Cubbie wrote:

Yes I'm fully aware of that and it's great comfort to me when I fly.
I too have procedures for when I encounter extreme weather situations while I'm driving my car, but I won't venture out in the middle of a cyclone.

As SLF I would hope that my well trained flight crew would similarly prefer to avoid putting me and my fellow passengers into a potentially dangerous situation rather than just take the chance that their procedures will be sufficient to handle any problems later.

I accept that you have procedures for handling engine failures that may result from the ingestion of volcanic ash however given the often severe effects of gravity on unpowered aircraft, surely it's more prudent to avoid the possibility of that happening in the first place.

I'd also venture to suggest that, given the gung-ho, fly at all cost, attitude demonstrated by yourself and a few other people on here it's probably a good thing that they haven't been the ones who get to decide.

Translated from Norweigan using Google.

Boroscope?
 

A couple of observations, since there are no aeroplanes worth talking about. What, please, is a BOROSCOPE which many of you seem to be using? I am an engineer - not an aero one, but a horny handed son of toil nevertheless - and I have seen and know about BORESCOPES. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfRTqD6Jc8Y

People like me put borescopes into complex kit like engines, to examine them without the time and cost of tearing them apart. As an aside, doctors put them up your bottom to see how your machinery is working too! :eek:

On the thread subject itself, I think Orionsbelt made a cogent observation - no pun intended - when he said:

The bit about astronomy is probably more telling than many people realise. Furthermore, far from knowinjg what the maximum safe (Define safe in these circumstances?) concentration of ash is, do we actually know what the ambient concentration of ash over the affected area was? It seems to me Icelandic volcanos have been errupting for ever, but this is the first time such a dramatic reaction has been taken.

Italy have a couple of quite notorious volcanos that haven't stopped errupting in my lifetime. What is the ambient ash concentration and its altitude profile of Italian airspace and what, if anything, is the effect on aeroplanes the fly regularly in that region? As has also been said, there has never been a time when the background airborne ash concentration has been zero. The must be ash contamination in varying concentrations all over the world.

The ash from Mount St. Helens circulated round the entire globe, to my certain knowledge, thus dispersing collosal quantities of ash into our or the currently effected airspace. What was the procedure and affect then? What were the long terrm engine maintenance effects of Mount St. Helens?

One flight of the Dornier - albeit scientifically equipped - and one flight of the KLM 738, does not a research programme make. I have absolutely no idea of how much European Airlines are collectively losing per minute, but I bet they could afford to sacrifice more than one airframes worth of engines to do some much more intensive research.

And please don't trot out BA009 and the others. Orionsbelt has shown that there simply isn't enough up there to make aeroplanes plunge out of the sky. Wreck their engines by any engineering standards for sure, but not enough to make them quit 'on the job'. For that you need Canada Geese. :eek: But if, as is suggested, this goes on for very much longer, serious and quite expensive research needs to be done. Especially as, we are constantly reminded, that the much more volatile Katla might be nudged into action by the current one.

Roger.

Did they flip the switch?
 

Volcano webcam shows a very quiet/clear Eyjafjallajökull
http:
//eldgos.mila.is
/eyjafjallajokull-fra-thorolfsfelli/

The actual mountain is in the back behind the real clouds, but if it was erupting with any force, you'd see some smoke, etc? If you can't see it from 50m, I'd say it's probably not going to hit the continent...

The flights that have been carried out by KLM and LH can hardly be classified as test flights. They have merely taken a snapshot of the conditions and found that there was no hazard to those particular flights only. It is laughable for them to use those 'findings' (used loosely) and base their proposed operational program on that.

Even if airspace was opened again, should any dense ash clouds track towards Europe and with the best intentions of getting aircraft moving, the slot and flow implications would be horrendous in avoiding the worst of the airborne deposits.

I am sure the insurance companies will have something to say about this too!

If KLM/LH manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the media, public and worst of all the industry, it will be rather worrying day!

Press reports this morning suggest quite the opposite. Simon Calder, writing in the Independent, says that all British and Irish airlines have healthy cash reserves, with British Airways having a particularly large cash pile in anticipation of a prolonged strike by cabin crew.

How long would this have to go on for before pilot currency becomes an issue?

tcmel - thats as it seems on the webcams, but most blogs etc - seem to think the volcano is as active as its ever been - just local conditions mean its not so easy for us to see

Actual W/X Reports
 

As the North Atlantic is now devoid of air traffic I am wondering if the consequent lack of temperature and spot wind reports usually given in oceanic position reports has affected the accuracy of forcasting for the North Atlantic area and predictions of the areas affected by ash .

Will loss of this info have any appreciable effect on the progs?

Hi,
Or ultimately , open the skies only during the day since we can avoid more dense areas ,and close at night.

A-3TWENTY

It's not just the maintenace it's also getting the parts. Things like turbine blades:

- Cannot be knocked up the local foundry/machine shop, they require specialized casting equipment for directional solidification/single crystal.

- The supply is tailored to 10k+ hours life

- The stock held is taiored to 10k+hours life

If the life is reduced to ~ 100hrs from a single exposure (as the Finnish results suggest) then one exposure + 1 week normal (no dust) short haul then AOG for years waiting for bits

What About This? Comments Please
 

NATS has been the 'face' to the media of the UK's decision to close its airspace in the face of this unprecedented event. I would sugest that this has been been politically expedient for the higher echelons of govenment and, perhaps, the airlines (initially) to have NATS as the 'fall' guy as and when blame begins to be bandied around at a later date as will inevitable happen.

I am of the opinion that there has been massive over-kill in this matter and that tactical discretion to fly or not should have been made available to the operators.

It was always held that air traffic control provides a 'service'. In my experience the ATC system has become more 'executive' than 'advisory' over the past 25 years but that is a topic for another debate. However, the service that NATS and the Met office should have provided was constantly updated information on the location and concentrations of the ash.

Of course, NATS states that it has reacted to ICAO procedures and this whole affair is reminiscent of the 'liquids' ban. It happened to the UK and the rest of the world has been forced to comply irrespective of the threat (or complete lack of it).

I would suggest that there should be a complete re-think/re-write of this ICAO procedure as and when the crisis is over. The economic consequences of this blanket, unthinking policy has been dire. Safety, of course, is paramount but I am positive that many air services could have been operated since Thursday with no risk to crew or passengers whatsoever.

judge11, quite agree with your comments here. I touched on this aspect early on in this thread.

Also, many operators have a/c and crews stranded away from base. As part of the evaluation why not permits selected a/c to return to base as a ferry? I strongly suspect that all these flights would operate without incident. This would ease the pain for when operations start, return a/c to engineering bases and mitigate costs of parking etc and keeping crews in hotac etc

Of course we should take into account what the boffins are telling us but as pilots we are used to evaluating relative risk. If you want 100% safety then keep the aeroplanes in the hangar! Even the BA flight landed safely in 1982, albeit with substantial damage.

Channel Island airspace
 

Replying to #906 ( "Worth just noting this morning ...it is possible to fly between the islands in the Channel Islands where both Aurigny & Blue Islands are continuing to operate their schedules" ) , there is a mad twist to this story - there now is no way in or out of CI Zone for VFR GA flghts. On Thursday it was closed (no IFR or SVFR), but on Friday common sense was applied and a VFR lane class D for VFR created by NOTAM to 50North. I flew to London intending to return today but now some jobsworth has decided that they didnt have the power to change airspace after all so now no VFR movements in or out of the whole CI zone, while GA and commercial flights continue within the zone. This is just complete madness with regulations and ar** covering taking precedence over any real analysis of safety issues.
I am on this forum as a way of making my own assessment of risk to piston engines at low level and I make my own decision whether safe to fly as I have to with every flight.
What is lacking is proper information on 1) what are the particle concentrations grams/m3 at different levels. 2) what is a safe concentration for jet engines and for piston engines. The information may be poor but it needs the best scientists in the field to come up with best estimates. If it is left to regulators just applying a 'precautionary principle then we may not fly for months.

Could we please understand that there is no Administrative fix to this problem?

You cannot make this matter go away by redefining regulations.

What we have here is a straight forward engineering matter: Fly through volcanic ash and you are going to damage the engines.

The damage may simply reduce the life of the engines by a factor perhaps of Ten, bankrupting the airline some years from now, or result in catastrophic failure, killing passengers, until sanctimonious news media stop talking about "mercy flights" and start talking about "cowboy airlines" risking their passengers lives.

I have a turbine blade in front of me....

Test Fly Lfpg
 

AFR 380S just airborne LFPG . Measure mission. F-HEPB, brand new 320
Up to FL180 . Going Toulouse

Deaf
 

True, up to a point Deaf, but that presupposes no other changes made in a changed environment. The local blacksmith will not be called upon, but the engine manufacturers might call upon trusted subcontractors to produce turbine blades at ten times the rate previously. With, one would hope, some economies of scale.

Also, if engines were not to be use limited by operating area, the manufacturers might divert some effort to making either; much more damage resistant components or, forget about curing the problem and merely fix the symptoms by making much, much cheaper turbine assemblies which are all but 'disposable' after so many hours?

Nobody said future costs were going to go down after all this. :confused:

Roger.

Accept increased risk?
 

What is an acceptable accident rate? This link Accident statistics indicates a one in five million risk per flight of a passenger on one of the best airlines being involved in a fatal accident, rising to one in 160,000 for one of the worst airlines. If the ash cloud were to continue for a year, how much extra risk would airline captains accept, if staying on the ground meant failure of their company? When I used to fly hang gliders I was content to accept a fatal accident rate of one per 10,000 flying hours - but I don't think I would want anywhere near that risk as a fare paying passenger.:hmm:

New Met forecast
 

http:
//www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data
/VAG_1271591498.png

Looks rather hopeful, per the most recent map/remarks
Assuming that in the very near future, everything above FL200 is "clear" and We on the ground can't "see" anything, it would make it rather difficult for governing bodies to argue the matter.
In logic-land, anyway.

mollmoluscan, proof that the lunatics are running the asylum!

There is a difference between doing "things right" and doing "the right thing". Former is management, latter is leadership.

I cannot understand why Special VFR has been stopped in CTRs - or are they trying to stop operators departing/arriving these airports visually during the ban?

Get real - can anyone please tell me why a spamcan cannot be given a SVFR through these CTRs on a lovely day like today.

At a political level, we desparately need a peaceful revolution.

Well, the Dutch BALPA is now voicing its disgust about the situation, their lead man saying 'I can see from here till Denmark, not a cloud in the sky'.

But from the officials...nothing. How can there be such a lack of information from the UK? What is happening? How much ash is there? How much ash is harmful? We hear nothing! Why? Who is afraid f what? What needs to be covered up?

Anther joke is that all VFR traffic is cancelled in Holland. Small aviation businesses are loosing money needlessly, except of course the helicopters needed for the camera work of some popular bike race. They get a permit to fly. Come on guys, this is a joke.

Test Flights?
 

KLM appear to have carried out a number of test flights this morning. Condor have had a few flights into and out of Frankfurt and Air France have sennt up a A320 from Paris.

Are there any plans for test flights in the UK to take place ?

80/-

Where do these "decisions" originate
 

Try comparing the airports open with the UK met office ash cloud forecasts. I see a remarkable resemblence although the forecast is altitude specific.

What I think we need, and probably sooner rather than later given that Iceland is a string of volvanoes, is a means to establish ash risk v. altitude and time. With what we know, I can understand DLH flying under the ash in dry air, I have difficulty understanding KLM apparently flying through it.

If I was head of an airline I would put up a lot of money into Qinetiq/Cranfield/DLR etc to take air samples a.s.a.p. We can't afford to wait for governments to get back to work on monday, and then have indecision from lack of info.

DLH, how high can yr Junkers climb? Maybe you can do it yourselves!

Icelandair are ferrying 4 757's from Reykjavik to Trondheim this afternoon.

M

LOL@squawk.

Come on guys. Just charter an old Titan Airways 737. Let them fly for ten hours through the nastiest fluff of vulcanic smoke they can find. Inspect the engine et voila, make a decision. Whatever happens, that will be much cheaper than just sitting around and waiting, burning cash.

We just need some definition of how much ash can be suspended in a given quantity of air without becoming a problem.

If that concentration is zero ppm, then so be it. Ops must be suspended until every single ash particle has left the atmosphere.:rolleyes:

On the other hand, I suspect a safe limit could be established initially and an ongoing period of careful monitoring of aircraft engines and systems put in place to build a solid knowledge base.

I think the best, in fact the only, way to discover this with any degree of confidence, is to fly.

This ought to commence immediately so that we can quickly ascertain 'safe' ash levels and also to discover if particular models of a/c engine are more susceptible than others.

There may also be other problems, perhaps related to pitot static and other systems.

Again, we can't model this sort of thing. Aircraft will have to fly in it- empty if neccessary.

The data thus gathered will be useful should this sort of thing happen again.

Judging by the ash film that has settled on my car overnight, you would have to be a total moron to be flying even a GA aircraft in these conditions.

It might not melt the ash in a GA aircraft, but the air filter will sure be blocked. Not to mention flying with carb heat on, bypassing the filter...

Demands for scientific validation are valid, but have to be realistic - do we have the means of sampling to the extent that is required?

The scientist on the Dornier was privy to the air sample readings that he presumably took. What additional validation are the nay-sayers actually seeking from him? He was hardly reactionary.

To those who think that operating in the mild ash conditions across Europe is sensible or safe, what engineer do you think would permit the despatch of that F18s with engine conditions visibly as they were? Engineering costs would far exceed the small benefit of moving a few people around, as only 1-2 sectors would be possible before engine overhauls!

The potential effect on jobs is understandable, but I get the impression that many posters to this board are either no involved in aviation at all or have no conservatism in the area of flight safety

What you are seeing is the general bankrupt thinking with regard to regulatory authorities in the EU, IE: we must decide to do nothing in order to protect you from yourself....the general dumbing down of society.
Time for a political change, I believe.
The airline companies and other clear thinking individuals have my sincere sympathy.

What is Icelandair up to?
 

Why ferry? Are they organising train connections?

I bet they know something we don't such as the volcano has gone quiet ..!

My wife assures me she saw a yellow jet overhead mid morning just north of the Brize Norton CTR

There was a DHL plane flown into Lasham this morning - probably that ?

80/-

Re-Heat, I trust that you did not start your car because of all that ash? And if you did, your car is now totally wrecked? Or those ten KLM jets that are buzzing happily through the skies, they must be a write off according to you?

Please, come with facts. This speculation has cost already hundreds of millions.

And what facts, exactly do YOU have?

Belgian airspace now even prohibits VFR flights
 

As per latest NOTAM:
So no more light A/C, no more glider flights (not even winch launched!)

Of course pipeline control flights are not as vulnerable as other GA A/C!! :ugh:


I guess all your car engines will soon get stuck by all this ash??
Don't they realise that the gas burners of those manned free balloons can get clogged as well? :*

How long will this lunacy continue??

Sky-blue ash plume lurking over Western Europe this morning (Honey, bring me out another beer will you?) and causing extended days off to be added to my roster. :ok:

Ash on cars
 

If you are in the UK, please go out and check your car if it was parked outdoors last night.
The volcanic ash is clearly visible today and it looks very abrasive indeed, golden colour, very fine, never seen something like that in the UK before:mad:.:ok:

I live twenty miles south of Gatwick and have been unable to find the slightest trace of ash on a car parked in the open or on the garden patio furniture. However, green tree pollen has made it's spring debut.

My car operates with a huge margin under its performance limitations; aircraft engines tend to operate at higher RPMs and closer to engineering tolerances. I have the luxury of drifting to the side of a road in a car, which my aircraft do not.

411A - succinctly explain what the FAA did around the time of Mt St Helens please? And also around Anchorage. Do you come up with little other than asinine comments against Europeans or do you have anything substantive to add to the debate?

Sabinaboy,

Car engines have air filters, jet engines do not.

The issue isn't that jet engines will fail because of the ash, but they will wear out in 100's of hours instead of 10000's of hours. In an industry that makes single digit operating margins in good years it would be unsustainable.

You might want to go flying now because you fear bankruptsy, but flying now may well have the same effect.

Lets wait until we see the results of the test flights.

LD

What is Icelandair up to?
 

Correction, appears the flights are with Pax.
ETA (CET): 17.35 (1 acf), 18.35 (2 acf) og 19.35 (1 acf)

Also, SAS are considering 4 flights from the US east coast
to Trondheim today.

M