Two minutes on Google, from another site. :hmm:

CEN10RA135

Pictures here.

Engine Damage Photos Misunderstood As Ash Damage — Civil Aviation Forum | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PBL

This is the sort of mindless, plain ignorant hyping that has caused us to be where we are today at vast cost to our industry.

Do you believe anything you are told or see at face value without questioning it ?
As a professional researcher you should know better!

Pace

Thank you, forget, I am aware of the rumors, but want to know if anyone has a provenance

PBL

Playing Devils advocate

Now that airlines are allowed to fly through some of the ash clouds providing the engine manufacturer has certified their engines are up to the task, where will the liability lie if there is (perish the thought) an incident?

The engine manufacturer for stating their engines can cope in the ash?
The airline for taking the engine manufacturers word?
The regulator for accepting the idea?

Hmmm the lawyers must be rubbing their hands in glee and anticipation!

First question - how would anyone prove the ash concentration that caused such an incident was above or below whatever (arbitrary) level was stated to be safe. Not being flippant but the evidence has a tendency to blow away.... i.e. the ash cloud itself.

- GY

Lomon

That is a tricky one! Where does the liability lie if damage is sustained flying through hailstones in a known area of thunderstorm activity which we operate through on a regular basis.

Where does liability lie with Bird ingestion through known migration paths or at sea based airports?

What is the difference other than the two above have caused loss of life and known engine damage while to date there has been no loss of life caused by Ash in even dense encounters in over 50 years of aviation.

There is far more risk to crashing on landing and takeoff and loosing your life within acceptable wind and shear limits than ever being killed by an ash encounter. Maybe we should call for zero wind for takeoff and landing in the next safety based campaign :ugh:

Pace

A lot of what is seen here is the after effects of leaving an engine run-on for minutes after experiencing an uncontained failure. Probably the pilots were in a high workload regime.

(engines don't often snuff out all the flame but they do run out of air in the combustor, but not fuel, until they are shutdown following a major failure.)

Well, whatever.It looks from the synoptics as if the UK is OK until 23rd at least.

Liability will lie whereever the lawyers get the courts to decide it does - as per usual. If I was an ambulance chaser of this type, I'd be far more excited about pitot tubes, and birds.

Where does the liability lie in those cases ?Surely if you look at the list of previous pitot incidents almost all with one type of probe, it was obvious they weren't good enough... and clearly a bird ingestion standard based on only one 4lb bird is totally inadequate for flying near flocks of geese. Obviously (if you are an ambulance chaser) someone should have spotted those issues and taken action before people died. Who ? Whoever has the money (or just sue them all).

VA, on the other hand, hasn't managed to down an aircraft yet. A few broken, or prematurely worn, engines will be sorted out between the airlines and the mfrs. There's probably more money in hitting the poor delayed punters with "sue for a refund" scams.

Even scientists can be gullible...
 

First:And then, after someone exposed it as a hoax...Yeah sure! :ok:

:}:}:}

Garage Years:

Very, very simple. Erosion and overheat damage to turbine blades and nozzle guide vanes associated with glass clogged cooling holes.

By the way, the diffusion of responsibility between engine/airframe/ Met office/airline/insurer/crew and regulator in the event of a series of extremely costly Ash damage incidents is exactly what has kept you grounded until enough research and negotiation could be done to understand and manage the risks.

Sunfish

Sorry cannot agree with you that its simple really ;) You could quite easely have an area marked as below the accepted limits in Ash and have one cloud which is unique and solitary but of a much denser level than the remaining area.

Nothing is constant sadly in our atmosphere.

I can well remember flying a twin to Malaga single pilot with only the owner on board airways at FL120 Near Madrid. Radar gave me help with storm cloud avoidance as did my on board radar. I picked a way between two cells in VMC. The ground temperature was 42 deg C.

As I passed well clear and between the cells I experienced something I had never done in 20+ plus years. The IAS shot from 160 kts IAS to 65 kts IAS in seconds and the aircraft felt as it had flown into a vacuum. No control response, No Pitch response, No increase of speed with power.

The aircraft sank vertically like a towerblock lift for 2000 feet as if in a vacuum and then came alive again.

You simply cannot prove anything in the atmosphere as being constant! ash density or otherwise especially with computer predicted movement. One area may be ok while a few hundred metres and its not.

The best indicator with storms or otherwise is to use your eyes and your instincts and knowledge as relying on aids only whether aircraft based or land based will give you a shock you dont want.

That is why I dont hold with the science but do with pilots and good old see and avoid.The SCIENCE is an aid to the captain not the CAPTAIN and for me thats the whole basis of my arguement with this thread. Listen to the airlines and the pilots and thankfully that message seems to be proving correct.

The same goes with ASH which to date has not harmed anyone in I repeat over 50 years when there were no fancy gizmos to mislead anyone which sadly also now seems proved to be a costly mistake.

Pace

Glass is made by heating silicon dioxide, otherwise know as sand.

Not quite.....
Glass is made by mixing silicon dioxide (sand) with various other chemical substances and heating it.
The result is a somewhat odd material, neither liquid nor entirely a solid, but with a melting pointing considerably below pure silicon dioxyde.
Hence the problem...

CJ

Pace:

I'm afraid you just don't get it.

1. See and avoid doesn't work by day with fine ash clouds as has already been demonstrated. It certainly doesn't work at night.

2. With at least 1000 flights per day to and from Europe, we are talking about the balance of probabilities of finding ash. It is irrelevant if one aircraft or ninety aircraft make it through without ash damage. Your personal experience is irrelevant.

This is about managing risk for a fleet of 1000+ aircraft engaged in European travel at any given time. As I said many pages ago, the penalty for getting the ash forecasts wrong is hundreds and hundreds of damaged aircraft sitting on the ground for months as they wait for their engines to be rebuilt by overloaded maintenance facilities staffed by exhausted engineers.

To put it another way, there are not hundreds of spare engines sitting around in Europe or America for some mass engine change.

To put it yet another way, suppose the forecasters get it wrong, or the volcano decides not to cooperate and Forty B747's need engines changes as a result. Are you going to sit there and argue that Boeing/GE/RR or the airlines should have had 160 spare engines just sitting around unallocated against this possibility? I can tell you they don't.

There are relatively few spares around against birdstrikes etc. The engines are monitored on the wings and then scheduled to be removed (sometimes as modules) during heavy maintenance and from there scheduled into engine overhaul and from there scheduled either to sit as a spare for a while or back onto another aircraft. The idea with that is to ensure that engine "Life" is managed so that engine changes due to time expired components don't happen except at scheduled heavy maintenance. Spares (blades and vanes) are usually ordered as sets, or overhauled as sets to fit in with the engine maintenance schedule.

It is a complex process and if you throw in anything other than the ordinary level of unforeseen engine changes, you will quickly run out of serviceable engines in the resulting chaos as well as suffer massive cost overruns.

Engine Damage Photos Misunderstood As Ash Damage — Civil Aviation Forum | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A friend forwarded to me, I would like comments from engineers more knowledgeable that I.

john

Mate, someone's driven a tank down that intake, it has absolutely 100% got nothing to do with ash! To my knowledge, nobody has found any ash damage in a commercial aircraft these past few weeks

If you read the comments at that URL you will see that this is NOT ash damage at all, but some sort of disk failure.

Aren't Internet forums wonderful?

I posted a question yesterday about a set of purported pictures of ash damage: These are the same pictures to which jonwilly referred earlier today. The answer appears to be no, no one knows where they came from.

Let me pose the same question again today: does anyone have a provenance?

I found it particularly amusing that two people, Pace and sabenaboy, suggested I was being gullible, presumably on the basis of what they read on other anonymous forums on the Internet. Folks, maybe it is time to look up the meaning of "gullible"?

From what I understand of the physics and chemistry of ash damage to engines (and it is not much, but it is more than many here seem to understand), it is quite possible for an engine to shed a blade or three if affected parts overheat and the engine isn't shut down. And what you then look at is a broke engine, much as these pictures show.

PBL