I wish it were that simple!
There are at least three groups at the Sharp End!
- the certain (but possibly wrong) sceptics who are not supported by the current (or previous) rules about VA;
- the certain and uncertain 'conformists' who may prefer to go along with whatever's thrown at them rather than appear radical, non-conformist, awkward-squad, etc.;
- the other sceptics who go along with whatever rules are current but are uneasy about the 'certainties' as presented.

Then there are other players:
- regulatory bodies, including some people who seem uncomfortable with any form of risk management. Why such people ever end up working in regulatory organisations where the main activity is essentially risk management defeats me. Elimination of risk will never be an option - if it were, aircraft would never have been developed at all!
- businessmen, accountants and shareholders wanting to make money out of the industry;
- governments who suddenly realize that whole economies will go rapidly down the pan without aviation.

Complete certainty is not an option either - I doubt there ever will be any about VA and its risks.

Regulation based on 'Zero VA' was clearly never based on observational science. It was an easy decision until some VA actually loomed into view, then its weakness became self-evident (and proved by actual experience). The current permitted VA maxima are also a line-holding exercise in the continued absence of real research. The forecasting system is also evidently prone to errors, especially over-estimation of coverage, again presumably due to lack of real data collected by direct observation of the ash clouds.

Somehow or another, the industry must pull together and spend the money, on engine research and on atmospheric observation (not forecasting / prediction, if certainty about ash location and density is the requirement).

The only element entirely beyond control is the volcanoes.

I'm sick of this. Comments slagging off about regulators are just unfounded.

Here are the documents and research details to date.

ICAO volcanic ash contingency plan, edition 2 September 2009.

Documents

ICAO manual.

http://www2.icao.int/en/anb/met-aim/...Amend.%201.pdf


ICAO taskforce:

ICAO NEWS BRIEF ICAO News Centre

Sandblast effect ...
 

From down the back the other day, noticed the painted RYANAIR logo on both my favorite airline's winglets had been significantly 'sandblasted' with the letters 30% obliterated. When I got off, I noted that the spinner spirals on the engines looked similarly beaten up.

Is this ash damage? I don't recall noticing such wear and tear previously. If so, are Europe's workhorse airlines now getting a better picture of what's it costing in extra maintenance ?

lomapaseo
Not sure but I think a photo in this article (link below) shows that very thing... or if not melted then certainly able to clog the cooling holes?

Why Can't Planes Fly Through Volcanic Ash? NASA Found Out the Hard Way | Popular Science

TyroPicard

Yes those pictures have been posted many times within this thread. They closely match the known severe events affecting engines.

The discussion just above had to do with VA melting inside the turbine blades if the cooling air is hot enough.

as always follow you FCOMs, it's easier to change those than to convince all pilots of the finer points :)

Risk management!
 

Well, you would have to be a fool or suicidal to go fly in such an ash cloud:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...2102_large.jpg

But it took a bunch of pen licking scientist and bureaucrats to stop me from flying in this kind of weather: (And that's what the weather actually looked like over Belgium during the first NO-FLY weekend!) :ugh:

http://www.thedailyparker.com/conten...light_3096.JPG

Let's hope common sense will prevail if this or another volcano starts erupting again.

Horses for courses, as they say. I reckon, however, there will be some little pink bottoms that will need levering off seat cushion buttons when one of the 2 engines goes POP mid-ocean with 120-180 minutes at MCT to nearest:)

You mean when a bird goes down the intake BOAC?! :)
Or the fuel calcs are wrong (or the wrong fuel gauge fitted!) and plane runs out of fuel?!
Or the water sed checks aren't done correctly and the donk flames out cos it's trying to burn water?!

Can't be anything to do with ash 'cos us engineer's can't find any damage from VA!

Somebody mentioned sand blasting on a Ruinair flight; Atmospheric sand, grit, pollen, small parachutists, what-have-you, is constantly eroding surfaces long before Erecckkkllannnoorrookkkfffic exploded. If you pilot chaps have a close look at your pitot probes and leading edges you'll see they're all eroded to some extent.

- erm, no, unless you have records of bird strikes at FL400 mid Atlantic?:ugh: - how many turbine blades do you actually section each day?

Not an attack on your post BOAC (difficult to express intonation in text!), simply pointing out there's a lot of stuff that'll bring an airliner down before VA does.

I have seen no evidence of VA damage. I know of no other engineer that has. Friends of mine work in engine bays as well as line stations, the grapevine would quickly flash up evidence of this nature, if it didn't Sunfish would!

You're right, I have no record of birdstrikes at FL400. Nor have I any evidence of volcanic ash damage.

residual:

That's because the regulators closed the airspace before evidence accumulated.

...and my elephant scaring crystal is working too, no elephants in my garden :ok:

Sunfish: errr - what are you actually 'sick' about? Comments about inappropriate regulations? Inaction? Slow response?

I assume your ICAO reference is intended to reassure that ICAO is rushing about doing stuff and the results will be Real Soon. The meat (such as it is) of the press release says:
Looks like a bit of 'Manana, but without the same sense of urgency' to me. Decide what report to write by 1st August and then spend the next 9 months writing it. But reports of any kind do not actually DO anything. On this timetable, there'd be no prospect of even getting the VA concentrations harmonized by mid-2011.

And 'options' are quite easy to write up. Selecting and implementing the right one (starting May 2011 at earliest) might take a bit longer. Slow? Inactive? Complacent? Pretty-much as useful as a Chocolate Teapot? You choose!

'Never mistake Activity for Effective Action'.

And meanwhile, in Another Part of the Forest, Easyjet is making PR capital (even if not actually gaining useful competitive advantage) by putting IR cameras on some of its aircraft at the cost, it says, of £1m. (see other posting). Well, at least it's action, even if uncoordinated and possibly not terribly useful.

Solution?
 

Stop blaming someone else, you know damn well its was the airline industry who set the standards and therefore its those who are responsible.

Rather good perceptive posts above and in some cases sounding at odds with one another :ok:

The status quo takes a long time to change all the various opinions in our industry. Especially when it seemed to "get by" and more pressing problems du jour arise.

(attrib above to Mr Prata)

Yeah - right. You get '5 minutes' (or less) warning of 'VA Ahead' - then you have to contact ATC, request a route / height change, wait for ATC to decide based on other traffic, etc. and action whatever change is advised. Err - not in 5 minutes, if everyone on your route and its reciprocal, at several different FLs, are all going through the same process!!!! Utter chaos would result. It's all very well arguing about 'Captain's Authority' deciding where the aircraft goes but in controlled airspace it's not a realistic scenario to actually exercise it as apparently proposed.

This might be worth watching:


Volcanic Ash: The Ticking Timebomb
Tuesday 08 June
8:00pm - 9:00pm
Five

Documentary exploring the likelihood and potential global effects of the eruption of Katla, a huge volcano lurking under the Icelandic ice. Katla is five times the size of its neighbour Eyjafjallajokull, which recently caused so much travel disruption when it blew clouds of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. Historically, every Eyjafjallajokull eruption has been followed by a flare-up at Katla. If such an eruption were to happen now, it is predicted that European airspace would be closed down for 18 months.

And what superb specimen of homo sapiens predicted that? Donald Duck?

It is unusual for airflows over Iceland to track towards the UK so how come 18 months? if that last load of scaremongering like the rest of the so called scientific scares from everything from BirdFlu to ash ever came true?

Oh well maybe one day they will actually get one right who knows? But that will probably be more luck than anything else or in that case bad luck :ugh:

Pace

I note they manage to work in global warming as a factor, although in a most unconvincing way.