Exactly what "wee Willie " did AFAIK, money where your mouth is, in his case at least.

Curious, isn't it? :hmm: And those nasty Finns showing innards of their F404s for the whole world to see. Must be a conspiracy at work here.

According to Finns, there they were, flying their Hornets in the severe CAVOK and there were no problems at all. Until the engines where inspected after landing, that is. Issue with prolonged flight in rare ash cloud is not abrasion of the leading edges/transparencies or pitot blockages or engine flameouts. The issue is accumulation of molten and re-solidified ash inside turbines. It won't cause flameout or immediate failure but it will certainly shorten engine's life. That's why the most of the European airforces have taken the stance of cutting all training but maintaining full operational capability: defending the nation or rescuing someone is worth wrecking a few engines. Is having your pax aeroplane sitting for months because you couldn't wait for a couple of days for dust to settle and there are no spare engines to propel it, fair price?

Well, if your life as CEO is short and brutish and if your successor gets to pick up the bill, then the answer is yes. For the aforementioned CEO, anyway.

You're on the back of the drag-curve Chill - already suggested on Saturday, but only BA is listening. Do a thread search for "two engines".

I was looking for pics of the Dornier.
The F404 evidence is invalid, for the engines were not inspected BEFORE their flight - apparently only being inspected 3 months previous. When did the damage occur?

While I don't disagree with the cautious sentiments being espoused, I can't help feeling that european authorities suffer from weekenditis. If this had started being a problem on a monday, it would be sorted by friday with at least a clear indication of what it would take for airspace to reopen. As it is, two days of apparent inactivity mean an extended period of uncertainty.

As far as it was reported they found gases that are produced by volcano, nothing was said about the abrasive hard particles.
One might expect that the gases in a cloud should be able to travel longer distances then hard particles as hard particles are subject of gravity.
It is 1179 miles from Reykjavik to London.

How many time have any of us flown though Volcanic Dust? I have not got a clue. But I know that with 13000 hrs I've done it more than once.Because there have been lots of eruptions during the last 25 years. Lets face it there is more risk of an aeroplane being brought down by a bird than low levels of ash. So let's all start looking for alternative emlpoyment.

from the bbc....

0934 The Press Association reports that thousands of UK airline workers could soon be laid off as a result of the crisis.

One of the options being considered is making staff take their holidays now, industry sources told the UK news agency


im getting worried, trying to get hold of my bapla rep...


anyone know any more?

Chillphil, how do you know the other two engines will start ?

Appears to be no quick fix, just two much data and questions need to be sorted.

Maint checks required after flight through Ash, expect some very long turn arounds !

Another point of interest, although some data of aircraft and Ash is known, it's possible that newer aircraft/systems/engines will not be the same as older types.

Not operating aircrafts in these present conditions in the short term may be a far cheaper option in the med/longer term.

Safe flying to all.

Looks quieter at the source today
 

Picasa Web Albums - eyjafjallajokull_... - Eyjafjallajok...

From the Vodafone Iceland webcam this morning ... seems to be taking a day off today :)

Actually, we are calling for a test aircraft to do this, so we know if it is safe to put passengers onboard and do the same. And then to check each aircraft every day to see if there is a problem. (Do a thread search for "two engines". And yes, I would do it - just give me the 747 rating :) )

If Orville and Wilbur had taken your position, we would never have gotten airborne in the first place.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I believe that the UK's NATS have been politically 'served up' as the fall guy for this affair. I find it hard to believe that NATS alone has the executive authority to close UK airspace and that decsion has, I would suggest, have to be made at the highest level of government.

So, come on you hacks who read thses pages, do some digging and find out just who said 'yes'.

I note that Eurocontrol is already starting the back-peddling.

None available AFAIK, the evidence gathered was by scientific instrument measurements and at one stage they descended/turned very swiftly to get away from a 'bad' area. For info the flight was conducted VFR in VMC.

BD

Not sure I like the idea of government / political pressure on decisions like this: recent events affecting eminent Polish citizens in a major way come to mind. This is an issue for professional assessment e.g. aviators, scientists, economists (re equipment impairment issues) etc but leave the getyouhomeitis mob out of it. And I speak as someone housing a "volcanic migrant" who was meant to be stopping for just two nights and who as we speak is working his way steadfastly through my wine fridge.

That is unmitigated B/S.

No-one is suggesting or recommending commercial operations through a volcanic plume. To suggest such is disingenuous.

What the consideration is that flight operations resume in areas where there is little contamination.

So would you support that flight with zero ppm of volcanic dust particulates is what is required ? If so, then sorry aircraft will be grounded across the globe ad infinitum.

There will ALWAYS be volcanic particulates in the atmosphere, our planet is on a moving crust that magma perpetually vents and breaks through the crust expelling particulates into the atmosphere.

Previous large eruptions have seen particulates circle the globe three times and remain in the atmosphere for decades.

The point of consideration is to what level, and where, the contamination exists to pose a significant threat to the integrity of of the aircraft.

Is it 30ppm, or 100ppm or 1000ppm ?

At what level will such a contamination concentration reduce TBO's on an engine, and at what level will concentrations cause an engine to shut down or cause catastrophic failure ? blade vibration through cracking of the coating on an HPC disk blade can lead to wear and subsequent catastrophic failure, such test have been conducted and they are known factors, hence why AD's and SB's are issued in accordance with manufacturers maintenance programs.

Once a determining factor has been derived, then there needs to be a consideration as to where those concentration levels exist and ASHTAM's issued to disseminate this information in order that operations can be conducted with the knowledge and data available for safe operations.

We have all this technology and capability, however, it is not implemented.

silverstrata,

reading your numerous posts, including, most tellingly, the one above it appears to me that you will rubbish any evidence unless it points to opening airspace. You dismiss the environmental aircrafts findings, yet are happy to take a couple of flights by BA, KLM etc, which have no on board sensors as proof that everything is safe.

You dismiss the F18 engine degradation because the engines had not had a thorough inspection for 3 months (your statement that the engines had not been inspected for 3 months wrong and misleading) - the fact that the damage would have been visible on a normal 25 hour servicing schedule (or whatever period the Finn mil use) is probably not enough evidence for you either no doubt...

There is a very high possibility that there has been an unwarranted level of airspace closure over this volcanic activity, but for anyone to call it a 'knee jerk reaction' or such is completely wrong. A knee jerk reaction would be an action/measures taken that went beyond internationally accepted procedures.

In the case of the UK, NATS have sanctioned IFR flying in airspace as and when the charts have shown a clear window (look back at the scottish airspace for example). NATS and other ANSPs are acting on instructions and procedures laid down by governing bodies, and to a certain extent are being given no guidance by those above.

This 're-opening' and 'closing' of airspace is evidence that the ANSP is working to the rules it is governed by, not 'over reacting'.

The fact the rules may be outdated is another matter. ANSPs do not write the rule book in these instances, however they must follow it.

It is up to the governing bodies to allow a relaxation of these (no doubt archaic) rules. The ANSP of the country can only do what is laid down - to do otherwise is illegal.

Finally, people talk about the fact that aviation has always involved 'risk'. That is 100% correct - even today in normal operations there is a level of risk that is mitigated against. However this 'risk' has been analysed and assesed and then deemed acceptable.

The FACT of the matter is, there is not enough data available to do the same with volcanic ash - the risk is unquantifiable and unfortunately that's not good enough for modern aviation... therefore using the argument 'flying always contains an element of risk' is complete tosh in this instance.

Yoganmahew

To claim that because this started on Thursday night and therefore a solution has been slow in coming because people have been away for the weekend is the most ridiculous and ignorant statement yet.

There have been continual high level meetings about this since Thursday evening.

Have I got this right? Didn't the aircraft head for Iceland? What was of interest 100 miles ESE of Grimsby - at 5000 feet?

Good one Silverstrata.

Nobody is trying to push things beyond reasonable safety. Many aircrafts have flown in light ash over time with very little impact on operation or maintenance.
Aircraft take-off and land every day in plume, smoke and dust of various kinds. We also know how to direct aircraft around 'heavy' and 'moderate' conditions.
There is no reason to keep airlines from operating in the entire airspace!

Can anybody explain what exactly were the findings?

Did they find that dangerous particles were found in high concentration, or they simply found presence of volcanic-related gases in the atmosphere?

Because UK is interested in finding out whats around the UK.

BD

Interesting article and images about damaged f-18 engines from the ash cloud.
PICTURES: Finnish F-18 engine check reveals effects of volcanic dust-16/04/2010-London-Flightglobal.com

Didn't BA, Lufthansa, KLM and Air Berlin just do that? Not happy about the absence of an accident?

No because that information is not available to be released in the public domain.

BD

AEST , did they do that? Is the density variable across the sky ? Why is the G- CALM report being hidden and kept out of the public domain , one of the only ( to my knowledge ) official test flights with measuring equipment on board.

Finnish F-18
 

As was pointed out to me, we don't know the condition of the F18 engine before the flight so it's hard to say this was due to the Volcanic ash apparently....
:confused:

I think that deep inside, most of us know that this is a huge over-reaction. However with our modern society so scared stiff of litigation and risk of any nature, it is an entirely predictable and understandable consequence of current circumstances. Pressure will inevitably grow from airlines, tour operators and all businesses with a financial interest in aviation to get aircraft back into the air. National governments will be reluctant to succumb to that pressure putting the the problem into the same category as terrorism - ie no compromise; but, time will come when the situation changes to such an extent that someone will break ranks.

Shades of the Global Warming scam!

1. Yes they did
2. Of course it's variable
3. The measuring equipment on G-CALM may provide indication on concentration at some specific areas, unfortunately that's largely irrelevant

The unknown factor is What concentrations of ash starts degrading them engines?

The testflights of the airlines seem more attuned to that than the so-called scientific flight!

Because it is written in scientific language which requires to be interpreted correctly. Releasing it to people who don't understand it nor the context it covers merely continues the uninformed speculation.
Hopefully once our 'leaders' get their act together and schedule a programme of scientific testing we might begin to learn some more facts. Unfortunately I don't see any one single body having the accountability across Europe.

BD

The ash cloud reaches the New World.
 

CBC Radio reporting this morning that fears of the ash cloud reaching St. John's, Nfld, prompted AC/WJ/Porter to turn flights that arrived last night right around and hightail it back to the Mainland. No flights out this morning.

CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Flights scrapped as Iceland ash heads to N.L.

Dornier 228 Important information? I'm still trying to figure out how a 170K cruise aircraft, range of 800 miles, managed to get from Scotland (?) half way to Iceland, then 100 miles East of Grimsby, and back to a midlands base in 2 hours 30.

The real scandal in this (and it is rapidly becoming one) is that despite decades of jet operations in (on a couple of nasty occasions) and around volcanic activity, there has still been no real research into what is and what is not an acceptable level of contamination.
Clearly, it is vital to know the relative constituents of a plume and, more importantly, their concentrations over the area under consideration. If it is largely grit and silcon affecting the UK, which I suspect, then there should be no impediment to re-starting operations. Operations are routinely carried out in much worse conditions world-wide in, for example, the middle east when sand storms can reduce visibilty to 600 m. -a "contaminant" concentration hundreds of time worse than prevails over Europe today.
If there are high levels of soot in the sample over the area in question then urgent research needs to be carried out by the engine manufacturers to agree a protocol with regulators and governments.
The fact is that operations continue in, for example, severe icing conditions, wind shear, torrential rain, snow covered runways and dust storms perfectly routinely because the risks have been assessed and mitigated, not removed, which is impossible. It is a disgrace that this has not been done on this occasion.
It is time for the profesionals to deal with this, not administrators or government agencies, who have neither the knowledge nor the will to make a proper, objective assessment.

If you are the pilot and you see the world only through the prism of your cockpit, let me tell you something new: it is doesn't matter what will happen to the engines, to the ash concentration or whatever. It doesn't matter how big will be the bill for overhaul and if there will be blades shortage. All of that is speculation only. Now the fact is: if we sit and wait, we all bunktrupt. And there will be no flights. No overhauld. No blades. Nothing.

There will be no successing CEO to pick a bill. There will be only administrators and insolvency practitioners if we don't take off now.

As a said on Saturday, no doubt we restart on Monday, and I see this is happens. My only other wish is a jail sentence for those who closed airspace without any justification. Somebody should take responsibility for this.

The best safety level is achieved when all aircraft grounded, ash or not. What most pilots missing: parked aircraft don't need pilots.

Ah yes, BDiONU, the old "You're not clever enough to understand this information, so we'll protect you from it" attitude that causes people their great trust in everything that these institutions do...

According to Sky News

"British Airways state they have found no damage to their 747-400 which flew yesterday"

So you won't provide it to them Politicians either then? :)

This country makes me sick, this has to be the biggest over reaction and all we do is talk about things like the PFJ in the Life of Brian instead of getting on with taking action to get things underway again.

I feel sick looking at the radarvirtuel website and seeing aircraft flying over France and Germany and Eastern Europe and think why the hell are we still closing our airspace instead of working round the problem!

A very disgruntled Airline Pilot...get me flying again!! :ugh:

There's an AFR384S waiting for about one hour at threshold at LFPG. Supposed to go to EHAM I believe, except that the Dutch authorities refuse to allow him to fly. Wrong logo perhaps? Landed AF383S said that Boroscop did'nt show anything after test flights.

Hhhhmm, having seen the responses in this thread I regret having posted anything in the first place. I also made it clear as to why I didn't/couldn't post more info.
A single investigation on a short trip on a single day is not sufficient to be able to base any recommendations on. A heck of a lot more needs to be done, here's hoping our great leaders start acting proactively.

BD

Since one of the UK COBRA committee, a Mrs Harriett Harman, announced to a startled world that NATS is the regulator for aviation safety in the UK and that we must all wait upon their advice, on her way in to 10 Downing St this morning, I'm not holding put much hope for a sensible UK Government-led scientific analysis of and solution to the problem.

The line-up yesterday evening of 3 Lords outside 10 Downing St, with a woman of some sort, and another non-Lord person, none of whom had anything sensible to say while it was absolutely clear that none of them had a clue about the engineering, operational or commercial issues involved did not engender any confidence either.

Let us hope that the airlines will take the lead, conduct a sound investigation into the real danger, act accordingly when that it done, and tell NATS/CAA/COBRA/EASA/whoever to get back into their bureaucratic boxes and let them get on with operating a safe service..