|
Stereotyping you thing, Admiral? I rather think it a nationally identifiable characteristic, something along the lines of German efficiency and fondness for logic. In the case of the Dutch, though, their reflexive recourse to arrogance may well be considered cautionary. Something for the thought processes of KLM passengers, perhaps.
|
yes yes, open the sky.
who cares about safety these days!!!!??...up to passengers to take the risk or not pilots who pay to fly (pf2) would be glad to fly with passengers despite geting sick or catching cancer! i dont see the difference of risk when flying in ash or with P2f pilots! |
Whole Central and Northern Europe deep in the "ash hole"....
:) |
hi Global Warrior
lets get some facts straight: Theres too much going on here that is just too vague. For a start the area of volcanic ash is a best guess anyway based on a model that has no input with actual location of volcanic ash being as it cant be measured. Therefore, it could be far far more wide spread than we think, or significantly less wide spread. Thats fine people but the notion that suddenly an aeroplane is going to fall out of the sky if a test flight is conducted is just ludicrous. For those that have even bothered to examine the BA9 incident, even they, after flying in the most concentrated part of the ash cloud, got all 4 engines running again once they descended out of it so comments like One "aeronautical engineer" is wheeled out after a flight in a Dornier, that BTW DID NOT CRASH and says that he wouldnt want to put airliners up there. Sadly he has lost all credibility as it was HIS PERSONAL OPINION released immediately after he returned........ there had not been any time to examine the data recovered. Maybe he smelt sulphur and that clouded his judgement but firing off like that was nothing more than him getting his 15 minutes of fame. Nobody says that any jet flying into the ash cloud will fall out of the sky - it will suffer some damage which may be even catastrophic if damage is slowly progressing over time spent in the area with ash. So far nobody has technology to measure this and hence the reluctance to say its OK to fly commercial jets. ...Therefore we should start slowly and with certain restrictions in place and then move on once data has been gathered. So a start could be, for example, to let 4 engined aircraft operate, within the assumed affected area in Daylight hours only and outside of visible cloud and then inspect said aircraft for engine damage on a continual basis and as we build a knowledge base, move forward. (2) the additional time for precise inspection would make the flight shedules go bust so the new schedules would be needed. How much time is needed to work out a new schedules for all interested? A month? Scaremongering isnt going to help anybody and neither is bravado. Moving forward, step by small step will allow us all to learn BUT with ad personam remarks you do not help to reach conclusions and start to work together on finding a solution |
On the news: all french airports closed
then you look at Aéroport Toulouse-Blagnac and see that 3 long-haul flights to the west are scheduled and boarding.. |
Originally Posted by Global Warrior
(Post 5642099)
For those that have even bothered to examine the BA9 incident, even they, after flying in the most concentrated part of the ash cloud, got all 4 engines running again once they descended out of it so comments like
<snip>so when HEATHROW DIRECTOR says.....not with me on board..... GOOD get back to West Drayton and do the job that you are actually qualified to comment on :ok: BD |
It's already pretty obvious that flying through it for a few minutes on the way up/down won't have a big effect unless the ash is really concentrated. Any ideas what the LPC and HPC sections are in an engine? Here's a clue, Low Pressure Compressor Section, High Pressure Compressor section. |
Leo,
Please do not be so insulting to the Dutch. Sooner rather than later, someone is going to have to take the responsibility for the decision to permit flight through or above a very diluted volcanic ash cloud. That will be an unenviable decision and hopefully it will be based on scientific, measured facts. The Dutch have been the brave ones to take that first step to collecting data for the basis of that decision. The acceptable level of dilution and distance/time from the source volcano have yet to be decided, BUT THAT DECISION TO FLY WILL HAVE TO BE MADE. The alternative of keeping all commercial aviation grounded for all of whatever the future duration of the Icelandic volcanic activity is simply not imaginable (by me at any rate). For example, BA 9 still flies over the volcanoes of Indonesia and the low level volcanic cloud is easily visible from altitude when overflying. Remember also that the KLM 744 in Dec 89 and the BA9 in Jun 82 were both relativly close to the source volcanoes and flew through the plumes which were not visible due to darkness. The examination of the flight data from the KLM trial flight should also include a microscopic examination of the bleed systems and also the surfaces of the windscreens and fuselage. We need to know what was the concentration levels of ash in the trial airspace. We need data urgently to build a knowledgebase of acceptable dilution to the ash cloud. In addition, we need an industry analysis of the level of acceptable risk involved in flying in clear air above the ash. The current ash cloud warning states that there is no significant risk above FL350. Collecting data now will prevent the decision being based solely on financial pressure. That pressure should rightly be feared by each one of us. Looking ahead, the alternative of staying on the ground until the volcano stops spewing could spell economic disaster for European Union states not to mention the demise of many European airlines. |
Airline finances... The engineering cost implications of resumption of flying...
TRC makes a point in post 892 that I mentioned earlier and that a lot of people seem to fail to grasp.
Well before the eruptions, airlines were doing everything in their power to reduce the cost index of flights and routes - some by taking what would be deemed to be extreme measures to reduce weight and cost (changing size of in flight magazines, changing uniforms to lighter material, taking away little freebies such as the little bags of nuts they used to hand out free with drinks etc). Some of these measures may seem extreme, of little consequence and maybe even ridiculous, but multiplied over many sectors, it was felt by the 'bean counters' that it would make a significant difference. BA and many other carriers are taking the steps to cancel well in advance of (in the UK) any announcement by NATS. This is being done partly because logistically it makes sense, however they also must feel that it is justified. I for one do not believe that aircraft are going to fall out of the sky in vast numbers, however I believe that there will be damage done to engines and airframes etc which will be amplified over many flight hours. So I suppose my question is to you, the pilots who want to go flying in multi million pound (or dollar) aircraft (that you do not have to pay to maintain, fix or replace) - do you think it is wise for airlnes to fly bearing in mind that any profits they make may well be wiped out and indeed may end up costing them more through the cost of replacing parts etc - some of which may be major? Airlines will need to weigh up the possibility that engine life may be dramatically reduced etc. We are not talking about mass hysteria, aircraft falling out of the sky, but purely flight economics? Research into acceptable levels of ash concentration for flight have not been extensively researched because there has not been the need nor the opportunity before - most eruptions and consequent ash clouds have affected areas with very little air traffic - cetainly not the density found over western Europe. I'm sure over the coming days when more data is gathered there will be a relaxation when more understanding is gained, but until such time, from a safety and financial point of view, it is probably prudent for the ban to continue. |
Eh? How the hell does that follow? |
Originally Posted by forget
(Post 5642231)
Eh? How the hell does that follow?
BD |
'Collecting data now will prevent the decision being based solely on financial pressure. That pressure should rightly be feared by each one of us.'
Here, here. Metereology, physics, chemistry first. Economics second!!! Opinions based on nothing at all: LAST. |
"demise of many European airlines."
Indeed it will test the proverb "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody". After the grounding of 9/11 many said the actions of some were a stroke of genius. This event no doubt creates opportunity for some in the aviation world. Although I wouldn't have used graphic scare tactics to drive home a point least it comes back and bites me in the ass. |
BDiONU: Spot on with the last post. I suspect some of the gung-ho heroes here don't actually mean it when, flight after flight, they come on and say "Ladies and Gentlemen, your safety is our number one priority, so if you would give the cabin crew your full attention . . ."
|
Hello JetII
|
Camel Toe
Excuse my arrogance....
"something along the lines of German efficiency and fondness for logic" |
MagnusP
Perhaps ATC should have a standard greeting for each aircraft that calls up "Welcome to London Centre we're here for the expedituous routing of your aircraft, but primarily for your safety" :}
BD |
While we have an ongoing eruption with unknown and varying levels of ash concentrations through out European airspace, how can we resume normal operations? A few isolated test flights by KL/LH can not give a true indication of the impact of cummulative effects on aircraft and engines operating day in day out, 8 sectors a day into varying level of ash concentrations. Are we for example, going to boroscope every engine after each day of flying? No we couldn't.
As suggested in an earlier post, it might be that we need to conduct a series of test flights across Europe in a research context and evaluate the cumulative effects and establish just what is the risk. Exposure time x hazard = % risk. When we consider thousands of flights per day someone somewhere will find the most hazardous area and suffer as a result. We don't want that. |
Camel: Yes, stereotyping I call it what goes on in your mind. Not my way of thinking. You call the Germans fond of logic? Just look at the logical mistake I made in my post and how Simonpro corrected me, rightfully so.
I fly with lots of Dutch FOs, and none of them are arrogant or willing to take unjustified risks out of overestimating their own abilities... Don't you think it makes you (personally, not your people - where you from anyways?) appear arrogant? Simonpro: Of course you are right to point out my mistake - what I meant to say is that the data for the mathematical calculations the predictions are based on are missing. No data has been collected from the atmosphere, not here in Germany. That is if the papers are reporting correctly, but I do assume they do. The DLR (germ. aerospce agency) testplane will not be done getting fitted with the necessary probes until Monday evening. So all the real data that exists comes from the test and repositioning flights - with no findings. Nic |
Quote: One "aeronautical engineer" is wheeled out after a flight in a Dornier, that BTW DID NOT CRASH and says that he wouldnt want to put airliners up there. Sadly he has lost all credibility as it was HIS PERSONAL OPINION released immediately after he returned........ there had not been any time to examine the data recovered. Maybe he smelt sulphur and that clouded his judgement but firing off like that was nothing more than him getting his 15 minutes of fame. he is a scientist working on air pollution so has some credibility. As for the rest of the cr@p you trot out as fact - just were do we start? In your own words, everyone needs to learn....... GOOD get back to [your hole?] and do the job that you are actually qualified to comment on |
Originally Posted by forget
(Post 5642261)
I've been a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer for over 40 years. Would I say I'm an expert on 'aviation safety' - of course not.
BD |
Stereotyping you thing, Admiral? I rather think it a nationally identifiable characteristic, something along the lines of German efficiency and fondness for logic. In the case of the Dutch, though, their reflexive recourse to arrogance may well be considered cautionary. Something for the thought processes of KLM passengers, perhaps. LG |
Government Action
Has the givernment done anything to get the UK tech experts together on what is the low ash risk threshold. The UK may have more expertise on this than any other country: BA, other airlines, RR, the Met Office Unit (VAAC), CAA, NATS and no doubt some other UK experts.
I'd hope they are all meeting first thing tomorrow, if not already. There seems a big silence. Of course you could do this on a European level - but you can't fly anywhere! |
I'm just wondering, do most of European pilots here sincerly hope they can continue safely sit at home (or down route) for a another week or two, and still get paid?
Do reality check: no flights on Monday, most of you on the street by the end of the week latest. Throw a CV to the nearest McDonalds - I've heard they hiring on first came first served basis. Does anybody know if Wright Bros had scientifically sound data, appropriate testing and insurance coverage for their flight in 1903? Or they were sitting on their arses comfortably, awaiting paycheck and permit to fly? |
test flight
just out, translation by Goggle translator, aint perfect..
ENAC Press Releases VOLCANIC CLOUD: ENAC orders ENAV reconnaissance flight through ITALIAN airspace ENAC (National Civil Aviation Authority) has authorized the ENAV (Italian Company for Flight Assistance) to conduct a reconnaissance flight this morning to check the status of Italian airspace directly affected by the volcanic cloud from Iceland . The flight is made with a Cessna Citation 2 from Department of Radiomisure Enav, with crew commanded by the same company Flight Operations Manager. The route of the mission arranged by ENAC ENAV provides the flight has departed from Ciampino airport in the morning today, the continuation of the aircraft on the route Bolsena-Ferrara, with stabilization at various altitudes and an approach to the airport of Venice Tessera, go around, then an approach to Milan Linate airport, from where, also without landing, will return to Ciampino at various altitudes through Italian airspace along the Pisa and Grosseto route. After this reconnaissance flight, the Cessna Citation 2 Enav be conducted in the maintenance hangar for Ciampino to be carefully inspected, the engines will be excavated and analyzed to verify their status and the presence of wear particles of volcanic cloud even motor oil. The President of ENAC, Vito Riggio, also asked the Head of Department for Civil Defence, Guido Bertolaso, to be available as soon as possible - through the Italian Institute of Volcanology - special sensors capable of detecting and measuring the presence of volcanic ash high, not detectable by radar. This is to collect as soon as further data and analysis elements can complement those of the bulletin and the European Community level mathematical models provided by Eurocontrol. Rome, 18/04/2010 |
apparently currently airborne
KLM7457 Callsign: KLM7457 Flightnr: Reg: PH-BGI Hex: 484B90 Model: Boeing 737-7K2 (B737) Airline: KLM Lat: 53.4672 Lon: 5.8419 Alt: 19000 feet (5791 m) Ground speed: 340 knots (630 km/h / 391 mph) Track: 264° Radar: NET2 |
Number 1 in aviation is SAFETY, let´s wait until some results are clear so we all can get back to our job, I´m the first one interested on a clear and positive solution. But if this volcano is going to be around for a while then I will think on getting my Zeppelin TR soon, it´s the future?
|
Dear all, the closure of the air space is a financial hell for the aviation industry. But on the other side I am shocked about the comments of some "professionals" here, who want to fly immediately.
First, the engines are one problem. Damage is highly possible, a complete loss is a much lower risk, but cannot be ruled out. Second, we have a lot of other dangers, from air data system to give wrong indications up to the damage on the aircraft paint and others. Remember the Potomac Disaster, created by three problems (wrong cockpit indications giving less thrust, a contaminated wing and a pilot having no training and no idea). The same is here. Too many factors are unknown that we cannot risk to send a full packed aircraft up. And aircraft will be always on the MTOW to get the chaos ended as quick as possible. If KLM makes a test flight with a nearly empty aircraft is one thing, but a full packed 777 on the MTOW going maybe two hours through the cloud stream is a different story. The major problem is the uncertain, as we have not enough data. And the closure is therefore the only logical consequence, as hard as it is. |
Crux of the matter is, whether or not KLM, LH or indead anyone else who want´s to venture out and try out the presence or not of the volacanic ash. Are their findings valid or suficient for the authorities to make judgment and allow air traffic to flow once again into European airspace? I have a feeling that the meteo and related authorities are been put in doubt
|
Mark my words. This is gross overkill . The cloud will remain. Flights will resume. Nothing will happen .VAAC have their 15 minutes of fame and return to their final salary pensions.
Millions pissed around 100s millions lost. |
Sorry to butt in but heres a flightglobal article showing Finnish F-18 engine checks revealing melted ash in the engine. Have KLM boroscoped their engines?
Clicky |
German carriers lead backlash over volcanic ash closures
|
I think, that if KLM and LH can prove that they can fly safely every day that they were not allowed to by authorities, then they can foward all financial claims to those authorities !!.
Smart move on legal /financial aspects MR Hartman, CEO KLM and LH CEO |
The bigger issue is that the meteorologists have a pretty good picture on where the ash cloud is, they also say which areas have the higher dust densities and which areas have low density of contamination. The issue is that there is little information on how planes react... There were two data points: Going through visible cloud is bad (causes flame out of the engines); flying in the background ash concentration causes normal wear. Only recently the Finish air force provided a third data point: flying through moderate ashes may require extra maintenance to the engine.
I am all in favour of getting more information on actual ash concentrations and the actual wear and contamination it causes to a plane flying through it. We should get to numbers like "flying for 10 hours through concentration x of volcanic ashes requires an engine inspection". |
How long will YOUR airline survive?
If this lasts, and history of this volcano indicates it will, we will see
the first airlines go under in a few days. In a few months, most european airlines will be owned by their governments. So, expect desperate airlines to put enormous pressure on the authority's to get back in the air. The airline industry already had a bad year in 2009 so very few airlines have reserves. Low cost airlines like RYR will be the ones that can last the longest. Good luck to you all! |
Progress of the KL flight can be tracked here (Amsterdam)
Casper - live aircraft tracking |
I do believe that flying through a dense ash cloud is extremly hazardous and should not be attemted on purpose.
I do believe that flying through the low density ash now over Europe will cause build up inside the engines over time and will require more frequent overhauls and cause more cost to the airlines. I do not believe that it is unjustifiably risky to fly passengers around while avoiding the high concentration area of ashes. It will only cost more money. Proof: Test flights conducted by LH and KLM, and the F18 engines of finnish airforce, which are polluted, but did not fail while hitting the initial high density clouds last week. If the Company calls me tomorrow, I will pack my things and go flying. Nic |
One vital question in all this is where will the insurers sit if an airline starts operating again? "Err OK KLM - all risks except volcanic ash covered"
I once was told an interesting story by an aviation insurance broker abou KLM who one year said to their insurers "we've had xxx years accident free with you, we'd like to talk about a lower premium". Insurers apparently said, "It will be twice this year's, we work on statistics and you are overdue for a big one". The following year? You've guessed it. |
Quote: Pilotmike One "aeronautical engineer" is wheeled out after a flight in a Dornier, that BTW DID NOT CRASH and says that he wouldnt want to put airliners up there. Sadly he has lost all credibility as it was HIS PERSONAL OPINION released immediately after he returned........ there had not been any time to examine the data recovered. Maybe he smelt sulphur and that clouded his judgement but firing off like that was nothing more than him getting his 15 minutes of fame. he is a scientist working on air pollution so has some credibility. Global Warrier: You might wish to be aware that 'he' is Genghis the Engineer, a PPRuNe moderator, so he will probably delete your post if he thinks it is YOU who is 'firing off' with 'clouded judgement', and that you have 'lost all credibility' in an attempt for your '15 minutes of fame'. As for the rest of the ********* you trot out as fact - just were do we start? In your own words, Quote: everyone needs to learn....... GOOD get back to [your hole?] and do the job that you are actually qualified to comment on Just because he's a moderator..... doesnt make him right and if HE feels any offence, i apologise to him |
It seems to me that whilst all pronouncements from NATS and government are in terms calculated to not cause panic with an expectation of an early resolution the fact is that no one has a clue how long this will go on for. It seems to me as likely that the matter will resolve in days as it will in weeks..based on the various articles in todays press from Vulcanologists.
An already weakened industry is being crucified and reserves depleted.So the question I have is how long will this go on before drastic action has to be taken to preserve the airlines?......and who will be the first casualties? No business can survive without revenue. Our society is so dependant on this industry as a whole that whilst the green lobby might welcome an armageddon scenario that sees the demise of the carriers as we know them today the fact is that it is unthinkable that government should not take steps to preserve it...just in the same way they did to preserve the banks... If I was Willie Walsh I would be having some serious "what if" conversations with government as BA must surely be amongst the least well placed if this continues. Ironically based on disclosed cash reserves our favourite Irish carrier is probably in a better position than any..... These are indeed worrying times. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.