters are man enough for the job, if indeed any are fitted at all.

BR.

Not sure about this (last serious physics exposure A levels 1962) but is not the "visibility" of particles dependent on the wavelength of the illuminating beam. Which is why Radar is not seeing some of this stuff. If the particles are the wrong size to be illuminated in the visible light band, we will not see them, just like the radar.

The other issue is gases. The atmosphere is full of molecules that we cannot see. When volcanic sulphur compounds are present (mainly SO2) we cannot see them.
As I recall sulphur embrittlement of turbine blades used to be a serious problem years ago, when fuel content and additive contamination were the source.

No bleed air filters
 

BAD ROBOT,

Contrary to popular belief, bleed air is NOT filtered.

For information on what happens to anyone in an aircraft breathing contaminated bleed air visit Aerotoxic Association - Support for sufferers of Aerotoxic Syndrome

DB :ok:

Agreed. But surely the operators have a responsibility to ensure that they operate within the engine manufacturer's guidelines?

If the manufacturer's existing guidelines are anomalous to the operating situation(s), then operators must surely be obligated to clarify these guidelines with the engine manufacturer BEFORE they put their aircraft up.

CJ

operators must comply with limitations
 

Indeed CJ, the operators must comply with the limitations specified by the manufacturers.

If there is an need to vary, clarify, adjust or disambiguate those limitations then the new acceptable limits must come from the manufacturer.

There's a difference between limitations and recommendations. I don't believe that any manufacturer has published limitations relative to what you must not ingest. They may however published limitations on things like EGT and RPM and part removal times

NASA DC-8 past encounter
 

Podcast

Report

Another user posted the podcast and I posted the report b4 but misteriously they both disappeared. I reckon it must not be against prune's policy to publish those links since a quick search returned many avweb links. Maybe a software bug.