Government chartered essential flights
 

Isn't the situation moving towards a 'Merchant Navy' type solution with government chartered aircraft with volunteer crews providing prioritised essential air services to/from the UK?

too soon?
 

As much as i wish to see my employer getting their jets back in the skies, i cant help but get the feeling that in a month or so's time we are going to be replacing alot of powerplants. I only hope that the engines on our twins dont suffer their demise at the same time. I'm also thankful that i keep my feet firmly on the ground in my occupation and really do "dof my cap" to any drivers willing to take on nature. sure, there will be a period of time when the media and even maybe some industry insiders will be saying "i told you it would be ok", but will they be saying that in a month or two when they are etops in their twin when both donks start coughing? Best of luck to you all but im going to Butlins for my holiday this year.

Safety First!
 

It has taken over three days to view all the threads in this topic...just as well there was a week-end involved :)

I liked the analogy with the Blackwall Tunnel for getting things back to normal, having decided on the ban...could be difficult to decide on the right time.

Good post on the reasons for BA, KLM and LH flying their "no problem flights" by Jetex Jim...in which I fully agree.

The Engineers seem to have explained the risks pretty well to me...I wouldn't fly in it any more than I would drive through a snow storm with summer tyres on a non-gritted road.

Problem is...there is something in the air...that you cannot see...with RADAR or Mk1 eyeball...Engine equivalent of black ice.

Change in weather...bit of precipitation and all will be back to normal...but the holes in the cheese lined up to cause an accident...it was spotted early and prevented one.

Well, at this moment in time, it sounds as though we will start getting under way again at Gatwick from 19.00 tomorrow evening with, supposedly, a “normal” service from Wednesday morning. UK airports north of a line from Teesside to Blackpool are expected to reopen from 07.00 tomorrow.

VS15 Due to depart tomorrow at 1900L and VS29
due to leave at 1930L
We had Air Transat due to arrive at 1945L on a turn around
Turkish Airlines are requesting an inbound slot of 2300L for their
freighter on a turn around.


just some info ive picked up getting home from work whether it goes ahead or not who knows

Satellite movie:

Se askeskyen direkte fra rommet! - Nyheter - yr.no

Turbo Fan engines= Appears to be no damage

Turbo Jet engines= Damage

Is there a connection?

:confused:

We may have dodged a bullet, but for how long? Launching our jets today without the full knowledge of what is really up there could be just short of suicide. Maybe not for a week or two, even a month or two but once the cooling in your turbine blades is clogged up engines are going to fail. I hope im wrong.

It seems that any engine failure is highly unlikely to be immediate.

This is where us engineers come in.

I assume that after your next flight we will doubtless be asked to look at your engines, and if they are damaged, we will tell you, and not release to service.

If there is no damage then we will also tell you.

(I am probably guilty of a 'sucking eggs' analogy, but, when you are next flying, keep an eye on your TGT/ITT, FF etc. I would assume there would be an unusual increase if any damage has taken place).

Couple of things not yet discussed much here but especially relevant if any testing involving military (eg. Nimrod or fighter aircraft) is proposed.

What difference in ash vulnerability between various turbine types (straight-through, low-bypass, high-bypass)? Point being that the front fan MIGHT act as a centrifugal separator to get dust particles away from the core of the engine and outwards into the bypass area where it would do nothing. Anyone know if this happens in practice, with dust about the consistency of talcum powder?

Most of the discussion here (and news) has focused on turbine damage on the outside of the turbine / stator blades. What is the actual risk of ash getting into the cooling passages inside the blades when there is insufficient ash ppm to cause stall or failure for other reasons? In particular, is the position of the cooling plenum inlet(s) bad or good considering likely paths of heavier-than-air ash particles through the compressor stages? Clearly (?), any cooling air blockage is more likely to cause catastrophic blade failure than deposits of volcanic glass on the outside surface of the blades. Or not :confused:. I obviously don't know enough about turbine designs.

And another thing. How long before the volcano vapourises all the ice / water present in the caldera? Once this happens, apparently the character of the eruption will change and the average ash particle size increase a lot. When THAT happens, the ash-cloud will (obviously?) sink to ground / sea much faster and therefore pose less / no threat south of Iceland, whatever the wind conditions.

The damage you might see would be the fan, compressor and hot section with a borescope inspection but what about the dust that will settle in the balance and signal lines, FCU's and labyrinth seals. How detailed will these inspections need to be to really give it the tick in the box safe to fly approval?

Also the airlines of course want to get up in the air again but what about the leasing companies that own the engines and airframes, are they going to let the airlines fly their equipment if their is still some doubt?

References and links:-
SKYbrary - Managing the Risk to the Safety of Aircraft in Flight Caused by Volcanic Ash

Taken from NATS

Taken from NATS

Word for word (save the update time) identical to their previous statement. Least they're taking a "wait and see" approach, I guess.

Search of previous incidents with volcanic ash cloud addressed by NTSB reveals only one since 1962 (based on searches for volcanic and for ash). Looks like KLM should be dusting off the procedures they put in place after this event.

NTSB Identification: ANC90FA020 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 41866.
Scheduled 14 CFR KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES
Accident occurred Friday, December 15, 1989 in ANCHORAGE, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/30/1992
Aircraft: BOEING 747-400, registration: PHBFC
Injuries: 245 Uninjured.BFR TKOF, CREW OF KLM FLT 867 ADZD OF VOLCANIC ERUPTION ABT 100 MI SW OF DESTN. EN ROUTE, FLT ADZD OF ANOTHER ERUPTION. FOR ARR, FLT CLRD TO DSCND FM FL390 AT PLT'S DISCRETION; VCTR GIVEN TO AVOID LAST KNOWN AREA OF ASH CLD. DRG DSCNT THRU FL260, FLT ENCTRD ASH CLD; ASH/SMOKE ENTERED COCKPIT/CABIN. CREW DONNED O2 MASKS; USED MAX PWR TO CLB. 1 MIN LTR, ALL ENGS LOST PWR (TO 28%-30% RPM); THERE WAS ELEC PWR INTRPN, LOSS OF AIRSPD INDCN, FIRE WARNING ALARM FOR FWD CARGO AREA. AFTER 8-9 ATMTS & DSCNT TO 13,300', ALL ENGS RESTARTED & FLT CONTD TO SAFE LDNG. DMG FND ON EXTERNAL SFCS OF ACFT & IN HI PRES TURBINES OF ALL ENGS. BOEING OMB #747-B2-4, ADZD TO AVOID VOLCANIC ACTIVITY; BUT IF ENCTRD, RETARDING THRUST TO IDLE WLD RDC BLDUP IN ENG & IMPROVE STALL MARGIN. ATC RADAR COULD ONLY DETECT VOLCANIC ASH FOR 5-10 MIN AFTER ERUPTION; ACFT RADAR NOT DESIGNED TO DETECT ASH. ASH CLD FCST TO MOV NNE AT 60 KTS; REVIEW OF SATELLITE DATA SHOWED IT ACTUALLY MOVED AT ABT 120 KTS. KLM HAD NO PROC FOR 747 ENCTR WITH ASH CLD & NO ADNL INSTRNS WERE GIVEN TO KLM CREWS.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
INADVERTENT ENCOUNTER WITH VOLCANIC ASH CLOUD, WHICH RESULTED IN DAMAGE FROM FOREIGN MATERIAL (FOREIGN OBJECT) AND SUBSEQUENT COMPRESSOR STALLING OF ALL ENGINES. A FACTOR RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS: THE LACK OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASH CLOUD TO ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED.

Insurance liability
 

I've heard a lot of talk about the decision of the airlines to start flying again, but what about the role of the aircraft insurers in this scenario?

I would've thought that they would be wary of covering aircraft that will be flying into ash clouds, or maybe they would increase their premiums?

We are not totally without information on plume penetration. A very special NASA DC-8 documented ash levels, sizes, and gas concentrations and the details are all there for those who have the time to read it.Here
I quote from the report on the inadvertent ash incident with the NASA DC-8, a fully instrumented airborne science research test bed.

and

Compared with this time yesterday, the live webcam Eyjafjallajökull frá Hvolsvelli suggests a considerable weakening of the plume

@carmel
I expect that the insurance companies don't really have much of a say.
It would be impossible for them to examine and risk-assess each and every flight every day and in all conditions, so the only practical way would be for them to cover all flights 'provided they are being operated "in accordance the regulations in force".

It's very unlikely that they have any form of veto.

If heavens forbid something went wrong they might try to recover losses from the authorities _if_ they could prove they were negligent in setting the regulations.

Looks pretty tame this morning from this angle too - Picasa Web Albums - eyjafjallajokull_... - Eyjafjallajok... (as it did last night ... which seems to run against the NATS statements, but presumably they know better)

Well presumeably all S UK airspace is not closed having just watched a KL 747 sail majestically along headed for AMS . Is it just certain levels or just departures? Or are we letting the cloggies do a bit of guinea pig work for us ?
As its track will take it right over London I am sure a lot of people will wonder whats going on

PB