So was the flying ban the right thing to do?

[Flibb]

I read someplace that BA 146 had been stripped for painting, but they fitted what kit could be moved to an alternative aircraft. There have been varilous data gatheing flights flown from Northern Europe, this isnt just closing down UK airspace.

[Steve]

He hasn't entirely shut up.

Some of the big airlines have started to make noises about "compensation" from government. For that, read "the taxpayer foots the bill for their losses". Cobblers to that.

O'Leary has commented on that. He said, and it's a bit of a paraphrase rather than an exact quote, that's he's "always nervous when airlines start talking about compensation, especially when they were making a loss before the volcano. It's about their losses, not the volcano."

I never thought I'd find myself saying it, but I'm inclined to agree with him.

If the airlines are so worried about being grounded then they should have been lobbying to make sure the procedures were appropriate (if they're not already) long before the problem arose.

They're making a loss... sod 'em; the government owes them nothing.

[kalniel]

I could be wrong here, but as I understand it the only real effects that they are aware of on a planes engines is when a plane has flown straight into a large cloud of ash (not the fine stuff we have atm).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...g3uXwD9F69HD00

[Saracen]

If the airlines are so worried about being grounded then they should have been lobbying to make sure the procedures were appropriate (if they're not already) long before the problem arose.

They're making a loss... sod 'em; the government owes them nothing.

Absolutely agreed .... unless the case really can be made that a lot that could have and should have been done wasn't because of government cock-up.

My opinions on the competence of our 'beloved leader' (Gordon Brown) aren't exactly a secret, but even I'm struggling to see how this could possibly be laid at his door. If nothing else, it'd have to be not just the UK government but a conspiracy of incompetence from numerous governments all around Europe, since they all said much the same and took much the same stance.

It looks to me like the airlines are after the type of deal the bankers got .... too important to fail. Nuts to that.

[kalniel]

My opinions on the competence of our 'beloved leader' (Gordon Brown) aren't exactly a secret, but even I'm struggling to see how this could possibly be laid at his door. If nothing else, it'd have to be not just the UK government but a conspiracy of incompetence from numerous governments all around Europe, since they all said much the same and took much the same stance.

*must resist comment about financial crisis...*

[jim]

At least as things stand, Gordon Brown might be incompetent with regard to the ban.

If he had let the flights continue, and a 747 came plunging out of the sky, I don't think there would be any maybes involved. Actually, the way some people talk, they'd probably want him up for murder charges.

[Stringent]

So with new eruptions happening now, is there going to be another ban?

[Saracen]

So with new eruptions happening now, is there going to be another ban?

There's more to it than eruptions, but I'd say the level of restriction might well go back up, yes. But it's as much about wind direction and weather patterns as it is about eruption levels.

As I understand it, the way it works is this :-

- the Met Office uses mathematical models to predict ash density in various areas
- data sampling (like test flights) and other methods are used to confirm those predictions.
- the Met Office supplies ash density levels to the CAA (and other European bodies)
- the CAA uses international standards to interpret risk from ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation)
- the ICAO guidelines are based engine manufacturer guidance on engine tolerance to volcanic ash
- current manufacturer guidance on ash tolerance is zero.

So .... engine manufacturers state engines can't tolerate ash. International safety standards are based on those tolerances. The CAA (and NATs) restricted flying based on available Met Office models of where ash is believed to be, which has been confirmed by such data gathering as has been done.

Presumably, therefore, any reimposition of a ban, or any reversing of lightening of restrictions will only happen if either :-

- tolerance guidelines change, or
- Met Office models show ash densities reducing, or
- data gathering casts serious doubt on those models.

The restrictions could be lifted, therefore, despite increased eruptions, if wind direction changed and the models and supporting data gathering suggest the ash will not be in UK airspace. Our problem seems to have been that the wind is shoving the ash in the general direction of the UK and northern Europe, and that a cyclonic weather system is keeping it here once it gets here.

If any factors change that either affect those predictions of density, up or down, or affect the risk perceived from them, then the restrictions will change.

All "as I understand it", of course.

[aeonf242]

Frankly damned if you do, damned if you don't.......I mean imagine people don't like to be told anything...
I/m now in my 5th extra day im Mumbai and would be happier alive and stuck than playing russian roulette...

[Kata]

What you need to realise is that this is not the only Volcano in the world. Other regions deal with this issue on a daily basis, and do so by re-routing aircraft away from the plume itself, and otherwise they get on with life as normal.

The reaction from Europe, because it is not used to it, has been far far more severe than in countries where they have some experience; I imagine the airlines didn't decide to lobby for changes earlier because:

a) It had never happened before in the history of jet travel (ash in Europe), so there were more important things to give their resources to.
b) In other regions when the same occurs, it is managed sensibly and life continues as normal; it was hard to forsee the massive uninformed panic of the people who are meant to be running things.

If the banks got huge payouts, I personally see no problem with the same for airlines; they are just as important for some of our daily lives.

[Perfectionist]

Personally, I'm disgusted by the airlines attitude. They seem to think that a test flight or two is grounds for removing the ban. Perhaps some of these executives would care to try sticking one live round in the chamber of a 6-shot revolver, pointing it at their heads and pulling the trigger. If you get away with wit once or twice, or twenty or thirty times, it doesn't mean it's a safe thing to do. It just means you've been lucky for far.

That's pretty much what the whole of mass-market commercial air flight is based upon tho. You're f/d if anything happens and they know it, despite the BS leaflet propaganda they give out on flights.

What it comes down to is people are happy to take the risk with their lives by going in a plane with a bunch of strangers flown by another stranger, without any precautions that would have any effect whatsoever. heh.

(such as, I don't know. PARACHUTES and a licence saying you are trained required to be a passenger? Oh no that would mean possibly less people flying than those that are safe to do so. The priority is getting as many human bodies crammed like sardines in the metal coffin as poss.)

[Terbinator]

What you need to realise is that this is not the only Volcano in the world. Other regions deal with this issue on a daily basis, and do so by re-routing aircraft away from the plume itself, and otherwise they get on with life as normal.

The reaction from Europe, because it is not used to it, has been far far more severe than in countries where they have some experience; I imagine the airlines didn't decide to lobby for changes earlier because:

a) It had never happened before in the history of jet travel (ash in Europe), so there were more important things to give their resources to.
b) In other regions when the same occurs, it is managed sensibly and life continues as normal; it was hard to forsee the massive uninformed panic of the people who are meant to be running things.

If the banks got huge payouts, I personally see no problem with the same for airlines; they are just as important for some of our daily lives.

Unless I'm missing something - the problem lies with the fact people need to get back here where the plume happens to be.

[Georgy291]

as a avionics student, fully justified.....

looking at the picks off that F16, man i dont want to be in a plane right now. And as regarding test flights, how long didnt they stay in the air for? compared to the expected flight time off the route? and also when they fly a certain route they are moving. where as circling the same spot for hours proves nothing for me.

[Kata]

Unless I'm missing something - the problem lies with the fact people need to get back here where the plume happens to be.

The concentrated plume (ie the visible, billowing ash from the volcano) is very different to concentrations of ash 1000 miles downwind that are so diluted they can't be seen.

Flight operations are resuming over most of Europe; and amazingly, noone has yet plummeted to their doom.

[geniusanyi]

yes，flying ban is right from GOV.

[peterb]

What you need to realise is that this is not the only Volcano in the world. Other regions deal with this issue on a daily basis, and do so by re-routing aircraft away from the plume itself, and otherwise they get on with life as normal.

Part of the problem (if I understood the news correctly) was the type of debris. The volcano was pouring ,molten lava into a glacier, so it 'explosively froze' creating very fine (and abrasive) particles of rock and metal oxides, including silicates and aluminium oxides. That coupled with prevailing woind conditions meant that it affected UK and Northern Europe. In other parts of the world the composition of the debris may be different and the plume may disperse more quickly. (presumably if it had been raining, the debris would be washed out of the atmosphere more quickly.

The reaction from Europe, because it is not used to it, has been far far more severe than in countries where they have some experience; I imagine the airlines didn't decide to lobby for changes earlier because:

a) It had never happened before in the history of jet travel (ash in Europe), so there were more important things to give their resources to.
b) In other regions when the same occurs, it is managed sensibly and life continues as normal; it was hard to forsee the massive uninformed panic of the people who are meant to be running things.

I think massive panic is an overstatement. Those that had the power to impose the no-fly ban were presented with the appropriate evidence and they took the safe course. Whether the ban should have continued after a more careful assessment of that evidence is another matter. One thing not mentioned is the long term effect on engines. If the aircraft are flown through a cloud of abrasive material, will that affect the longer term reliability of the engines, and could they fail prematurely outside the normal servicing interval? I don't think that has been addressed.

If the banks got huge payouts, I personally see no problem with the same for airlines; they are just as important for some of our daily lives.

Hmm - but the ICAO could lift the ban, but then would Insurance companies start declining cover to airlines (and passengers) who flew while the debris was in the atmosphere - and would the airlines expect compensation from the insurance companies?

And the airlines' operating costs are lower while the aircraft are not flying. True, they still have fixed costs.

Perhaps they should look to diversifying into video conferencing though, as I'm sure VC service providers are rubbing their hands with glee!