Charismatic

Now KLM (and others) have concluded that, after flying a plane around in 'cano ash unharmed, the aviation authorities where wrong.

Egg on someones face over this, should have run some tests rather than making assumptions then waiting for an airline to say "No look, we proved you wrong!". May be some legal action over this fiasco especially now airlines have realised that it isn't an issue, yet the aviation authorities are still going "Errrrrrr...ummmmmm...lets wait and see".

irish_eyes

OMG - I'm not sure i can take anymore of this!!! My mother is due to fly out from Ireland friday 30th of April and i'm beginning to think that it may not happen now!! I need a big glass of wine!

Charismatic

You could send an e-mail to Iceland asking them to turn the ‘cano off or you won’t buy any more Björk CDs or download her from iToons.

Alas it appears politicians have decided to meet and discuss options, it doesn’t look hopeful for a swift return to business as usual . FFS get the Air Force/Rolls Royce/EADS/BAe to run a few tests and see if it’s going to be a problem, could be flying within days just by asking people who actually know about flying and building Aircraft.

simonsi

There are corrosive chemicals in volcano clouds as well as the abrasive dust threat, it isn't quite as straightforward as "see, it got there, it must be safe"...

Charismatic

Airlines seem to feel it’s worth the risk that their aircraft might need more regular servicing and possibly an increased wear rate. Run some test flights, document any peculiarities afterwards and then ask the aerospace engineers if it’s safe to operate.

mcuddy1

There have been air crashes that have been attributed to volcanic dust before, just imagine one accident would result in many legal issues and possible criminal charges.

Is it worth the risk?

Charismatic

That is a question for the Airlines themselves and their insurers. Airlines take all sorts of risks that they don’t have to (after all if they never flew aircraft they’d never crash) but they take those risks because they believe them to be measurable and small. If insurance companies are willing to back airlines on this and the airlines themselves are willing to risk assets then I’ve got to believe it’s pretty safe to fly. One Ukrainian airline has announced they will resume international flights (one assumes outside controlled European airspace) on Sunday.

There is always risk, manage it .

JohnThePom

I'm not sure I would trust an industry that is losing 56 million NZ dollars a day in the UK to be putting my safety interests at the top of their agenda...

...and believe me, as a nervous flyer that's exactly where I need them to be.


Manage the risk sure - but at what point do the bucks become part of the equation??

simonsi

There probably isn't enough data on the medium and long term corrosion impact of flying through itself an immeasurable amount of sulphurous gas, remember many current crashes and incidents are caused by unexpected or unallowed-for corrosion and/or fatigue, and where you mix the two you end up with unexpected results, ie if a stressed part corrodes AND is subject to fatigue cycling (wings anyone), then you could hugely shorten the lifespan of the aircraft - with potentially fatal results.

No flight test and a look-see afterwards is going to show such corrosion, nor by all accounts were ANY of the airline test flights carrying instrumentation to measure what levels of cantamination the flew through. That ads up to a risk that hasn't been measured.

Be under no doubts, the airlines want two things, they want to start flying and they want someone else to tell them it is safe to do so...or at least to say it isn't unsafe to fly...

Oh and the BA and Singapore airlines flights that went through the cloud then didn't suffer an increased wear rate, they were nearly brought down...

Several reports today on two seperate incidents of military jets over Europe suffering engine damage from the cloud...

jennifer45

I think we're talking about human lives here.
Would you risk a 12+ hour flight after flying through volcanic ash?
The abrasive ash can sandblast a jet's windshield, block fuel nozzles, contaminate the oil system and electronics and plug the tubes that sense airspeed. But the most immediate danger is to the engines.
Jet engines are like giant vacuum cleaners. If they're in a volcanic ash cloud, they're just sucking in all that ash and that damages the engines,
The most immediate hazard occurs after ash melts or vaporizes in the extreme heat of the engine's combustion chamber.
The melted ash can then congeal on the blades of the engine's turbine like spray paint. The deposits can block the normal flow of air through the engine, causing engines to lose thrust or shut down.

As for Ukranian airlines- well I have no figures on their safety records or what long-haul flights they operate.

simonsi

Ford Pinto anyone?

Setting aside a sufficiently large (or not as the case may be), insurance fund does not equate to a sensible attitude to risk when peoples lives are at risk.

For a previous scenario when that risk isn't understood - remember how the Lloyds syndicates were brought to their knees by a sudden increase in US law enforcement cover claims?

Flower Pot

Wow, you know your stuff, and its scary stuff!

Puts it into perspective, we are all moaning we want the flights back on but with those risks I'd much rather delay a few weeks

Charismatic

Well there is another side to this balance if we are going to weigh lives against risks.

Lets say that the average person lives 77 years (around 28,000 days, thank you wiki), then there is one small airline (Monarch Airlines) that currently has 66,000 passengers waiting departure (thank you BBC news). Now lets be very conservative and say that the total number of passengers affected is only 10 times this number 660,000 people in total.

If you divide the 660,000 days lost while people wait every additional day by the 28,000 day lifespan you realise that you are expending lives at a rate of approximately 24 per day as they wait. A typical medium sized aircraft like the Boeing 737-300 has 137 seats (thank you wiki). As long as you crash less than one 737-300 per 6 days you are actually saving lives. It didn’t take me long to realise that even a conservative estimate of the lost earnings of those waiting could also easily justify the financial expense of crashing a few aircraft per week as well.

We should never let fear cloud our rational judgement or stop us from weighing our options. Good news however, even some politicians have neurons left: The Dutch Transport Minister, Camiel Eurlings, says "Europe's response to the ash cloud has been too severe."

simonsi

LOL! Ermm utter tripe The aircraft crash losses are completely additional to the routine lives expended by just living (whatever that risk/rate is) as the population that doesn't fly doesn't have that risk or outcome (except if the aircraft crash on them but that is truly statistically insignificant)....unless you think that air travel = suspended animation (I wish! )

We are however currently expending additional lives by not flying as, on the whole, those air trips will be replaced by different forms of travel, almost all of which will carry a greater risk of death than the air travel (excepting the risk of air travel through volcanic ash clouds), so on the whole, more people will die travelling on those journeys.

Ask any politician whether they think public opinion is driven by the financial expense of crashing aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, in war and other circumstances you have to be willing to take losses to achieve your goals. Civilian air travel is a bit different though...

As a society we should probably weigh the risk of air freight differently to passenger flight and be willing to accept a different risk level - and that is where the most economic damage is being done (not to ignore the pain to those supplying the passenger air trade). On the whole the impact of passenger air travel (or lack of it), has been one of inconvenience, this isn't the same as an earthquake or tsunami...

Mgee

The Finnish pilots' union has criticized the airlines very heavily today for trying to start the flights too soon. The amount of ash in the air varies greatly, and thus just one flight that made it isn't sufficient proof that others would make it. They also remind that the commercial airplanes that did the test flights are not equipped with instruments that could give reliable scientific data about the conditions and that all test flights should be done by national authorities and with properly equipped (military) jets. The union also wants to remind the airlines that there is ample evidence of the hazards of the volcanic ash to air traffic and jet engines specifically. I'm inclined to take the pilots' views seriously because I think they know what they're preaching.

In my opinion, it's all about money and the airlines' viewpoints are obviously biased. The airlines are losing millions a day, and are thus eager to take risks at this stage. I personally will not fly or let any of my family to fly until an unbiased authority has declared that it's safe to fly -we're due to fly out to NZ in three weeks' time and time will tell whether it'll happen as planned.

There's a very good explanation about the effects of volcanic ash on planes on the BBC pages: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8621992.stm