volcanic hazard and aviation safety
 

for those interested there is a document on volcanic hazard and aviation safety available through the CAA website:
some numbers are quoted on costs of repair and replacement after encounters with volcanic ash (eg 80milUSD for B747-400 damaged by an ash cloud from Reddoubt Volcano, Alaska, in Dec 1989)
...Complete avoidance of volcanic ash clouds is the only procedure that guarantees flight safety.

I've seen the word coward thrown about here more than once and I fail to understand the usage in this situation. Are we at war? Is there a common enemy we need to band together against and press on no matter the consequences?

Dont We ALL learn with our own Mistakes, since as child...:confused:

CargoOne + 411A:
are you suggesting that the cargo operations should start first?
So if it would prove to be safe the people carrying could safely start after some real operations data is gathered - this might be a good approach to investigate.
The only question is - would this operation be insured?

As a pilot, former engineer and now an Air Traffic Controller here is my 2 cents.

I believe that any pilot complaining about the decision to close airspace has his right to his opinion. He does not pay maintence bills and in all likely hood has no idea of the cost of maintence and the actual threat that volcanic ash poses to the components of an engine. There is enough evidence shown on this thread of the immediate results of ash ingestion to a gas turbine engine, e.g the finnish airforce f18 photos on page 31 or so.

From an ATC perspective, the law states that we may not clear an IFR aircraft to operate in an area known to be affected or forecast to be effected by volcanic ash. So why is there an argument here about the decision that was made to close airspace?

Personally I believe any pilot willing to fly in such conditions carrying passengers is irresponsible and this industry has no place for such people.

The economic effects of this volcano are dire, but nothing compared to what would happen when a few airliners crash because of it.

Balance of risk
 

Having read all of this thread so far, I have not seen much on the evaluation of the dangers and risks of shutting down of airspace.

The decision to close down aviation will certainly reduce the risk of an accident, and will save some lives just by reducing the hours flown, and the amount of duty free cigarettes and alcohol sold -but it will also probably cause many deaths and injuries and other effects - which need to be understood so that the decision can be taken balancing the risks.

Some that can think of are:
(1) Immediate loss of life / injury caused by lack of air ambulance flights, stress related illneses, people being forced to stay in countries with less sanitation etc. loss of supply of drugs

(2) Displacement deaths: More deaths on roads, ferries, etc. due to increased traffic

(3) Economically related deaths. Millions in africa rely on air transported products (flowers,fruits, veg) to earn wages - their lower standard of living will cause deaths. Pilots, cabin crew, airport staff and their families will earn less money - generally less money means higher death rates

(4) Indirect loss of life due to loss of progress of life saving drugs (less business meetings etc.)

(5) Dangers due to loss of flying experience if pilots have periods of many weeks without flying

(6) Increased chance of death caused by soldiers in Afghanistan etc having to extend their tours of duty, and reduced interaction between govenrnemnts possibly increasing tensions / frictions etc.

Whatever these risks are, they demonstrate that somebody who knows only about the risks of volcanic ash and aviation can not be the decision maker about whether or not to shut down aviation. It needs to be somebody who can balance the risks of flying with the risks of not-flying.

For example, in the UK, around 3,000 people die in road accidents caused by motor cars each day, but presumably lives would be lost by banning all motorised road transport, not least of which would be horse related.

On that basis, I wonder who the decision maker really is, and where they are looking for the data to balance with?

Finnish airspace closed until 1800 local Monday now with revision under the day (further delays)?

"Cowardice" ....It's not the Battle of Britain!!

Lucky G Bush still doesn't run the states, I'm sure iceland would be invaded to find the weapon of mass disruption.

I am sure the ash has thinned out for the most part. But what if there are still areas that have not. I would have thought they would have done a bit more work on this to workout how much you could fly through.

This absolute total closure is insane
 

Take a look at this document:
"Issues arising from the 4th International Workshop on Volcanic Ash"
This document was the result of a meeting held by the ICAO INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS VOLCANO WATCH OPERATIONS GROUP held in Paris, september 2008.

Especially paragragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 are interesting. Allow me to quote the document: Next please read the remark at the bottom of the LONDON VAAC Charts. It says:
Combine these two and anybody with a little common sense should realise that the COMPLETE closure of the "affected" airspace is completely insane! Military aircraft should be up there NOW 24 hrs/day looking for those parts of the airspace where ask can be observed. Combine these observations with satellite imagery from visible ash clouds and concentrations and warn operators to stay clear of these areas and these areas only. Then perhaps impose a tighter maintenance schedule imposing boroscopic engine inspections every month or so.

And before anybody comes back with the NASA DC8 case: this flight happened on a dark moonless night!

I live here about 50 NM west of Brussels. The weather here is great: absolutely cloudless, blue sky with almost unlimited visibility. Give me an A320 and I'll be glad to make a test flight in this airspace at any altitude between MSL and FL390. Yes, I'll even take my kids along on the flight, but I will stay clear of ALL visible ash clouds.

I'm pretty convinced that time will tell that all this is an extreme overreaction.
This is not just a better-safe-then-sorry-matter, but an extreme and very costly example of a cover-your-arse-policy by the decision makers!

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

PS: @ one post only, replying to his post 757: I will apologise if later it turns out that completely closing the airspace was a good decision. Will you be so brave to apologise to all those you insult by your remark, when time will tell that this was indeed an insane overreaction?

And also I am sure there are many carriers that will be laughing all the way to the bank. With fewer european carriers, less competition for the asians, arabs, aussies and yanks. Lufhthansa doesn't have a plan in the air, that is quite costly for a 400+ fleet.

What I can't understand is that there are many airports in the world which have reduced visibiity due to pollution e.g. Dehli, Hong Kong etc - the pollution particles causing the restriction in visibility.

However, I can sit here in Scotland on a beautiful fresh Sunday morning with clear blue skies and unlimited visibiility in every direction but according to the met office I am covered by an ash cloud - are we actually saying that the ash particles don't restrict visibility in any way at all ?????????

Allrounde99:
Nobody will question the danger of "Flying into Volcanic ash" BUT:

When we are talking about area "affected" by Volcanic ash..WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT...Wich concentration or density..???
i THINK THE CLOSURE OF THE AIRSPACE IS NOTHING BUT A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE AS NOBODY KNOWNS....

We are flying every year through sand storm in the middle east without any closure of airspace or airport with visibilty as low as ..500m even less..(very HIGH concentration of sand ).
So My QUESTION IS: WICH ONE IS WORST FOR THE ENGINE:..FLYING THROUGH THE EUROPEAN BLUE SKY WITH A VERY VERY LOW CONCENTRATION OF VOLCANIC ASH PARTICLES HERE AND THERE OR FLYING INTO A SAND STORM??:hmm:

@CargoOne

.

Maybe plenty are prepared to do their work as expected, but are not allowed to:=

Please, CargoOne, fly Monday afternoon and have a nice and safe flight!

Just in case you are having troubles up in the air,due to some irrelevant ash particels, and I really do not hope/wish so, please avoid flying south of Munich, as I am living there....

@411A

Brilliant answer, did the ash cloud reach Arizona already?

Military aircraft do not have the necessary sensors. Cranfield, however, does, and has been flying.....

This is just the beginning, warn scientists

.....Yesterday a British scientist described how even modern aircraft technology cannot detect the clouds of ash. Guy Gratton, head of Cranfield University’s facility for airborne atmospheric measurement, took a flight with fellow researchers to gather data.

“Speaking as an aeronautical engineer, I would not want to be putting an airliner up there at the moment,” said Gratton.

“There is a lot of fairly nasty stuff there that we were running away from, knowing what we did. We have standard airline instruments on the aeroplane, we have got a storm scope and we have got a weather radar and they were looking straight through it."

"Neither of those were seeing any of this stuff. It was only our specialist cloud physics instruments that were able to see the particles.”

Hi,

The volcanic ashes in big concentration can also cause a visibility restriction.
It's not really the problem actually.
The problem with the volcanic ashes (or volcanic particles) is that they act in a particular way when they are ingested in the jet engines ..
By a physical process (cause heat) they will not only make damages but they will also melt and stick on parts of the engine (turbine blades etc )

So continue to enjoy your beautiful blue sky from the ground .. it's the best place to be actually :)

Likewise the South coast of England where I live. In fact avoid any and all inhabited areas and don't expect any rescue if you come down in the sea.
You know what, maybe, just maybe, the governments of the Northern european countries which have clamped down on flying are trying to protect their population from the 'brave', gung ho, let me leap into my flying machine and ignoring all dangers take to the skies type of person. Just as they do by requiring flying machines to have a valid airworthiness certificate and the pilots of those machines to have a valid licence for the type.

BD

Lets theorise that this disaster continues to cripple the european aviation industry for the next month or so or even 3 months. How far a reach will this have on other markets?

Anyone know what percentage of global airline traffic is being affected right now? (or dependent on Euro transit) US domestic market is largely untouched so would it be as high as 40%? more maybe?

Danish Airspace
 

It has just been reported by several news outlets that Danish airspace is to remain closed until 01:00 (UK Time) tomorrow at the earliest.

Looking at the latest images from the VAAC, I don't think it is likely that anything across the UK and northern Europe will fly today or indeed, tomorrow either, with Tuesday potentially out of the question too looking at the high level wind forecasts.

please read my post nr 817. There are ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE volcanic ash particles in the air. The ash concentration is never zero. Does that mean that airplanes should be banned from flying all over the world?

The problem is that no lower level acceptable ash concentration has been defined and decision makers are greatly overreacting. :ugh:

Read my post nr 817!!

Cubbie said:

Sorry for butting in here.
I'm only SLF and have been reading this with interest and have refrained from commenting until I saw this. Surely he's joking isn't he?

What would I, as a passenger, know about the risks of flying an aircraft in these conditions particularly given that even the nominated experts really aren't sure?

If we went with this attitude for all flights then we would reach the situation where the SOP for any flight where there was a possible question about safety would involve a taking a vote amongst the passengers and crew to decide go or no go.

"We're not absolutely sure that we will make it to xxxx due to yyyy. Please tell us if you still want to fly. We'll go if we get 100"

Those transatlantic liners may yet make a comeback.
 

It was jet planes that killed seagoing traffic back in the 60s.

Remember those grand old ladies of the ocean making slow but safe crossings? About time! Sure beats spending days in grim a/p lounges.

The old tortoise/hare story comes around again...:)

Sabenaboy yes I will apologise if it makes you feel better. I will now do it in advance just in case I can't do it in the future. Sorry to anyone who branded professionals cowards and took offence at my remarks and attempts to defend them.

However I just don't believe you should EVER criticise someone for taking the safest course of action. Test flights need to be flown data gathered and airspace either opened immediately or kept closed till the danger subsides. We need more data to determine if this was a overreaction so that in the future we can manage this better. In the meantime though we need to remain on the cautious side. I agree very much that the right people should be up there gathering data and information. I have never said otherwise! In the future that decision may be easier to make as they will have this experience to draw down on.

I applaud your bravery. You take your family up flying then. I will wait like a coward and watch with a fire truck. I would happily do a test flight myself in an area with no visible ash clouds if I was told it was safe by scientist and "experts". The test flights in the UK did find contaminants in areas where no visible ash cloud was present. I would not bring my family along though just in case. Maybe I am a coward!

To call people cowards though I believe is dangerous. You should never apply pressure to force people to operate when they are not happy. Well I would have flown the approach. I wouldn't have taken the extra fuel. I would have snuck below minima. I would have kept the airspace open. etc etc. It’s how accidents happen.

Look it's a tough call. I am glad I don't have to make it. If you know better write to the authorities and tell them what you know, particularly about equipment over reading. The British scientists at cranfield may want to know their delicate equipment is over reading. Perhaps you would like to offer to re design it for them to be more accurate.

Just because the airspace over Brussels may be safe, doesn't mean it is over the UK, or France etc. There should be no blanket ban but individual authorities should make their own decision. Which is what I thought they were doing. The concentrations will be different in different places. This will change hourly. This is why anything other than blanket bans are difficult. In the UK they did open small portions of airspace when the threat diminished so a blanket ban is NOT in place. When a window of opportunity opens they open airspace. This point is quite important as it shows thought and consideration to a dynamic and fluid situation not just a knee jerk reaction. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there should NOT be a BLANKET ban. I never said otherwise.

More data. Specific bans.

I will bow out now and leave you heroes to chastise those who make difficult decisions on limited information while trying to safeguard the flying public....and you and me!

I would rather read on here about people moaning about the airspace closure being an overreaction than reading about complaints if it was the correct decision.

I am affected by this just as much as you! We all are. Well its looking like a nice day. I am going to go and enjoy this time with my family while those of you who know more and are much braver sort this mess out.

That's got to be one of the most insulting and stupid comments I have read. At the moment no-one is allowed to fly in the area affected so personal choice (or bravery) doesn't come into it. Most sensible people (I don't include the author of the comment) will wait for those with some knowledge and authority to make a decision based on evidence based research and accumulated knowledge rather than some good old boy red kneck stupidity. It could turn out that this has been an overeaction but the other side of it could have had serious consequences. Posters who put comments like this do so safe in the knowledge that they will never have to justify them as they have only limited responsibility (own aircraft or maybe even a few old ones) rather than a wide responsibilty to hundreds of thousands of the members of the public.

Hi,

I readed it :)

The problem is that you will not seen the cloud of ashes .. it's not visible by eyes or even board radar ...
I wish you good luck and I pray for your children :)

Perhaps you arent aware there are proceedures for encountering volcanic ash, there are proceedures for an engine failure, for blown tires on take off, a whole manner of dangerous events which can occur everyday. Flight crew are trained to deal with these situations. As SLF why do you put you life in their hands when you decide to travel? Are you telling me the risk of a catastrophic event is too great to think off.. As a passenger its your choice to move from AtoB yes it maybe hazardous, its dangerous to cross the road, perhaps everytime there is fog all roads should be closed by the government because people are too stupid to understand how dangerous it is. My point is who gets to decide?- the risks are known there are proceedures in place to deal with it, blanket bans are not the answer:ugh:

this is the way to go in the nearest future BUT so far there are no clear definitions of allowed ash concentrations. And no known methods of measuring them (what to measure, how densely take measurements vertically and horizontally). And no clear knowledge if all ashes have the same destruction capacity (size, shape, hardness)

Seems that emergency meeting of ATC+metOffice+airlines+enginemakers+governement(as citizen representation) is urgently needed in order to work out immediate decisions

JcJeant

<<The volcanic ashes in big concentration can also cause a visibility restriction. It's not really the problem actually>>

- after 20,000 hours and 30+ years I know that if there is something in the air it tends to restrict visibility - fly over the factories in china for example or fly into Hong Kong with the world's only visual transition level, which you can smell, and you'll know what I mean.

When Pinatubo and Mt St Helens blew up they put trillions of tons of volcanic dust in the air of which I believe a percentage is still there.... so we have been flying in this stuff for years.

At what point, at what concentration, will the authorities say it is ok to fly bearing in mind that their advisories, produced with their models (hopefully better than their weather predictions), say they don't know the contamination levels. The problem is like trying to find an AME to sign you off back to flying after your triple bypass !

Without a doubt.
It is called 'nanny state action', and is quite typical of present day Euroland thinking.
They are welcome to it.
That...and the 'carbon credits' they want to enforce/sell with wild abandon.
Silly fools.

Dust falling now over northern UK and you only have to rub some of this between the fingers to realise the abrasive qualities of this stuff. The damage to engines and airframes could be quite considerable,realistically I can't see any end to this until next weekend at the earliest, and thats just the UK. :(

@one post only;

What is "the safest course of action"?
What do you do if thunderstorms are forecast at your destination?
What do you do with a MEL-able defect?

Surely the safest course of action would be never to take-off in these or ANY conditions? The safest course of action is never do anything and stay in bed all day, but even that is somewhat dangerous: Wim Delaere was killed in the house the MIG-23 hit while he was waiting for his parents to come back from shopping.

I'm turning 47 today! Believe me: anybody knowing me will confirm that recklessness is not one of my characteristics. I'd still love to go flying today though!

Better safe then sorry? Of course!!! But please don't thrown common sense out of the window! :cool:

sabenaboy:


"The problem is that no lower level acceptable ash concentration has been defined and decision makers are greatly overreacting"

That comment sums up the heart of the problem. As no lower level acceptable ash concentration has ever been defined, then how can you assert that the decision-makers are greatly overreacting? They don't know and you don't know.

I agree that the fact that this is so represents a historical failure of both the industry and the regulators, but given the current state, then there is really no choice than to use a highly conservative risk assessment.

Australia's volcanic ash detector
 

I’m not sure that the media here in Australia grasp the enormity of Europe’s aviation shutdown. After 2001 terrorist attacks US airspace was closed for only 3 days but in the aftermath Delta’s CEO said that no airline could survive without a massive Federal bailout. It took Congress two days to appropriate a $16 billion rescue. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/eveningnews/main532311.shtml.
That’s what Europe will need if the eruption continues much longer.
Sadly nobody was interested when Australian scientists developed a volcanic ash detector ten years ago. See http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2001/Prvolcanoash.htm

A nice break
 

Well, speaking as a pilot I'm rather enjoying a break from a rather heavy roster and having just bought my 5 year old a new bike yesterday am looking forward to taking her out in the sunshine to ride it (when I get these darned stabilisers to fit!!)

Personally I'm glad that the authorities took the decisions to put safety first, it's a brave and sensible decision - it's the only right decision for everyone. I can't understand any pilot wanting to take stupid risks so why the urgency to climb back into the cockpit?

Just enjoy the break and the time with family and friends...

Now - anybody know any way of lengthening bike axles??!!

Desk-pilot

Handelsblatt reports that LH positioned 10 airframes from MUC to FRA yesterday by special permit. These were flying at 3 km under VFR. Why VFR?

There are procedures for dealing with emergencies, however what do you think the effect is likely to be if an aircraft loses power due to ash ingestion over the London TMA on a normal day? Multiply that one aircraft by a dozen as all aircraft in the same bit of sky are likely to be similarly affected. Do you seriously think ATC will be able to get everything out of the way in time of a dozen aircraft falling out of the sky at the same time?
Please think outside of yourself and your aircraft, think of the others users and those on the ground who may not have the opportunity to get out of the way of your hunk of metal falling back to earth.

BD

Kl7461 B773 Ph-bvb
 

Approaching EHAM presently FL70

The last time Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano blew, the eruption lasted more than a year, from December 1821 until January 1823, reports Sally Sennert, a geologist at the Smithsonian Institution.

"This seems similar to what's happening now," she says.

The volcano is erupting small, jagged pieces of rocks, minerals and volcanic glass the size of sand and silt into the atmosphere, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. This volcanic ash can even be as small as 1/25,000th of an inch across.

Volcanic ash is formed during explosive volcanic eruptions. Once in the air, the wind can blow these tiny ash particles tens to thousands of miles away from the volcano. Life-threatening and costly damages can occur to aircraft that fly through an eruption cloud, reports the geological survey.

"Silica in the ash gets into the engine and heats up and melts, which causes the engines to stop," says Sennert.

Based on reported damages from ash encounters, the hazard posed to aircraft can extend more than 3,000 miles from an erupting volcano. (Click here for a map of the ash zone over Europe).

Fortunately for the USA, Sennert says the wind direction is such that the ash cloud is traveling east-southeast, toward Europe and away from the USA.

However, as Science Fair noted previously, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano isn't necessarily the main problem. It's Katla, Iceland's noisier neighbor, that's the concern. If lava flowing from Eyjafjallajokull melts the glaciers that hold down the top of Katla, then Katla could blow its top, pumping gigantic amounts of ash into the atmosphere.

The potential eruption of Iceland's volcano Katla could send the world, including the USA, into an extended deep freeze.

"There's no telling how long the eruptions could last," says Sennert about the Eyjafjallajokull volcano."These explosions could go on for some time."

Having read all of this thread so far, I have not seen much on the evaluation of the dangers and risks of shutting down of airspace.

The decision to close down aviation will certainly reduce the risk of an accident, and will save some lives just by reducing the hours flown, and the amount of duty free cigarettes and alcohol sold -but it will also probably cause many deaths and injuries and other effects - which need to be understood so that the decision can be taken balancing the risks.

Some that can think of are:
(1) Immediate loss of life / injury caused by lack of air ambulance flights, stress related illneses, people being forced to stay in countries with less sanitation etc. loss of supply of drugs
(2) Displacement deaths: More deaths on roads, ferries, etc. due to increased traffic
(3) Economically related deaths. Millions in africa rely on air transported products (flowers,fruits, veg) to earn wages - their lower standard of living will cause deaths. Pilots, cabin crew, airport staff and their families will earn less money - generally less money means higher death rates
(4) Indirect loss of life due to loss of progress of life saving drugs (less business meetings etc.)
(5) Dangers due to loss of flying experience if pilots have periods of many weeks without flying
(6) Increased chance of death caused by soldiers in Afghanistan etc having to extend their tours of duty, and reduced interaction between govenrnemnts possibly increasing tensions / frictions etc.

Whatever these risks are, they demonstrate that somebody who knows only about the risks of volcanic ash and aviation can not be the decision maker about whether or not to shut down aviation. It needs to be somebody who can balance the risks of flying with the risks of not-flying.

For example, in the UK, around 3,000 people die in road accidents caused by motor cars each year, but presumably lives would be lost by banning all motorised road transport, not least of which would be horse related.

On that basis, I wonder who the decision maker really is, and where they are looking for the data to balance with?

Silly fools.
 

Alternative approach

The irelevant authorities have issued the following statement:-

"There has been a major eruption of a volcano in Iceland the ash plume of which is being carried by the winds at altitude in the direction of NW Europe. The parts of the atmosphere affected are those used primarily by jet transport aircraft. The plume becomes more diluted as it drifts away from Iceland but the concentration is not really known with great accuracy and there is no real knowledge base as to the effect on aircraft engines in this scenario. We can state that it is not a good idea to fly through a visible plume but that's about it. However we dont want to interfere in something that is obviously a commercial decision so leave it to individual operators to decide if they are happy to operate in this case. We would welcome any feedback from operators as to their experience operating in these conditions as frankly no one knows how things will go. We suggest liasing with providers of insurance cover to check if adequate liability protection remains in place based on the foregoing lack of advice. Please be aware that if anything untoward should happen it's nothing to do with us. Happy landings.:)"