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?