brooks
 

Don't panic, don't panic! Airlines have been flying jets through air contaminated with volcanic ash for over fifty years.:ok:

Has anyone seen the risk assessment process that the european agencies used to ascertain whether it was safe to fly or not?

Indeed was there/is there a safety management system in place that covers aviation threats from natural disasters? What process was undertaken before the unilateral decision was made to close airspace entirely rather than re route around designated portions of airspace?

It would seem that rather than an ordered, clinical process being followed a lot of the reaction was a knee jerk and countries closed airspace on the basis of what someone else did. I know volcanic ash is dangerous, but SE Asia has many sputtering volcanoes that do not close entire tracts of airspace for days at a time.

According to today's Scotsman, the muddle continues.

Anger over 'needless' grounding of flights - Scotsman.com

High time that heads rolled if this piece is to be believed.

What's this off my PA28 then ?

CPE1957

The filter is bypassed when carb heat is operated.

????

I for one have never "seen" a risk assessment in my life, in fact I didn't know they were physical entities that coukd be seen. I thought a risk asessment was a bull!!!! phrase for bureaucrats just to say "no".

I can assure you that assessments are quite real and seeable, when they have been done. Every ATS unit in Australia has a Group Operating Risk Assessment which covers items such as staff availability restrictions, loss of navaids, natural disasters affecting service delivery (eg cyclone wipes out the building where all the nice air traffic controllers work from), civil unrest etc etc.

That is where contingency plans are born, so that when an unusual or rare occurrence happens ATS providers are able to implement contingencies that restrict rather than curtail totally, operations. Obviously one of the contingencies may indeed be to close totally airspace, but not until after a proper and detailed assessment of the risk that is involved to aircraft.

If this process is not in place the real big question is what new evidence was revealed that allowed the airspace to reopen? A few test flights are not sufficient to go from total closure to fully open.

It beggars belief that such a mature aviation industry as is found in Europe does not seem to have such systems in place. To close the airspace over Frankfurt for example, without any hard evidence that the ash was anywhere near Germany let alone southern Germany, is very difficult to reconcile with the unilateral opening of the same airspace based on a couple of VFR jet flights.

I deal with risk assessments as part of my job. Every listed company has to go through detailed risk assessment and contingency planning on every risk, its disruption time period and the potential financial loss for each and every department and business process. This all has to be approved by the auditors and it has to fit in the legal framework of the host country. Its a legal requirement and it applies to every company from car manufacturers, banks, energy generators to soft drink makers - everything (including and especially the military).

You probably have never seen a risk assessment/continuity plan becuase you are at too a low level - CEO and board members have to sign off on it and its their neck on the line when it comes down to it (and confidential).

Hmmm, OK I'm neither a CEO or board member and I have seen all the risk assessments that I, as an employee, would be affected by when I worked in Australia.

Maybe that is the difference between Europe and Australia, the US is the openness of these plans and the use of the work face person to develop them and analyse the risks and ascertain if the contreols are viable and workable.

Very accurate :)

And as one who gets involved with these, alas, I find that if you get three different "Risk Assessors" to look at a situation/organisation you end up with three quite different analyses of where any risks might lie. Despite this, most of their resulting material seems to be a cut/paste job from previous projects they have done.

An increasing number of Risk Assessors who look at aspects of industrial buildings etc now seem to come with some sort of tie-up with a contractor who, by the most amazing coincidence, is in a position to carry out the works specified.

Another difference seems to be the relevance of the participants in risk assessments. Any Hazard identification workshop that I was involved in had workface controllers involved in the process. After all we were the people who would ahve to implement/control anything that was devised.

We did not use outside consultants with vested interest and I would think the aviaiton industry is a little more adept at identifying risk than a building assessor. There seems to be a misconception that you need an "expert" to assess your risk. This is far from the truth and the concept of risk assessment.

We used a facilitator - always someone from an ATC background who had reveived formal training in risk management - and as many as 6 subject matter experts (just another phrase for the workface controller) - in each workshop and worked thorugh a series of 'what if' scenarios.

The example of the building assessor is not very relevant to an aviation risk management plan and embedded safety management system.

Quite apart from the rigor (or otherwise) of any risk assessment that might have been done, there is a huge (and un-nerving) disparity between activity in UK/Europe, and the US.
I just heard a snatch of audio from a US Senate sub-committee hearing (presumably Transportation). They'd got a rep from GE Aviation on the stand and asked him two or three obvious and relevant questions. Knowing that it would be VERY unwise to BS or slime his way out, he appeared to answer competely and honestly.
1. Is there a problem with ash in engines? Yes, there is. GE plan to keep each engine on-wing for 5 years. Ash ingestion may reduce this time.
2. What happens? In particular, turbine cooling holes get blocked and damage is likely to be cumulative.
3. What about designs and / or materials that would avoid the problem? Aware of nothing in immediate future and maybe nothing long term.

So why are the European 'authorities' so supine and/or incompetent that they seem unable to extract similar short, succinct summaries of problems and maybe potential solutions on demand? The US is well-known as the litigation centre of the world, so that no-one over there dares speak out plainly. Clearly, the Senate and its committee witnesses are major exceptions! Good for them!

Interesting satellite map from NASA showing the Sulphur Dioxide trail yesterday.

NASA - NASA Aids Forecasters Tracking Iceland Volcano Ash Plume

brooksjg – the problem in the EU is that there are 27 different Nation States, each with undisputed sovereignty over their airspace. Plus, just about every one has a hub airline; if you close down your major airport (for reasons well-justified or otherwise) you close down one of the drivers of your economy. The more refined the European prediction model becomes, and the more it shrinks the no-fly zone, the more likely it is that future events will impact just one or two countries/economies/hub airlines. At least Apr 15-22 hit just about everybody equally.

The current EU procedure establishes a no-fly zone based on a concentration of 2g per m3. There is general consensus that this is ‘safe’ but countries are still closing airspace and airports which are outside (but close to) this contour + its precautionary buffer zone. At the same time, there is little enthusiasm amongst the engine-makers to define a more accurate (i.e. higher) threshold, because that would move them out of their 2gm comfort zone and bring them into the realm of accountability.

Brooksjg

1. Is there a problem with ash in engines? Yes, there is. GE plan to keep each engine on-wing for 5 years. Ash ingestion may reduce this time.

The question should have been "at what density and type of ash is engine engine damage likely
2. What happens? In particular, turbine cooling holes get blocked and damage is likely to be cumulative.

What happens if any pollutant ash or otherwise blocks these apertures? and again at what density is there likely to be a problem.
3. What about designs and / or materials that would avoid the problem? Aware of nothing in immediate future and maybe nothing long term.

Hang on I need to consult Mystic Meg for an answer

All I can say reading your quoted questions above IF TRUE is thank God such a bunch of idiots are not dictating aviation policy.

Pace

SSK The "no-go" limit is 2000 micrograms/m^3, i.e. 2mg, not 2g.

Well at least one of us knows what they're talking about :)

Subtle difference in the units.

Definitions:

Milligram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a thousandth of a gram. 1mg means 0.001 of a gram

Microgram: A unit of measurement of mass in the metric system equal to a millionth of a gram. 1 mcg means 0.000001 of a gram. It is more usual to write μg for micrograms.

And as Sepp says 2000 micrograms = 2milligrams. :ok:

The airline industry has a lot of experience operating around areas of volcanic ash. The closure of the airspace a few weeks ago was an understandable over reaction as those making the decisions were dealing with an unprecedented situation in the UK and Northern Europe. A perfect storm if you like with a volcanic eruption under a glacier, an unusual weather system for the time of year and a our political leaders pre-occupied with an election etc.

What is happening now is a more measured and sensible approach to a difficult situation. As with all such situations lessons have been learnt and systems will now be developed no doubt to better predict dangerous levels of ash in European skies and strategies to manage our airways in a more sensible way.

Anyone who suggests that airlines have been reckless really need to think again, it is not in the interests of airlines or airline bosses to risk aircraft or passengers and such claims are sensationalist. There may be a long term cost due to engine life but that is a matter that I know in my own company has been thought through and a very thorough inspection program is in place.

Your problem seems to stem from a refusal to accept that when manufacture's say there is no safe level of ash ingestion, they mean it. The more ash, the higher the probability of damage, there is no 'safe' cut off level that you seek.

Peter

I am just a practical pilot who has flown all over the world in everything from sandstorms to severe weather.

Firstly there is nothing in aviation which guarantees 100 % safety. If you want that then dont fly FULL STOP!

To date in over 50 years of operation in ash of differing density levels there has never been a fatality caused by inadvertant entry into ash polluted air.
The same cannot be said of other threats to aviation.

Do we ground aircraft because surface winds or shear are at a level that 100 % guarantees that NO aircraft will crash on landing or takeoff? NO
Do we fly in thunderstorm areas where we are 100% guarnteed we will never ingest hailstones, severe turbulence or lightning strikes?

Do we ground aircraft because of the migration season or in areas where large sea birds fly! No think of the HUDSON accident.

I could go on and on with other examples we DO accept and DO have fatality records over the years.

I am as much into safety as anyone but I am also a realist and a pilot and there has to be a sensible approach to dealing with ash which is not apparent by some of the panic statements made by some here.

In my book in threat areas dont fly at night, use basic piloting skills of see and avoid (dont fly into visible cloud or mist patches especially pollution looking ones) and use sensible ash density levels which until proved otherwise allows some movement around known ash areas.

As stated if you want 100% stay at home, lock the doors and probably die of inactivity and boredom.

Pace

Just what we needed, an excuse for the climate "scientists" to hide behind when the planet turns out not to be warming :D

Waaay too dangerous! Didn't you know most lethal accidents happens in the home? Which is why I live in a hotel room:)

Going back to the ash density figures.. I was trying to estimate how much ash goes through an engine if you fly say 100km through a cloud at 0.2 miligrams per cubic meter... Suppose the intake is 1 meter in area and we just look at the swept volume... I make it about 1 x 100,000 x 0.2 x 10^-3 = 20Kg

I have patiently explained about five times on this thread exactly what the problem with ash ingestion is :- extremely costly damage to engines.

It appears that there are some people who are too selfish or stupid to understand that exposure to ash risks ongoing engine maintenance problems that will make the dislocations caused by occasional airspace closures pale into insignificance.

The only answer I can think of for these people is to buy your own aircraft if you wish to accept the risk of flying through ash clouds.

Sunfish, could you enlighten us please and give us ONE example of an aircraft that had extremely costly damage to the engine, after flying through an ash cloud so thin that it wasn't noticeable to the eye! Juste ONE example! PLEASE...!!!

Why is it that some people have to put down others who have a different conviction or opinion??? :ugh: That's how wars start! Can't you simply agree to disagree?

I personally support Pace in this matter and I think what he says makes very good sense!

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

Sunfish

On what basis are you making such sweeping assumptions? Do you think the Airlines who are prepared to fly in low levels of ash pollution are also so stupid that they have not weighed up the potential engine damage costs (if infact they do get significant engine damage in their fleets) against the losses they would incur by as you put it "occasional airspace closures"?

They have already operated in low level ash and to date I have not heard of significant damage. I am sure if there was they would be the first to ground their own fleets on a cost basis.

I do not know what your background is to make such assumptions over what the airlines have decided to do with their own level of operational knowledge.

I do not know long term what the costs will or will not be but I guess neither do you. It will not be our problem if you are right but I am sure the airlines will have weighed up all the risks and costs when deciding to operate in low level density ash.

Pace

Sunfish
 

As it happens I am a shareholder in a large airline so do in fact part-own quite a few aircraft. I am quite content for the management and flight crew to make their own judgment, bearing in mind that the whole purpose of an airline is to make a profit.

I am with Pace!:ok:

peter we

This is just semantics.

The manufacturers have not stated that "there is no safe level of ash ingestion"

The manufacturers can not tell you when it is unsafe to fly but can tell you when it is safe to fly. The zone between the two is subject to how you intend to operate in the nether region.


The manufactures can only state that there is no known defined point of safe vs unsafe level and that therefore it is up to the variances of individual operations to establish safe operating procedures. (goes pretty much for other enviromental hazards as well, including birds and ice) Instead they advise a degree of avoidance of concentrations vs procedures to minimize impacts on the safety of a specific flight.

What the operators are doing about costs is their business and not the business of naysayers in forums.

Sweden is using an old military fighterjet from the 1950ies, Lansen (the lance) to collect ashsamples. Only two of them flying today, usually they´re
using them to collect radioactive samples.

Sabenaboy:

This has already been posted, but as a courtesy:

Read the rest and look at the pictures yourself:

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/vol...8AshDamage.pdf


Sabenaboy, we are not talking about "opinion" as in informed opinion. The engine manufacturers, airframe manufacturers, airlines, met offices, regulators, insurers and lawyers have consulted and determined the new set of rules which may be modified by further experience and research. Just because someone says words to the effect "Well I can't see what the problem is" does not make it go away.

Furthermore, the precautionary principle dictates that until we are totally certain about the levels of acceptable risk that we err on the side of caution.


Pace:


I'm not making any sweeping assumptions at all. Read the NASA report in full please.

The basis of my comments are Five years(some time ago) as a Professional engineer in an airline maintenance department where one of my tasks involved the logistics of providing and positioning spare engines around the network. I also spent another Two years in an aerospace company that among other things assembled engines and made turbine blades and other componentry. While I am now well and truly out of that loop, I've visited and done business with both GE's civil and military engine people as well as Pratt and Whitney Canada and P&W at Hartford. The engineers at those places are not stupid. If they say no more than 2000 micrograms of ash per cubic metre that's good enough for me.

As the NASA report states, the damage to the hot section is insidious and given the number of flights across the Atlantic an encounter with a large scale ash cloud by the Atlantic "fleet" could easily end up grounding hundreds of aircraft for engine changes. Given that the penalty for not grounding an aircraft for a few days will be weeks out of service, I'm not surprised that airlines are complying with the recommendations.

Furthermore, the insidious nature of the damage alluded to in the NASA report means that you won't find out about it until it is too late

As for costs, and having done entire airline engineering maintenance budgets for Five years, I can safely say that the cost of pulling and overhauling engines at intervals far less than their expected time in service plus the out of service time for aircraft caused by the inevitable backlog of engine work, will dwarf the costs of grounding an aircraft until the danger is past.

I'm sorry is these facts are unpalatable to you but that's it.

Sunfish

Firstly thanks for giving us your qualifications in making a statement.

I cannot speak for SabenaBoy but would imagine his posting referred to the present situation?

Regarding the DC8 incident this was at NIGHT and as such the crew were unaware of what they had flown into or the density of what they had flown into. This incident was a long time ago.

There was a period of 65 flying hours before damage was found and the initial inspections just after the incident showed NO damage.

This incident is not a good example because of the uncertainties. We were talking about flight in very low ash concentrations ie the new guidline levels.

There is NOTHING in this report to state that the flight was in conditions which met the new guidline levels but levels which were far higher.

In that context I cannot see how you are using this old example in any way as proof of your arguement that flights made to the new density levels will lead to massive increases in maintenance costs.

Most of us are already aware that dense ash with high engine temperatures can cause engine damage.

Pace

Key problem is the precision of the data!
OK - chances are that 2000 micrograms is low enough not to be a problem for that particular flight.
But what about the variation in ash density that the aircraft actually encounters? It might be lower or marginally higher than the magic 2000.
Also there's the question of cumulative exposures and what that does to projected remaining on-wing life.

Here it comes again
 

Sorry to be the bearer of potentially bad news, but......

Iceland volcano to emit large new cloud: meteorologists

An Icelandic volcano which caused havoc to European aviation after erupting last month is to emit a large new ash cloud after surging back to life, meteorologists said Thursday. A plume of ash measuring up to seven kilometers (more than four miles) high had been detected at the Eyjafjoll volcano, said a statement from the Icelandic Met Office and Institute of Earth Science.
"The eruption has changed back to an explosive eruption, lava has stopped flowing and most of the magma gets scattered due to explosions in the crater," said the statement in English.
"The ash plume rises high above the crater (4-7 km) and considerable ash fall can be expected in wind direction. No signs of the eruption ending soon." Breitbart.com

LoboTx - geologist at-large

Again, this link, provided earlier, is as good as any. The earlier series of this site had no ash above FL200; here, there are now substantial volumes of ash from FL200 to FL350. Flew to the West Coast of Canada from the UK today and we routed LHR - Land's End then turned north about 40W for Western Canada. Now I can see why.

THe NASA DC 8 incident: Please... Not again!
 

@Sunfish:
I should have known, that you would be coming back with that NASA DC8 case. You obviously haven't read the thread thoroughly and certainly not my own post #2486.

Allow me to post this information again.

Read page 11 of the report you linked to:
The ash cloud they flew through was so thick that it was able to obscure the stars. I can assure you that such a cloud would have been easily visible, if they had been flying by daylight VMC!!
When the stars reappeared, the readings returned to normal. This would suggest to me that no visible ashes, also means that no significant ash concentrations are likely to be present or even measurable.

So what would I suggest? Restrict flying into the black areas of the ash concentrations charts to daylight VMC conditions. By "flying VMC" I mean that you can fly through a thin layer of low level stratus or a typical nice-weather cumulus or a thin layer of nicely white cirrus or cirrostratus. Flight through thick layers of nimbostratus would NOT be wise, as it would be able to obscure otherwise visible ash clouds. And of course any layer of visible ash -so even a slightly discoloured layer- would be an absolute NO-NO!

Furthermore research A/C AND military A/C (with post flight inspections!) should be out there NOW over the ocean flying in the black areas, to collect VALID scientific data on flying through measurable ash concentrations. Why? Because, looking at these ash concentration charts it's clear that it's only a matter of time until the whole UK and Western-Europe gets covered again by such a black area. So collect data NOW on flying through these areas. And then if these test flights show evidence of damage, well then so be it. We will then KNOW that there is a risk. Until proven otherwise I will continue to believe that flying in clear blue skies in invisible ash concentrations will not cause any direct danger to the flight or any severe damage to the airframe and engines.

Conclusion: the challenge is still on: Give us ONE example of an aircraft that had extremely costly damage to the engine, after flying through an ash cloud so thin that it wasn't noticeable to the eye! Just ONE example! PLEASE...!!!

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

PJ - I hope you enjoyed your brief stop-over.

Those charts are daunting. It looks as if N Atlantic traffic is in for a very difficult time. Looks like you just made it back. I think my motto at the moment is 'ETOPS - no thanks!'

Add the latest reported volcanic activity................ We need to do a rain dance in the UK I think - not normally a problem.

The trouble with 'careful reading' of anything is that it can STILL be selective!

The stated reason why the track of the NASA DC-8 blundered into the ash (which was part of a cloud well-known to the VAAC) was that it was 'old' so that the ash particles had become ice-coated. The satellite imagery therefore mis-identified it as normal cirrus.

So: had the flight been in daylight, there would be another question. What would the pilots have actually seen above them, 'obscuring the stars', or around them? Brownish ash or whitish cirrus? You tell me! After this length of time, I doubt there's any daytime visual evidence of what the cloud looked like at the point where the incident occurred but there might not have been much to indicate 'Here be Ash'!

Off topic, but just for the record re the above:

Still won't achieve 100% safety. Just check stats on how many have been killed in their homes when hit by a crashing civil or military aeroplane. Lots!

Is it affecting ops on europe-usa crossings at the moment?

BOAC's mention of ETOPS has caused me to wonder:

If Keflavik is closed (I'm not sure if it has, so far) or if it can only be approached from the West, will this impact ETOPS operations?

British Airways News, 6th May
 

Since British airspace reopened BA has inspected each aircraft before every flight and the company has carried out airframe and engine inspections on 23 aircraft.
These have included internal inspections of the engines based on guidance from the engine
manufacturers looking for any evidence of a build-up of volcanic ash.

Filters from the oil and fuel system were removed and sent away for scientific analysis for any volcanic trace elements, while a detailed inspection of the airframe was carried out looking for typical signs of erosion and build up of any debris within air conditioning and other aircraft systems.

“Working with other airlines across Europe we have completed sample inspections
on an additional 24 engines as part of a programme agreed with the enginemanufacturers,” said quality services manager Keith Rose.

“All of our inspections to date, plus in excess of 2,000 engineering walk rounds
checks, have not found any confirmed indications of volcanic ash.

“Indeed samples taken from the exhausts of a number of engines have been analysed
by specialists at Bristol University and found to contain no traces of ash whatsoever.

Since resumption of our operation last week we have flown over 27,000 flying hours and 6500
sectors with no confirmed ash events

The above statement is copied from today's issue of the BA company newspaper.