Re-Heat

KLM flew into a clearly visible ash plume, thinking that it was a cloud. No engines will survive that.

Dave

Why no word from the likes of GE,RR,Pratt amongst others as to their view on things? Have BA,KLM,Lufthansa done their engine boroscopes? and if so what were the results? I expect that when we eventually get flying again to start having problems with various pneumatic components,i remember when we were kids at the beach, no matter how carefull you were, you still ended up with sand in your sarnies.

So, we decide to fly again with volcanic ash in the atmosphere across our route- how is this going to work?

1. The Met Office/VAAC will continue to publish their best assessment of path and area affected by volvanic ash, as is their duty; it will be depicted on SIGWX charts, NOTAMS and in other pre-flight planning information.

2. Our Ops Manuals and Airplane & Engine OEM's advise that we must avoid flight into 'known' areas of volcanic ash. Commander's then have the dilema of deciding how to operate their flights in the face of a known hazard to flight. Will there be a derogation issued by our airlines and respective NAA's that pilot's can fly into 'known' areas of volcanic ash?

3. As a sound precautionary principle, after we do start flying en-mass, we will, at least for a period of time, require a check of each aircraft & engines inaccordance with the engine manufacturers procedures. This will be disruptive enough, as a previous engineering posts highlighted its not that straight forward. I don' think the few test flights that have been conducted are sufficient to say this isn't required.

What about engine/airframe warranty issues?

4. How will the leasing companies react to companies flying their aircraft into areas of known volcanic ash, and what agreements will be required to defer risk from the lessor to the lessee? Return conditions are the airlines responsibility I know, but I would think consultation is required.

5. Insurance? some agreement will presumably be required with our insurers on the above. If the airlines do accept the risk do they have sufficient capital in their business to do that for a large fleet of airplanes?

6. NATS/Eurocontrol?, a derogation will be required to permit IFR clearances to be issued into areas of know Volcanic ash.

7. And as EU operators how is this going to coordinated across Europe and a common approach established?

And I am sure there are many other issues I can't think of right now that are going to conspire against us in the coming days. Is there anyone out there that can tell us what's happening in the airlines, insurance, leasing companies and regulatory bodies regard to the above.

Tommoutrie in post #1320

Your point is?

One could equally ask:

Have you noticed how many of the 'it'll-be-all-right-on-the-nighters' and let's get back up there jockeys are pilots with no vulcanology or geology knowledge at all?

Having a pilot's licence doesn't make the holder an expert in everything.

I have various licences and qualifications that I have aquired during my 36 years as an aviation professional. None are pilot's licences, so do not qualify to appear in my profile.

Speaking as SLF, the airlines may decide to restart a limited flight schedule, do you really think that I would put my family or myself at risk, under the present conditions, just because you think it will be ok. The decision to fly must be a decision based on safety, not on economic necessity. If there was just one incident, that was attributed to volcanic ash, which the airline was aware of, the resultant fall out from the worlds press would be far more catastrophic. Having seen and read many comments and views from informed sources, I am left with the overall impression that we do not know enough about this situation to be able to safely operate aircraft. At the end of the day, you may be ready to operate the planes, it is up to us to get on them.

Hmmm, ...and when did this flight happen BDiONU ?






.

Low level piston commercial flights also grouned
 

Can anyone tell me why the CAA has "asked" operators to stop commercial low level operations in piston aircraft?

I have 2 photographic flights to do, one in a Cessna 172 and one in a Senneca both not above 2000 feet and both are banned but both aircraft are legal and currently active for Flight training.


It appears that if I climb in a Cessna for fun or training it is safe, but the moment I take my camera the aircraft is susceptible to volcanic Ash.

Have any universities done any scientific studies on the increase in abrasiveness of volcanic ash when in proximity to a Canon Camera? :ugh:

Cherokees, Comanches, Apaches - Indian Country. Dangerous.

no sig ........ beat me to it !! Precisely

Friday 16th April 1448 - 1734BST.

BD

- Tagsschau.de

My translation: " Since this morning aircraft are allowed to take off and land in Austria. Which flights are conducted and which destinations are approached lies within the responsibility of the airlines said a spokesperson of austrian ATC Austro Control. The current prognostic charts and the fact, that during testflights no damage to the skin or the engines of testaircraft have occured lets one conclude "that presently there is no danger given by ash- or dust particles."

Now, that's what I've been saying! Why do all the research, when the facts are already on the table!

Of course research should be done for the future, by engine manufactureres and it should be part of the proving airworthyness process in the future, but we need to save our industry now - if it's safe, and it obviously is.

Nic

We have data; government aircraft from several nations, including the UK have tested the air quality and stated that its is not good enough for aircraft to fly. You choose to ignore that, as well as ignoring the advice of engineers, engine manufactures and the experience of the many aircraft that have flow through similar concentrations of ash plumes.

Why not allow airlines to make the decision - well, its very obvious from the industries reaction that they will fly no matter what and use the "Gee-whizz who would have though that would happen" excuse to demand a bailout.

Have we forgotten there's an election in a couple of weeks?
No labour politician is going to risk ordering the reopening of airspace if it might mean losing votes.
The likes of Lord Mandelson and others have already been on television with ready sound bites like 'Safety is our primary consideration' which are obviously comforting to the majority of voters who dont really understand the concept of risk management when applied to aviation wich is still perceived in many eyes as 'dangerous' even though it is statistically by far the safest form of transport.
Maybe we will have to wait till the end of the election before someone wil have the guts to make a command decision!

As with so many things in aviation, "cut and dried" cannot be applied to this situation.
I have flow through volcanic ash that apparently fell "out of a clear blue sky".
After taking careful avoiding action well to the windward of a visibly erupting volcano, I was ambushed on final by ash falling out of a blue sky over 100 miles upwind of the volcano. It looked like the haze/Sahara dust which we are accustomed to. It did not last long and we left after a short delay. I understand later on it came back and coated the island with about 1/10 inch of fine white pumice type dust.
So "see and avoid" may not always deal with the problem. It is more complicated than that.

Yes, it obviously a vote winning strategy to close down the holiday business, strand 150k abroad, put major companies into bankruptcy and hundreds of thousands of people out of work, interfere with the export business and cause potential serious economic damage at the time of election.

Any political party would find that a good idea would it? Are you serious?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would have se comment from GE specifically about the effects.

Why do so many people feel happy to make statement along the line of ' I know nothing about this subject, I haven't bothered to find any thing about it but on the basis of my lack of knowledge, even when its pointed out to me, my gut feeling is that they are all wrong'.

Vested interest.

Tosh.

The research aircraft returned safely, and nobody has released pics of their turbines. And the aircraft that did have problems in ash were in thick ash, not the traces we have in the atmosphere over N Europe.

I spy administrators, towing the established party line.



The point is that modern politicians are totally risk-adverse, and that Gordon Brown always goes AWOL when there are difficult issues to discuss and assess. Which means we will never get a rational decision.

European airspace may well be unusable, alternatively it may be absolutely fine, but we will never know until someone starts researching, assessing and making rational decisions.

At the moment, we have political rabbits caught in the headlights of an Icelandic eruption.

The D-CALM info is the only truly subjective info available in the UK at this time. As BDiONU states the rest are just publicity stunts. OK, BAW and KLM found no problems, but how thorough was the post-flight inspection? The Finnish Air Force seems to have drawn a different conclusion.

Safety and risk analysis is becoming more and more important these days, looking back I see many practices which were normal then that would reduce today's beancounters, regulators, SLF and crews today to tears.
OK the politicians have over-reacted, but at least on the side of safety. I would be more worried if they let themselves be pushed into opening the airspace and things going TU.

Ref. plans to fly pax into Italy and Spain then further overland, I wonder what the locals will have to say about increased number of flights, and a suspension of any night time curfews?


edited to add, Cool Guy there are no elections anywhere else so what relevance does your statement have?

Sorry is this is a 'repeat' of any earlier post (cannot cope with 75 previous pages on this subject!).

It seems clear to me that some proper and immediate research needs to be undertaken given this 'opportunity' as to what levels of volcanic dust can be 'tolerated' my modern jet engines without using crews/pax etc as 'crash test dummies'

For example, why cannot test pilots in a 4 jet engined aircraft take off, shut down 2 engines, and then fly a controlled profile at various levels/locations etc in this dust cloud to gather data that can also be supported by a stripdown of the operating engines once back on the ground. IF the 'low levels' of volcanic dust did cause an in flight shutdown, the 2 remaining donks would be available for use once clear of the area. Such a flight would carry minimal risk, but the data gained would be invaluable.

Flying in ashCLOUDS is definetely unsafe.

But the discussion is whether flying in contaminated air by ash is safe or unsafe.

The testflight Dornier did fly in clouds.
The KLM, LH, AF, BA testflights stayed VMC and had apparently no damage.

So why not open airspace during daylight and VMC only. ?
Climb VMC to FL200+++ and then overfly the contaminated air.

mystery flights
 

KL7451 and BLX616F on their way to Paris ?
KL7451 flew at 25000ft and has just landed in Paris.

There seems to be a fair number of people calling for re-opening of the airspace, so how about they all pop on board a BA 747, and go flying for a few hours in the ash and let the rest of us know if its alright?

Personally I find it worrying that in the face of extreme doubt, there appear to be people in positions of responsibility who are behaving like cowboys with regard to safety. Reassuring... Not.:(