There are a number of active volcanoes right now over the world, yet it looks like there are no flying restrictions in Ecuador and Colombia, other than the advisory of avoiding immediate vicinity of the volcanoes.

Current Volcanic Ash Advisories - Washington VAAC - Satellite Services Division / Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution

From these reports, it's clear that satellites can do a good job on detecting ash concentration. Why are they resorting to computer simulations then?

Ash Concentration Chart
 

Maybe they do have some good data now....

https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf

But if this is accurate begs the question why UK airspace is not open for business...

Your point is valid however the point becomes moot when you end up with a fleet of aircraft parked with perfect engines because the airline has gone out of business.

As with all things in life there is a balance to be struck, those who take a position at the extremes of both sides are possibly being either too cautious or too reckless.

Cats Five

There will be no damage to these aircraft and history will prove it but sadly not until irreparable damage has been done to the economy. Just been listening to Radio 2 and a professor of geology who was having his moment of fame! Even he admitted they just don't know!

So lets get the information Airbus clearly don't see a problem in the short term and if more inspections are required and ultimately long term engine life is reduced I am sure that will be acceptable to the airlines given the current level of costs of not flying.

This is nothing new this happens around the world all the time without this over reaction.

Heres the latest

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271763280.png

Get me home!!!!!!!

Tom

References? Sources? So far as I can tell no-one actually knows what the answer to this is so stating it as a fact is sticking your neck out - a long way.

Data required
 

As I see it the data required for a decision is:
1) The concentration of ash in the air at different locations and altitudes.
2) The allowable concentration for safe flight.

The first can be gathered by data collecting flights which appears to be being done.

For the second, is it practicable to run a test bed engine (on the ground) and feed known concentrations of ash through it to determine this limit?

What do you think ?

BoughtTheFarm

The problem is the MET office do not have the equipment to accurately model the movement of content/density of the ash and cannot predict it's effects on aircraft systems which is why we need to get more test aircraft up there.

Someone mentioned that a some measurements had been made and we were not referring to the fact they found dangerous levels of ash at some levels. The question is dangerous to what? What are they basing this assertion on? The aircraft making the measurements returned safely. Was it inspected? Did it suffer damage? Apparently not.

Data, hard data not hysterics and over reaction!

roy that sounds far too much like a real scientific exp that could give out useful data!- much better to just send planes up willy nilly with no data instruments and bring back down safely to prove all is ok. Then we can open up safe paths through ash- that change hourly so that pilots and passangers can all go on mystery flights taking off with no idea exactly where they will land if the parting of the ash moves abit. So much data recording time to planned sets of exps has been lost already.

Cats Five

My data is my own aircraft which I have been flying since Thursday which has been inspected.

35 years and 20,000 hours flying round the world where these events are common!

From today's Daily Telegraph (in fact the paper headline is "Met Office got it wrong over ban on flights")

Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure

From Lloyds List:

kinsman - how many flying miles did nasa have before they tried to use a D- rings beyond there certified test temp. limits. Equip comes with limits for reasons. If no limits have been established then it should only be used within the routine levels used in testing. Thus, if now required, new limits should be sought, by means test experiments- as is the case for SiO2 levels of safety in the ash. It will take time yes- but for facts on safety rather than deductions - that is what is required. You may be completly correct and it may be totaly safe to fly in the ash now - but that at the moment that can only be assumed and is not proven.

Hello JetII

how safe?
 

How can we state that flying VFR (in Germany below F200) can be the safest option you can think of? Esp. since part of Germany is cloudy right now with a BKN layer below well below 5000' (giving HAM as a example). And what is gonna happen @ night in this case. Will we consider it to be the safest option to fly night VFR up to F200? I frankly do not understand this VFR up to F200 thing, especially since it has been confirmed much of the ash is invisible to the naked eye... Can someone comment on this one?

Well that makes 10 inbound to LHR from the US. Can't wait to see if more are on their way. I wonder what consideration exist if they do arrive about passing through FL200 into LHR? And if you can have 10 descents through FL200 why not have climbs out to FL200+++? Don't want to end up focussing on this all day, but at least it's tangible data in real time (at least if the feed is accurate). Anyone know crew on these inbounds?

Long Term Planning
 

:confused:
I read a lot of hysteria about the volcanic activity and it's outfall - this Forum is generally matter of fact and logical - suit me! with the odd spattering of trolls - where hasn't.

The current situation seems to have caught the airborne fraternity off guard - primarily due to the distinct lack of applicable information!

Met office can tell what's floating around in the atmosphere - debates on the accuracy are just that! we've had very little reason to delve deeper and pick out individual substances.
The engine and frame manufacturers have limited info on damage limitations and mitigations to counter adverse impact.
Operators are working to the letter supplied by the manufacturers.

Ok! my point is that we (Goverment, Military & Commercial Carriers) need to use this period of 'low activity' to collect info on the respective ash concentrations and compound effect on airframes.
The current activity is relatively minor, however has had a profound effect on our ability to maintain air travel around and to & from the UK, if as the volcanologists predict 'prolonged activity may set off Katla' this would effectively stut down operations from the UK for months and years, as opposed to days.

In collecting samples, and determining damage, would it not be possible to utilise a platform with two turbine engines and two Internal Combustion engines - the level of damage to the turbines could be monitored after each flight and then set updated maintenance levels for flying in a similar environment. The two Internal combustion engines with decent air filters would ensure that the airframe could maintain flight throughout the assessment.

Thanks!

I agree rather strange. It seems that in the UK nobody is willing to take responsability for allowing flights. If the airspace is not openned soon they will start looking like clowns.

In most cases the most simplistic approach is the best one, but NATS(goverment,...) are just trying to stay legal. Common sense must prevail. Who cares about long term damage to engines now, if we don't start flying soon there will not be airlines. Let's save the industry and then worry about long term implications.

The response from the UK is arriving late, far too late...

Rumours, stress rumours, about Flybe BE128 flight from GLA to BHD "may have suffered damage". I know no more. Anyone? Bull!!!! gossiping or .... ?

EDIT: LINK

ASH LAYER on arriving aircraft into AMS (arkefly from Antalya) this morning causing big concern. After inspection the ship has been released back to service. How long does it take to do a boroscopic I wonder?

Simonpro,

As you are well aware, no one has suggested that the MET office should provide predictions as to the effects of ash on aircraft. indeed, we are well aware of what the effects are and how those effects occur in large concentration.

if the MET office can provide ash density figures with an accuracy of +/-30% from 6km to 500m over specific airways and and specific levels, why has that not been done and the information disseminated to NATS in order that ASHTAM's can be issued and airways and flight levels opened to IFR traffic?

toodle back to the Global Warming Thread and continue to praise Jones and the CRU for manipulating climate change data. :ok:

I will reiterate from previous posts because the message doesn't appear to be getting through.
NATS is an ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider), one of 56 throughout Europe, note the words Service Provider. All ANSPs provide a service in accordance with the licence issued by its respective government (in addition to the rules, regulations and laws they're also required to obey). The decision by European ANSPs to close airspace is directly in compliance with the requirements of their licence. Some European governments have gone further than simply close controlled airspace and have allowed no flying at all. In the UK NATS mandate to close airspace only covers controlled airspace and the UK Government has not chosen to go down the path of closing all airspace, hence you have seen aircraft flying VFR outside of CAS.

In the UK the airspace regulator is SRG (Safety Regulation Group) of the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), a department of the Department of Transport. Why HM Government and the D of T have been silent and are chosing to hide behind NATS skirts I have no idea but NATS spokesmen are only talking heads. NATS does not enact policy, it complies with it.

BD

What are the density figures which it's safe to fly through? I can tell you the answer, none are defined. The rules are no flying through ash contaminated airspace, very woolly but with no possibility of misinterpretation. Hence the call for some standards to be defined, cause we have none.

BD

More BA flights now en-route to LHR...
 

Bought the Farm : "Well that makes 10 inbound to LHR from the US. Can't wait to see if more are on their way".

A further 8 BA flights are en-route to LHR, predominatly from the east e.g. BKK, BAH, AUH, DEL, BOM, NRT, PEK plus GRU in Brazil.

Let's hope they all make it!

Added: now hearing they may have to be diverted - to where?

yep my moneys on madrid and I would also think that they knew that's where they may end up. Because at the same time we are sending consulate staff to set up centers for travelers there- Also Ryan air are going to get all stuck in canaries to mardid (as long as travelers agree all responisblity to get home from there is their own)

Stalling altitude: "gotta be Madrid".

I think BA Ops Team would much prefer Scottish airport(s) but if they are not available then AMS could be the fall back...obviously much closer to UK than MAD.

LHR inbounds
 

BA website still shows LHR as destination. I'd like to think that an alt has been decided if applicable or is a 'window of opportunity' planned to be open in this FIR later today for sure? Nothing like making things up as you go - dynamically speaking...

Dumping a dozen very full B747 flights anywhere outside the UK at the moment would be madness, Every effort to get them this side of the channel must be made. Maybe BA coming over as a "Gang" is meant to put more pressure on whoever it is thats running this mess.

diverting to spain where coincindentally (???) a few royal navy ships are due to arrive soon. not an extremely bad option, if uk airspace has to close again.

Flight Safety Digest May 1993 Volcanic Hazards and Aviation Safety
 

I've followed this thread closely and I don't think I have seen this paper referred to - if it has been then my apologies, but from some of the wild statements posted here then many others have not read it either!

The link is at Flight Safety Digest 1993 | Flight Safety Foundation Click on May1993

Does anyone have knowledge of any later papers following this one?

My money is on EDI given that GLA is closed.Outlook looks better on the east coast and transport links.Landing 10 744's in mainland europe and would give BA a major headache and massive additional costs.Anyone have any ideas as to the timings of these aircraft ?

Exactly!

However, there will always be contaminants in the atmosphere, which includes volcanic ash. Volcanic activity in the past has seen volcanic ash tracked to circle the globe up to three times and remain in the atmosphere for years.

Do you subscribe that we dont fly if there is any contaminants in the atmoshpere ?

What about aircraft that have been stored within 200nm of marine air, which corrodes blades and disks, which is equally damaging to engines (in different ways)?

Operators monitor engine conditions routinely as its a very inexpensive way of managing a very expensive piece of equipment.

So you are saying that the BA flight to Cardiff and other VFR operations which have occured since last week have been conducted outside of regulations ?

Can you please post the regulation and under which regulatory body this citation pertains to which should therefore stipulate the conentrations at which airspace would therefore be 'contaminated', how that airsapce is defined .. is it a FIR or an airway ... and who would therefore determine the contamination levels and by what method. thx.

A mess
 

This is a total mess, how can we have NATS taking advice from the Met Office producing charts like these:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271763280.png

And EuroControl taking advice from whoever else producing charts like this.
https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf

I fully understand the safety calls and am not disputing it, but one would have hoped in todays age in that some kind of co-ordination between air traffic services could come up with what at least looks like a common approach. How can we have a position on one side of the channel shich is so vastly different to that in continental Europe? And Im not talking about the fact that the ash could exist either side Im referring to the fact that one thinks it is there and poses a major risk and one does not.

We now have relatively busy airspace on one side of the channel and nothing much flying here at all.

I await the NATS announcement with interest at 15:00.

alot of people are asking about this vfr ifr thing. i'm not working for the german regulatory. but it seems like good sense that visual conditions (Visual Flight Rules), i e out of the clouds and 1000 feet (or whatever) separation from those clouds, be applied. I wouldn't like to run into a little nimbostratus knowing that it might or might not contain VA. better to stay out and away from it. I'm not saying it's unsafer but VA is one thing (I guess you might be able to see a big concentration) but VA + water might be another thing completely.
please, no nonsense about flying vfr as in following rivers and country roads to known landmarks before looking at the airport's wind sock!

Taken from the BBC

Ferry companies operating out of Dover will be allowed to take 10% more passengers on their larger ships to help ease the current transport crisis.
According to David Osler, reporter for Lloyd's List, this suspends "whole chunks of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, introduced after the Titanic disaster of 1912".

The irony of at all! One rule for one form of transport another for a different one:ugh:

Of course not but thats not the legal position in Northern Europe currently. We need an effective compromise but our leaders have failed to provide this within the contingency legislation for volcanic ash events in Northern Europe.

As I've said previously you are allowed to fly VFR outside CAS in the UK. There was undoubtedly special dispensation for wee willie walsh's publicity stunt.
As I said previously the 'ban' is a blanket ban and I cannot post chapter and verse as the rules and regulations are not public domain.
Airspace is airspace, some is controlled and some not :)
As I previously said we have no defined standard and we have no method by which any concentrations could be measured. This is all stuff which should have been done as a contingency measure but wasn't. Possibly because this volcanic event is unprecedented and our great leaders never considered the risk high enough to spend the cash. One can only hope that they will do so as a matter of urgency.

BD

Greetings,

is it possible for someone to post the eurocontrol picture as following the link requires a secure log in.

regards
Howie (stuck in Azerbaijan ):*

vfr ifr
 

airseb

I agree - i posted earlier asking why the different rules for vfr / ifr (n.b. not vmc imc) - the ash density will be the same regardless of the rules.

Also as others have pointed out the lower level of atc control for vfr has to be less safe

Anyone know what excuse the French and Dutch have used to open Paris and Amsterdam - they seem to quite busy now. But they are still well within the VAAC ash cloud predicted area.