Danny: Report from 2000 - The "Diffuse" plume. How diffuse? What concentration? You are saying that we shouldn't resume flying because of the unscientific analysis of a few odd commercial flights. You are saying we should stop flying because of the unscientific wording of a single military report!

I am not saying that because you can't see it, it is safe. What I am saying is that without proper research, which is doable, we might just as well all give up and go home now. The "safe" solution is not to fly at all. The gungho solution is to say we can't see anything, or well, it's a bit grey, but hey, it's okay. Probably. The scientific solution, the sapient solution, is to properly analyse and manage the risk. It is only in the last 24 hours that Europe has come close to doing that, but even then as far as I can tell, it's not based on proper research, but on setting aside former assumptions about risk.

Young Paul
check page 10 of the NASA report, there are 2 graphs, one for SO2 concentration, airborne Fourier transform infrared spectrometer , one for Aerosol data; airborne Langley condensation nuclei counter, 12 nm–1 micron.

So, the KLM flew at 40,000', above the ash cloud, so their only exposure was in the climb and descent. BA spent a total of 2h45min airborne instaed of their planned 4h, and spent it at varying levels, so only a matter of minutes at the intermediate altitudes that have the highest risk. That invalidates their "tests".

No-one on here supports the apparent lack of investigation into the problem, and no-one wants the restrictions to last longer than needed. However, the continuing view from some that no engine failures means it is safe to resume normal ops is astonishing - given that the company test flights were a con trick, and that numerous military engines have been wrecked, it points to a complete cowboy attitude. Anyone supporting an immediate return to flying should have their licence permanently revoked - you're wanting to play Russian Roulette with hundreds of lives.

The simple fact is that there is not enough data to make an objective assessment whether it is safe or unsafe, and it is that research that is needed, not a resumption to ops because patience has worn out or economics are deemed more important.

Insurance companies do not have to provide cover. They asses the risk and provide cover with an automatic 10% profit. Engine and aircraft manufactures state that no volcanic dust is acceptable, so as standard no insurance company will cover flying through dust.

So its not so much a veto as an aircraft is uninsurable until its been completely inspected and repaired - probably after EVERY flight. And its not just the engines, volcanic dust screws electronics as well.

Insurance companies cannot blame authorities for opening or closing the airspace, its the airlines who would be ignoring the manufactures guidelines and the airlines a who will bear the cost if they deliberately ignored them.

BA have gone quiet
 

Interesting after BA made a lot of noise about the lack of ANY effects of the flights through the ash they've grounded their fleet, probably a good reason:confused:

On plane finder this morning Amsterdam is very busy with aircraft. So is northern France and traffic is transiting the French side of the channel at altitudes down to 20,000ft.

These areas are right in the red zone according to the latest Vaac maps, ash down to surface level. So why are these aircraft not falling out of the sky? Could it be that someone has made a huge mistake, just because "that's what the book said"?

Someone needs to have their balls felt for this, and not in a good way.

Hi,

BBC News - European airports start to reopen for flights

there is no timer on this volcano :)

INTEL101: Where you live (Charlotte NC it says here), do they trade off safety against financial considerations? If so, commiserations. We don't do that in Europe.

What I find curious is that not one of the many that have flown through "the zone" seem to have published borescope results, or oil spectronalysis results, both of which are eminently do-able.
Will the CAA require aircraft that have traversed the suspect zone perform hidden damage checks as they would, for instance, in a heavy landing incident?
What are the implications of unnoticed/unreported encounters, and the IFSD rate especially for ETOPS?

Jonty

...long term mate, think long term!

All these comments about aircraft not falling out of the sky, do none of you consider the long term prospects, just becuase it is not having an effect today does not mean that long term exposure will not have effects in weeks/months.

BASED ON THE VAAC ADVISORY TIMED 0000Z APRIL 20TH THE SCOTTISH
FIR/UIR OUTSIDE OF THE CONTAMINATED AREA WILL OPEN AT 0600Z APRIL
20TH. THE LONDON FIR/UIR REMAINS ZERO RATED BELOW FL200 UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE.

So thats why you can see panes above FL200 over England.

GA taking advantage of this situation?
 

As we all know, contrary to what they say on the news, the airspace isn't 'closed'. Just that IFR clearances aren't being given in affected areas.

As it's VMC pretty well all over Europe I would imagine the Air Taxi operators and Biz jets that aren't stuck on the ground in Class A airspace should be doing good business. But I'm not hearing that is the case. Why is that?

Given that using the ash cloud overlay on the radarvituel picture on what basis has the rest of Europe allowed flying to continue. Is the ash density much less (all the way across the N sea!)?

French airspace
 

An ATR42 equipped with special probes took off on Monday from Toulouse-Francazal towards Montpellier to take air samples.
More flights scheduled on Tuesday further north.
A second aircraft, a Falcon 20 is due to conduct more tests.
Aircraft equipped by SAFIRE and the CNRS ( FRench national research and science center)
Reacting to national critics, according to scientists, such experiments usually take 6 months preparation and quote:
"We are not a quick response team, usually such experiments are prepared 6 months in advance".

We might know what 's up there ! ( finally...):confused:

Of the over 100 historical ash encounters only 8 involved immediate engine malfunctions. Just 8%! and that involved some pretty heavy ash.
Statistically there are not going to be that many aircraft "dropping like flies".
On the other hand there seems to be some evidence that hot section deterioration can be the result of "invisible" dust. Therein lies the proverbial rub. The implication is that there might be some compromised turbines that could fail catastrophically at a later date,100 hrs, 500 hrs, who knows?

1989 KLM sudden silence over Alaska
 

Breezy DC quotes the KLM encounter with ash in 1989 near Anchorage.

On entering cloud, ash/smoke entered cabin. Crew used MAXIMUM POWER TO CLIMB. One minute later all engines lost power.

Boeing recommends DESCENDING 180 degree turn, as maximum power climb seems to provoke failure.....

Do you not consider how an aircraft engine is maintained ?

routine oil analysis..
routine borescope inspections..
LLP limits..
hot section intervals..
engine trend monitoring...
egt reports..

etc etc

With 20 or so volcanoes active at any one time, ash clouds like this must occur all round the world especially in the area of the ring of fire. Yet in all my years flying round the world I have never seen such an over reaction. I am all for safety first but I can't help thinking this is becoming a face saving exercise by those who have made this incredible decision to close the airspace.

What I really don't understand is why manufacturers and those who are making the decisions are not pouring money and time in to getting some solid scientific data on the effect of this type of ash on the aircraft. Get some test aircraft up there instead of leaving it to the airlines.

The long term impact on the economy is going to be huge if this goes on much longer and not just for the airlines! Time the Governments got of their arses and started to get some facts instead of relying on poor science, nobody knows how this cloud will effect aircraft it appears.

They keep trotting out the same stories including the BA flight that hit the plume of a volcano some years ago but fail to mention the ash cloud they flew into was very close to the volcano and the ash was altogether different and more dense.

So my message to those in charge is get your fingers out and go get some facts instead of speculation based on poor science or worse no science. :mad:

Latest from NATS
 

Statement on Icelandic volcanic eruption: Tuesday April 20, 0900

The situation regarding the volcanic eruption in Iceland remains dynamic and the latest information from the Met Office shows that the situation today will continue to be variable.
Based on the latest Met Office information, part of Scottish airspace including Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh airports will continue to be available from 1300-1900 today, and also south to Newcastle Airport. Restrictions will remain in place over the rest of UK airspace below 20,000ft.
Overnight the CAA, in line with new guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) decided flights above the ash cloud will be permitted in the UK; between 1300-1900 this will enable aircraft movements above 20,000ft in UK airspace.
We will continue to monitor Met Office information and the situation is likely to change during the course of the day. We will make a further statement at approximately 1500.
NATS is maintaining close dialogue with the Met Office and with the UK's safety regulator, the CAA, in respect of the international civil aviation policy we follow in applying restrictions to use of airspace.
We are working closely with Government, airports and airlines, and airframe and aero engine manufacturers to get a better understanding of the effects of the ash cloud and to seek solutions.