Pace, you really do have a point. If the end of the world was nigh and volcanoes were active all over the place, you can be very sure we would all be flying around in whatever came out of them because that would be the only way an acceptable level of operations could continue. Regulations would be tightened up and the risk mitigated as much as possible. All the phenomena you mention are just like that - too widespread and frequent for simple avoidance to be a realistic option. Personally I don't think ash falls into this category but:

If I thought that what we had just done was exactly that - carefully worked out the real risk and the likely result of an increase in exposure both in the shorter and longer term, then I feel none of us could really take issue with it. That is just what has happened with so many other threats. But the difference here is through a misjudgement by the industry we never bothered to look into it in any great detail. Suddenly we were caught out and the pressure was on for a quick decision.

My only question to you would be how can you be happy with the way the new procedures were created? 2 days is an absolutely incredibly short time for so many sections of the industry to come up with an answer. And in particular how can you be happy with it in the light of the fact that test flights, military flights and civilian flights, have appeared to have continued to suffer problems that the new regulations said would not occur?

Genuinely, I would like to know what you think. Maybe you have some other nugget that might make me see this whole thing differently....

CaptainPaddy

On this part I cannot disagree with you. In areas of known ash I would limit operations to daylight only where pilots will have a better chance of seeing denser areas of ash and avoid.

My instincts (and that is all they are) is that if you can see it the ash clouds, mist etc MAY do harm. If you cannot see the ash clouds mist in daylight VMC in all probability there will be no harm.

It is important to differentiate between two types of harm. Harm that could down an aircraft and cause loss of life and harm that would shorten engine life.

The very diffused ash in all probability MAY shorten engine life but that becomes the bill payers problem.

I totally agree that it is more than likely that the new limits were picked out of a hat but apart from having a long and detailed analysis the new limits are a starting point.

Even with a long detailed analysis and testing we never really know what is what until tested in the field. I know car manufacturers can drive thousands of miles in testing conditions and only discover problems when the cars are on the road in daily use.

There are threats in the air that we live with and accept every day which have and do bring down aircraft. To date even dense ash has not killed anyone (unless your a smoker ;) Is the ash threat bigger or mainly a media driven hype?
NO!!! in low density ash its more likely to cost in the pocket rather than lives.
I am afraid till something happens to prove otherwise.

Pace

Well, seeing as the decision has already been made there is probably little point in me occupying the dark side anymore. I gues ultimately your right. Engine monitoring programs will have to carefully watched over the next few months. They should be enough to prevent any catastrophic issues.

Isn't a shame and in my mind very damning of this industry, that we need to rely on a previously instated and successful safety measure to protect us from the potential ill effects of brand new "safety" measure?

But there lies the truth about the world we work in. The there have been many cases over the years of regulators bending to the demands of the industry. September 11th infuriated me as a light aircraft pilot in the US. Commercial airliners knocked down two buildings. Every single aircraft is grounded. Two days later commercial traffic is flying again and it takes two full weeks before light aircraft are allowed up. Many small businesses collapse as a result. How could light aircraft be a greater threat than an airliner? Wel,, they're not. The just can't lobby as effectively. I think we have just witnessed something similar again....

Thanks for the reply Pace.

CaptainPaddy

I do not know whether I and others are right or not so maybe add "ultimately HOPE your right" ;)
Life is a risk and many things we do is about risk assessment someone obviously decided it was a tiny risk worth taking.

Pace

BTW have enjoyed your posts thanks

Indeed you are right. Very nicely put, Pace

What a con job it was!
 

This was the greatest example of bureaucratic backside-covering the world has seen. Thank heavens the politicians have now intervened.

Here is an volcano close-up video and pronunciation guide -


The Icelanders did not restrict how close to Eyjafjallajokull an aircraft can fly - the decision-making was left where it should have been left. in the cockpit.

How many lives were lost because patients could not get to their hospitals and doctors? How many because medications, organs, and radioactive isotopes were not delivered? How many were lost because people drove long distances instead of flying?

Let's hope the damage done on this occasion leads to a re-think about "nervous nelly" regulation.

One awsome video of the Mt. Aye - ya - fyah - dla - jow - kudll ,eruption up close.

Looks like I was right all along.
 

Please re-read my post nr. 819 posted on april 18th.

Looks like I was right all along!

Please read this article: "The ash cloud that never was: How volcanic plume over UK was only a twentieth of safe-flying limit and blunders led to ban."

As a Belgian, I do not know the reputation of the "Daily Mail", but please take the time to read the article. I think it's spot on!

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

Probably because the volcano spotters were VFR. Restriction from the ICAO Contingency Plan is that no IFR clearances will be given into contaminated area.

Engine Costs
 

Do any beancounters read this forum? I am wondering about the effect of flying through an ash cloud that was sufficiently dispersed to not be an immediate danger to the particular flight but which would gravely shorten engine life. A poster has already said that it takes about ninety minutes to check an engine that may have been exposed to volcanic ash. This is after the ginger has finished his tea break, finished the must do job, and got his tools together. It would be risky to assume the aeroplane would be declared serviceable until the inspection was complete. Also, who is to judge, and on what data, that the aircraft was exposed to ash?

Can anyone shed any light on the costs involved? I am wondering if it was judged to be cheaper to ground everyone at least until the cost of not doing so was known and a method of forecasting the extent of the ash cloud had been developed.

Dangerous Ash?
 

We as professional pilots know that commercial pressures have won out.
Where is the evidence to back up these new so called safe limits and who exactly measures them?
Its one thing for the public to be fooled where is the voice of reason from our own community. This problem will occur again NOW is the time for various pilot representatives to be vocal if the governing agencies wont protect the traveling public then surely we MUST!!

Check with your local safety committe and ask what they have heard from ALPA/IFALPA, etc.

This is more than than engine testing, it also has to do with geological, weather and routing. Take that data and weigh it against the historical experience of what has been safe, what has been unsafe , and what corner of the spectrum are we in today. I suspect that this has already been done with all the parties in conjunction.

From my read most of the nail biting has to do with lack of knowledge about what corner are we in today, the known or the unknown?

The FAA's current position on ash...

SAIB NE-10-28

Apparently the EASA will issue their position soon.

C2j

They're not really saying anything:confused:

About Aviation color code of volcanic ash.
 

A question is asked from Japan.
We operation the helicopter (EC135) in Japan.
Since there is only zone of Eurocontrol, Safety Information Notice which EC135 manufacturer's Eurocopter took out should teach it.
The Meteorological Agency of Japan Aviation color code is not use.
Is Aviation color code of Eurocontrol and ICAO(USSG) unified?
As for Eurocontrol, zone 1:black zone, zone 2:red zone, and ICAO (USSG) are green, yellow, orange, and red.
To what is the definition about zone1 and zone2 of Eurocontrol specified?
Best Regards. :sad::eek::( pitchpitchjapjap

Eurocopter SIN2197-S-00(SUMMARY)
Due to the eruption of the volcano in Iceland EUROCOPTER has been contacted by many operators asking for
advice on how to proceed with their operation under these circumstances.
Flying in an atmosphere containing volcanic ash may affect the behaviour of the helicopter. Depending to the
variety of the particles (size, weight, density, chemical composition…) it may increase the probability of a partial
power loss, engine flame out, navigation and piloting instruments failure or other helicopter malfunctions. Flight in
such conditions may also decrease visibility and accelerate erosion of certain helicopter parts. In the past, on EC
helicopters, engine flame outs have been experienced after flight through industrial smoke.
As a consequence EUROCOPTER advises operators to avoid flight in area of high density volcanic ash
contamination (named zone 1 or black zone).

Excellent writing and a masterful release:ok:

now what was the question again?

I love the way an event like this brings out the I was right all along brigade. Who cares! Bully for you.

Its easy for people to sit back and criticise when they don't have to step up and make the hard decisions. They don't get much harder than this.

With hind sight it was a very expensive over-reaction but in the future hopefully the data collected (and still being collected!!) and lessons learnt from the way the whole "crisis" was handled will prove invaluable.

Its like an aircraft accident. So many crucial lessons are taken from a disastrous event.

Part of the problem is that, should a pilot make a wrong decision - particularly of this magnitude - then they are castigated, investigated, possibly prosecuted and more
i.e. held to account.

We are waiting......

Of course the above is all true, but many of us never considered that a decision of this magnitude would be taken by so few. it was anticpated that some air routes would be shutdown in a stair cased fashion and would be accomodatable by rerouting. The impact of this was so great that had the airlines themselves (IATA) been brought in right from the start I'm confident that they would have had all the experts on the conference phones within an hour.

Pilots Only
 

Where is the empirical evidence from engine/airframe manufacturers to warrant anything but zero tolerance?
This situation is absolute madness where is the communication from airline pilots representatives worldwide?
This situation is possibly putting peoples lives at risk due to commercial expediency
Show the public the evidence.
The time to say and act is now before the next eruption!
If you are a professional pilot use this forum to voice your concerns
and if you ado not have any concerns PLEASE SAY WHY NOT HERE