So was the flying ban the right thing to do?

[Saracen]

There seems to be an argument developing about whether the ban was sensible safety precaution, or a hugely expensive and highly inconvenient knee-jerk reaction.

Needless to say, the airlines that are losing money (and vast amounts of it) are starting to get the hump. They now seem to be saying that the risks were exaggerated, that they've conducted test flights with no problem and that the losses are huge and unaffordable. They also seem to be saying that it's all based on theoretical models and little hard data.

The authorities responsible for closing airspace seem to be saying that they go by models, backed up by such hard data as they have, of where the ash is supposed to be and by recommendations from engine manufacturers. I've seen it suggested that engine manufacturers take the stance they do because of they don't have (or can't get) insurance that covers volcanic ash damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ash would damage engines, or make then unsafe .... or that it wouldn't. If so, the assertion would seem to be that because nobody has done the research, the data doesn't exist so they can't get insurance, and as a result, Europe's flying is pretty much shut down.

The Met Office certainly seem dismissive of the airline's claims about test flights. They point out that the situation is fluid and constantly changing, that normal aircraft systems can't detect the ash (which is why they use specially equipped research planes) and that the cloud is not a humongous solid block, but a series of clouds, and in layers at different altitudes. The airlines, being unable to detect it, could have been flying where the ash isn't. The problem is, they can't avoid ash in commercial flights if they can't tell where it is.

Oh, and the pilot's association seem to be saying that pilots might or might not fly anyway, since the final decision on (and responsibility for) passenger safety lies with the senior pilot. And quite right too. But .... however professional and responsible pilots are, they aren't experts in volcanic ash damage, and they don't have laser vision to detect it where aircraft nav and weather radar can't. Or I don't think they do anyway.

So ... I don't want aircraft safety in such unusual conditions as this left to the individual judgement of pilots who, however professional and competent they are, aren't qualified to judge on this.


I know the airlines are losing a fortune and some are in financial trouble anyway. But the problem is we don't have adequate data, and we don't have huge resources for gathering it. There aren't many suitably equipped aircraft, there aren't many laser ground stations and satellite data, while comprehensive, isn't detailed enough to give accurate maps, according to reports.

So what can the authorities do?

If they believe there's a serious risk but can't be sure quite how big, or precisely where it exists (and it moves about anyway), are they supposed to allow flights and if one (or more) comes down and kills a few hundred people say "Oops. We thought it was a decent gamble"? They'd get crucified .... and so would their political masters, and in our case, right in the middle of an election campaign.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that however expensive this gets for airlines, it needs to be safety first, second, third and always. Especially given the recorded damage to Finnish F-18 jets and, according to reports of a senior NATO official, similar damage to some NATO F-16 fighters. It certainly seems the alleged damage risk isn't utterly theoretical.

So .... was the ban right?

Should it be lifted because of airline concerns or losses?

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.

And what they are now proposing seems to be tantamount to Russian Roulette with planes full of people as the stake, with the only difference being that they aren't sure if the round they put in the chamber is live or a dummy. Personally, despite the inconvenience, I'd rather have a horrible time trying to get back from wherever I was stranded than be killed in a crash because an airline executive was wrong about whether the bullet was live or dummy.

[Steve]

Well, there have in the past been incidents due to ash, such as a four-engined passenger jet losing all of its engines. It was able to purge the ash (at the time effectively molten glass) from the engines during gliding and continued restart attempts... but I doubt you'd consider that, erm, normal operating procedure. Of course back then I don't believe there was even a procedure for dealing with ash affected engines.

But I think erring on the side of caution was the right thing to do, provided sufficient ongoing testing is being carried out, and the procedures set out by other previously affected countries have been examined and where proven appropriate, applied.

[jim]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a very simple argument.

Eric Moody nearly lost control of his plane, killing hundreds of people, completely and utterly as a consequence of an ash cloud. Whilst that report could be wrong, it was the conclusion made after the incident and therefore must be treated as fact until/unless it's proven wrong.

It's quite clear that the airlines are losing money, and they have a vested interest in ending the ban as soon as possible. I can't believe that financial incentives are overriding the history here, when they were well aware of what happened on that flight and what the situation is now.

It's a bit like when you're a kid, and your mum says you aren't allowed to play on the road. Insisting that it's fine, you decide to prove it and go and do kick-ups in the middle of the street. You might not get hit by a car, and you might think you're being clever by proving her wrong, but everybody else looking at you just thinks you're an idiot, knowing that sooner or later you'll find out why.

[Saracen]

If the reports I heard of that incident (a Jakarta flight?) were correct, Steve, a jumbo lost all four engines and dropped from about 30,000 feet to about 5,000 feet before the crew managed to get engines restarted. I think that qualifies as a definitive brown-trouser moment for all concerned. I know most flights are boring, but personally, I can do without that level of excitement. I'd rather limit my excitement to trying a different brand of pre-flight Champagne.

[Saracen]

Pre-xactly, Jim.

[Lee H]

After seeing the images of the damage caused by the ash to the Finnish F-16 engines last night I actually think the ban was a good idea overall.

[Kata]

The problem with the Eric Moody incident as a reference point is that he flew directly into a thick volcanic plume; think the visible, billowing clouds rather than invisible haze.

The initial closure, in line with ICAO rules, I think was justified; however, the delay in gethering proper data was criminally incompetent. The second that a problem became apparent, the instrumented aircraft should have been up and flying 24/7; in reality, the number of half-hearted research flights can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

So, the initial ban was justified; the huge delay from our useless authorities in actually doing anything about it was extremely negligent.

[Steve]

I agree with Kata here; even if the data they should be collecting doesn't make the present issues go away any quicker, it is at the very least an opportunity to learn as much as we can to assist in improving procedures and policy.

If the reports I heard of that incident (a Jakarta flight?) were correct, Steve, a jumbo lost all four engines and dropped from about 30,000 feet to about 5,000 feet before the crew managed to get engines restarted. I think that qualifies as a definitive brown-trouser moment for all concerned. I know most flights are boring, but personally, I can do without that level of excitement. I'd rather limit my excitement to trying a different brand of pre-flight Champagne.

Yes, I think I'd pap it even if I took that one on in flight sim.

[Terbinator]

It's been quite strange not seeing/hearing any planes up above though.

[GheeTsar]

Imagine if the airspace was opened and ash did cause a fatal air accident - there would be huge uproar that gov.s should have not opened the airspace. It was the right call in my mind.

[TheAnimus]

the huge delay from our useless authorities in actually doing anything about it was extremely negligent.

Indeed, this is why I don't like the poll, there are only two options and neither of them I agree with.

I wish that was the only time I was thinking about voting in a situation like that.

[Saracen]

Indeed, this is why I don't like the poll, there are only two options and neither of them I agree with.

I wish that was the only time I was thinking about voting in a situation like that.

I thought about that, but at the time the ban was imposed, they only had two options .... impose it or don't impose it.

Whatever information they had is what they had.

Whether it should have been lifted earlier, or whether they reacted fast enough or could have done other things are all entirely valid questions, but just not the one I'm asking here.

If you've got another sensible option for the poll that addresses the question I'm getting at, which is what to do at the moment the ban was imposed, feel free to suggest it. I don't like modifying polls after they've started because of those that have already voted, but as it's only just started, if I agree with another option, I'll add it.

[Baggio18]

The flying ban made perfect sense to me, as others have said, err on the side of caution, planes dropping out of the sky due to dead engines does not help the authorities, government nor the safety of the aviation industry any good.
Others have said that the government/agencies were slow to react, true, would agree. But would acting a day or two mean the skies are open one day or two earlier? Not sure, I feel this type of research needs to be conducted over a long term - so in a way, the aviation industry is to blame as plume/volcanic ash is not exactly a new phenomenon, volcanoes elsewhere blow their top every now and then. Now, surely they must have foreseen this possibility of ash and the "right" direction of wind blowing it all into their flight routes?

Can understand why the airlines want to fly again as this ban is hitting their bottom line, but, what about maintenance and insurance? Are they going to take the engines apart and inspect bit by bit after every single flight for degradation or blockages? Are parts to be replaced if the smallest sign of damage is found, then what of the cost implications? If the engine manufacturers can't say what is safe to fly with, can maintenance mechanics?
Will low cost carriers do this? Doubt it, hence I am not surprised Michael O'Leary has shut up for once.

[Saracen]

Oh, and on speed of reaction, according to Newsnight's Science Editor (last night) the Met Office's normal research plane (a BA 146) has been undergoing maintenance and hopefully will be in the air today. It seems like a long time for maintenance, but who knows, it could have had engines out or been awaiting parts. The Dornier prop-plane seems to have been some kind of backup. But surely, the British Met Office can't be the only national agency with this type of capability, can it? What about the Germans or French? The Scandinavian countries? Maybe something could have been borrowed from the Americans who, surely, have this type of resource. Or the Russians?

Right now, on the speed of reaction, I think we have more questions than answers.

[Saracen]

...

Can understand why the airlines want to fly again as this ban is hitting their bottom line, but, what about maintenance and insurance? Are they going to take the engines apart and inspect bit by bit after every single flight for degradation or blockages? Are parts to be replaced if the smallest sign of damage is found, then what of the cost implications? If the engine manufacturers can't say what is safe to fly with, can maintenance mechanics?
Will low cost carriers do this? Doubt it, hence I am not surprised Michael O'Leary has shut up for once.

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.

[Flash477]

I think it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you were the person who had to make the call, would you be willing to possibly have thousands of deaths on your hands if you were wrong? I know I wouldn't.

I do think that the initial grounding was a good idea, but I'm not sure that it still has to continue. The trouble is that there is one plane in this country properly equiped to detect this ash, and it is currently in bits, so they are having to use the next best thing they have.

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). You would have thought that if anything that they should be doing a load of test flights to find out what the effects are, so they know for the future. I mean how often is it they get the chance to find out?