Britons stranded by flight restrictions as a result of the volcanic ash cloud from Iceland could be returned to the UK through a "Spanish hub".

Ministers met to discuss plans before UK flight restrictions were extended until at least 1900 BST on Monday.

Ideas included flying those outside the no-fly zone to Spain and then using the Royal Navy and requisitioning merchant ships to help return them to the UK.

The Tories and Lib Dems had called for ministers to give out more information.

Travel agents' association Abta said its "rough estimate" was that 150,000 Britons had been unable to return to the UK because of flight restrictions.

"At no time in living memory has British airspace been shut down and affected this many people," a spokeswoman said.

Forecasters have warned the dust cloud may remain over the UK for several days.

The continued ban on UK flights comes as bodies representing European airports and airlines have called for flight restrictions to be reviewed.

Planes were first grounded in the UK at midday on Thursday amid fears that particles in the ash cloud generated by the volcanic eruption could cause engines to shut down.

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, who emerged from Sunday's 85-minute meeting of ministers flanked by several cabinet colleagues, said: "We will mobilise all possible means to get people home."

He said Prime Minister Gordon Brown would meet with his Spanish counterpart to explore whether Britons could be returned by landing in Spain - which is open to flights - from certain parts of the world.

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said Met Office advice was that it would not be safe for flights across most of northern Europe on Monday.

He said data from a number of test flights would go to regulators and there would be a meeting of European transport ministers on Monday.

Additional capacity had been introduced on other transport such as Eurostar and Eurtounnel trains, and ferries, he added.

Security minister Lord West, a former head of the Royal Navy, said using the navy to bring people home was an option.

The government's Cobra emergency committee is to meet at 0830 BST on Monday.

The Conservatives have released an eight-point plan they would like to see to tackle the situation.

It includes chartering ships to bring people home who are stranded in Europe and urging ferry and rail operators to retain their normal pricing structures.

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said: "With thousands of Britons stuck in airports overseas, it is hugely worrying that there is no end in sight for the flight ban."

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said it needed to be "urgently assessed" how much longer British passengers faced being stranded for.

Meanwhile, A British Airways Boeing 747 has completed a test flight at 30,000ft from Heathrow to Cardiff, via the Atlantic.

Chief executive Willie Walsh - who is a trained pilot - and four crew were on board.

BBC business editor Robert Peston reported that the 550-mile, a two-and-three-quarter hour flight had encountered no problems.

Engineers in Cardiff will make a more detailed assessment of the plane's engine overnight.

Observation.

Airlines are now saying that the concentrations of ash we have appear to be safe to fly in.

But two days ago, Pprune was banning people from this thread for saying exactly the same thing (only pro grounding comments allowed).

No wonder the West (and its aviation) is in the state it is in, if free discussion is banned.

"P&WC does not recommend operation in conditions where volcanic ash is present."

Not much to mis-interpret there.

Heaviest deposits yet on my car
 

I have to say as a pilot I am becoming concerned at the antics of some of the airlines with respect to the current ash crisis. My car has a very abrasive feeling grey powder coating it now in West Sussex. The powder is quite unlike anything else and by far the heaviest deposits have happened in the past 24 hours.

It may not be terribly scientific but My perception is that the situation is worse not better and having grounded the flights I feel that bowing to commercial pressures now would be extremely risky.

Fine abrasive powder sandblasting my engines at 500mph aint a pretty thought and I for one don't want to be up there in this.

Interesting that MOL - the man I would have most expected to be pressing for a flight restart has taken a good decision in delaying until Wed at the earliest - not what I would have expected but credit where it's due.

The airlines will weather the storm of a week or two of suspended flying. As aviators safety must remain our overriding priority, we owe it to ourselves, our families and our passengers.

Desk-pilot

True, until the !!!!! hits the fan, then the pilot is suddenly PIC

Already suggested two days ago, which is why Weee Willy is flying now. You're way behind the drag curve with this one.

Katla
 

Katla: 10-minute, median-averaged tremor (vertical component) Ash Alerts – All the volcano, ash clouds and airline news together

:uhoh:

Low hight of test flight over Swansea 20:40 BST
 

Hi,
A wide 4 engined jet was seen very low over Swansea going SE presumably to Cardiff. What is the normal height for an approach to Cardiff. This jet was so low you could easily make out the shape of the engine cowlings and the bypass and also the flag on the tail. It was quite loud, a bit like being at Cheadle heath on the approach to MAN.

Will they be doing all the flights at such a low height?

Thanks

And most aircraft on long-ish haul will only spend max one hour in the affected region/level per flight. That's not a long time, and you can boroscope after each rotation to make sure.

Its not rocket science, you just need to realise that the world is not a risk-free place - and aviation is not a risk-free industry. But the modern politician/civil servant is so frightened of his/her own shadow, they can no longer make rational decisions.


.

One-off flights by aircraft without air-sampling and other relevant instrumentation are more to do with PR than advancing scientific knowledge.

Why on Earth doesn't UK (at least) get organised, collect enough data and then start to solve problems? Maybe it's because of political correctness and Creationism? Brain activity seems to have stopped completely in some areas.

Riverboat,
Fog and terrain are quantifiable.
RVRs are broadcast, MSAs are published.
This is uncharted territory for UK aviation.

radio ears

if it was loud, that means the engines were still working. Woo HOO!!!!

Quote
And most aircraft on long-ish haul will only spend max one hour in the affected region/level per flight. That's not a long time, and you can boroscope after each rotation to make sure.

It would be cheaper to stay on the ground. To do boroscoping properly you need specially trained personnel special equipment & a lot of time!

I reported the same the other day, I even went to the trouble of posting a photo to prove to the nay-sayers who were adamant that there was no volcanic debris in the UK. All was ***** canned as being part of the "spotters and breathless enthusiasts" postings.

Someone even suggested it was pollen! - post #1013 if no-one believes me.

This will probably go the same way as the last one.

Interesting the the PPRuNe auto-censor thinks that a four letter word beginning with 's' and ending 't' needs five asterisks

Quite alarming to see that it is not far off Newfie!

Earlier BA test flight shows no signs of....

Go on - do tell.......

Zooker

fog and crap vis are quantifiable but still manage to kill people
CB are quantifiable but still kill people
hail windshear blah blah all manage to kill people.

The problem here is that the events being used to justify this closure, the BA 747 and the DC8, both happened at night and if you read the reports the crew believed they were in or under cirrus cloud. They could see no stars, no moon no nothing. It was night and they flew into clouds of volcanic ash that they would have otherwise avoided.

I would like just one single case of engine damage to be cited that relates to a clear air daytime good VMC event and volcanic ash. I have spent a lot of time asking a lot of questions and as far as I know, not one event relates to daytime and good VMC.

Dear CAA. Please tell me what basis your "airborne cloud may not be visible" statement is based on. Please tell me what events you are using to justify destroying the european aviation industry.

Dear engine manufacturers. Please supply me with proper information regarding particulate concentrations. Please provide me with cases of aircraft flying in 50k visibility having their engines stop because of clogging and abrasion.

Greece has just agreed a rescue plan with the euro nations. This agreement will be in tatters in the next few days because their economy is almost totally reliant on tourism. That stuffs the euro and destroys the extremely fragile recovery that exists in Europe at the moment. Every airline was feeling the pain before this happened. Many are now facing the slippery slope to bancrupcy. I realise that NATS and the CAA don't really care about this because they will trumpet "SAFETY" and that will justify everything because, god forbid flying might have some risk attached.

This is an extremely well intentioned but mind bogglingly badly executed decision. There have been ways to fly safely in these conditions and they were not offered or discussed. The research information has existed for years on this because until very recently a no-fly zone of this size around an eruption was unheard of. That means that airliners have already done millions of hours of flying with these so called deadly particulates being sucked up and spat out the back with no problem. Certainly not one that makes them fall from the sky. They have only shut this all down because now the satellites carry TOMS and other much more sophisticated IR spectrum devices that can see it. They didnt have it a few years ago and it wasn't raining aluminium.

Talk to the operators while they can still trade. Get us flying again while there is still an industry. Let us fly in the day in VMC and just get a grip on what real risk management is all about. Your next decision will be to ground everything forever and never allow anything to fly because that way you can absolutely guarantee there will be no crashes...

There is a very good chance that engines won't fail during a test flight. The danger is that they will fail within a hundred hours or so; not only that there could be a multiple failure as they would all have a similarly reduced life span.

Customers will soon come to their own conclusions and avoid flying in any case.

Volcanic Ash Restrictions
 

I suppose that it is too simple to ask why aircraft wishing, say, to cross the North Atlantic departing from the south of England can't remain at medium level until west of Ireland and then climb to normal cruising levels?:confused:

For modern European bureaucracy it is always easier to ban things then to find a solution and monitor the situation as it unveils.
It is always easier to err on a safe side then to find a reasonable solution to the problem.

A380 F-HPJA left Johannesburg at 1930Z as AFR995 to Toulouse.

Has anybody bothered to study similarities between this eruption and Mt. St-Helens in 1980 in N. America? I remember my car, in Eastern Canada, having a fine ash coating at the time. I don't recall any massive airspace closures nor aircraft falling out of the sky at the time (which was when I was doing my PPL); however Google isn't turning much up on the subject. I do recall that eruption produced massive quantities of ash.

What would have been done twenty years ago without all that calculating power of modern computers and thus no athmospheric models like the ones we have now?

You would have avoided any visible ash cloud...and that´s it!

Common sense really has to return quickly or else...

But it´s retreating everywhere unfortunately!

Flight ban 'not over-reacting' say Wiltshire scientists
 

Instruments recorded "heavy gritty particles" at about 8,000ft.

BBC News - Flight ban 'not over-reacting' say Wiltshire scientists

Thanks but no thanks, I'll stay on the ground.

"silverstrata "




"Airlines are now saying that the concentrations of ash we have appear to be safe to fly in.

But two days ago, PPRuNe was banning people from this thread for saying exactly the same thing (only pro grounding comments allowed).

No wonder the West (and its aviation) is in the state it is in, if free discussion is banned. "

Are you sure pprune was doing that?
why would they?
T2

I liked tommoutrie's post above.

It's clearly scandalous for unaccountable authorities to impose airspace restrictions on what seems to be limited data from computer images rather than actual scientific measuring flights.

A real melting pot awaits.

Airframe/Engine makers will be careful to change rules on Ash.

Airlines/State aviation authorities as above.

Insurance companies will be very interested.

Aircraft leasing companies will need to take stock.

With so little data being known about operations with Ash in the short and long term, keeping the skys quiet for a few more days until the weather helps out may be the very best and cheapest option.

But so much pressure from so many, the next few day will be very interesting to watch.

Safe flying to all.

Over in the US, Continental have announced today that they don't expect to resume flights to Europe this month!
Lots of folk over here with little or no option for return to Europe, and little or no word, or help from their respective airlines.
It must be getting serious, the yanks are even covering it on the TV now.

Stagger posted this back around post #1172:

ETOPS implications
It's not simply engine failures during volcanic ash exposure that needs to be considered.

Is it not possible that a period of significant ash exposure may have implications for engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rates in the weeks and months to come? Is it safe to assume that engines that have spent significant time operating in ash environments will have the same IFSD rates as those that have not?

ETOPS certification depends on statistical assumptions based on IFSD rates. If ash exposure leads to changes in IFSD rates then these assumptions may no longer be valid. The fact that both engines on an airframe will likely share the same recent history of ash exposure is also relevant.

I fear it was lost in the "rush" to post about test flights and some departures. I think this is a SIGNIFICANT point that has been made and pushed aside by the incrediably fast pace of this thread.

If the implications are true and some airlines loose their ETOPS certification they may well find their aircraft having to route further north over the Atlantic and closer to the source of the problem - potentially further exacerbating the situation. There are other scheduling implications to loosing ETOPS capability too.

The present situation IS unprecedented and there is no guidence as to what ash PPM is reasonably acceptable - short term AND long term. The collective governments, OEM's and airlines should collaborate on flight testing of flights in the various densitys of ash and the deleterious effects on jet engines and other aircraft (flight instrument) systems.

It will be interesting too to see how the insurance companies deal with claims of damage from volcanic ash from THIS episode.

C2j

How is this a scandal? Are you saying we should live in asbestos houses or take significant radiation exposure because the effects aren't immediately evident?

KLM fly through ash and say the same day everything is fine. Marie Curie died of leukaemia.

Airspace was closed for up to two weeks in places, with up to 1/4 inch ashfalls across Idaho, Wyoming, Dakotas and beyond.

1,000 + flights were cancelled at the time, when fewer travelled by air and in a sparsely populated area.

Silverstrata and dozens of others:


Of course you aren't a shareholder in an airline are you?

It's not going to be you who pick up a Forty million dollar bill when your "boroscope" investigation reveals that the hot sections of all four of your engines are irreparably damaged and require replacement is it?

Don't you think you are being just a little selfish asking an airline to risk a hundred million dollars worth of engines just so you can get your Two weeks in Benidorm or some other hole?


Eagleflyer:


What would have been done? That's easy to answer:

Your airline engineers would have been making lots of overtime money replacing many more engines than usual, and wondering why they hadn't reached their expected service life, that's what would have been done!

Common sense indeed!

Precisely the sort of thing I was talking about in my post in this thread here. :ok:

What do you want to compare? The colour?

"Risking $100 million for a holiday in Benidorm" - that is journalistic hyperbole. The airlines don't care about holidays in Benidorm. They have to weigh up between the risk to their aircraft (which they do every day, every time they fly - is our training appropriate? Do our crews have appropriate levels of experience? How hard is the airfield to operate to? What is the threat from CBs? Volcanic ash?) and the cost of having the aeroplane sitting on the ground not making money.

Every business is about balancing risks. The only risk-free business that I know of was when the BAA were permitted to increase their landing charges so that T5was paid for by the airlines before it was built. There is no such thing as a no-risk airline.

Here´s one
 

For what purpose?

Is there some sort of science behind this request? I doubt it somehow.

The business is all in the image.
 

No matter how flyable or not is the zone, when you hear private companies arguing with the regulators, you cannot avoid to think (whether its true or not) the big money passes long before your safety.

It was somewhat amusing to hear, over the air on Radio-Canada, passengers stuck in CYUL for three days complaining about it and how quick they'd love to get home but when they were told this could happen as soon as tomorow, they didn't feel in such a hurry suddenly and one was quite uncomfortable with the idea. T'should give airlines a clue.

It simply doesn't matter if it's safe or not. If the passengers, at any time, feel corporations gamble with their life for the sake of profit, it'll hurt way more than closing the business for a couple more day, or a whole week if need be.