Slashdot Mirror
EU Conducts Test Flights To Assess Impact of Volcanic Ash On Aircraft
chrb writes "As we discussed on Friday, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland has led to flights being canceled across the EU. With travel chaos ensuing and the airlines losing an estimated $200 million per day, EU authorities are coming under increasing pressure to re-open the airways. Test flights conducted on Saturday were apparently successful, with no problems encountered during flight. Following the test flights, Peter Hartman, CEO of KLM, said, 'We hope to receive permission as soon as possible after that to start up our operation and to transport our passengers to their destinations.' Evidence possibly opposing this move comes from the Finnish Defense Forces, which released photos and a statement after F-18 Hornets flew through the ash cloud, saying, 'Based on the pictures, it was discovered that even short flights in ash dust may cause significant damage to an airplane's engine.' Is it safe to resume flights so soon, or should planes remain grounded until the ash cloud has dissipated?"
Tell that to the passengers of British Airways Flight 9!
So we can choose between the findings of a massive corporation intent on re-establishing its cashflow as soon as possible or a military entity performing a post-mortem on its equipment which sustained damage just prior to flight restrictions.
You decide!
Yes, it sucks. To the tune of hundreds of millions of $$ per day. But this stuff can and will kill an engine. I wouldn't want to depend on a lucky restart.
Of course, if this goes on much longer, as it has in the past, we will run into serious problems.
I am waiting for the impatient to risk their lives to prove to the rest of us why better safe than sorry is much safer than being dead.
Take a boat.
How do you do those 'real tests' without running expensive aircraft through the target airspace? Although clearly we have had some experience with volcanic ash, from what I've read there is a real dearth of information. I imagine (although it really hasn't shown up in the news) that various smart and inventive persons are trying to run through ideas to sort this out.
Remember, the real issue is what is going on between 10000 and 30000 feet. Hard to walk there and sample some air. Modified radiosonde balloons? Giant kites? Let's work this out guys.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So based on a few low altitude flights they want to reestablish about 20k flights / day? It's excellent that 5-10 testflights could manage in low altitude, however if only 0.1% flights drops out of the skies, that is still 20 flights downed per day. You don't establish safety based on limited tests.
Sure it's possible that the computer models establishing the extent of the dust cloud are conservative towards safety, however isn't that what you would expect no matter how much it costs the airlines? The Finnish incident clearly shows it's not safe, at this point I'm not even sure I'd trust the airlines to disclose whether they suffered damage in their test flights.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
There is a slight chance that ONE of those might be affected at high altitude.
OK, Sparky. You go first.
Consider this is one weenie little volcano (albeit poorly placed). No wonder dinosaurs didn't invent air travel.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
As an ATPL pilot, any idiot who flies into the dense components of the ash cloud will get absolutely no sympathy from me when they suffer from multiple system failures. Important to note though, the article doesn't mention the density of the ash cloud they flew through. Also, I highly doubt they'll readjust the maintenance cycles of the parts to cater for the increase in wear and tear, so even if the aircraft does not have a problem immediately I'd place bets that parts will fail prematurely in the future.
and it is interesting how the skies are clear of contrails, and also the lack of periodic flights from the local airport, the landing path for which is *directly* overhead at an altitude of a few hundred metres. This includes turboprop aircraft like the Dash jobbies being grounded.
Of course everyone is talking about stranded passengers, nobody is talking about stranded air mail and stranded cargo.
It is interesting to me just how dependent we (and we in Europe are a lot less dependent on flights than USAians) have become on the jet aircraft, and how useless people have become, they just sit in the airports expecting some one else to get them to their destination...
ferries, channel tunnel, trains, automobiles, nope, just won't do... I have driven from London to Athens in less time than many of these people have been sat in airports wringing their hands... I also suspect that it may be CHEAPER to hire a car and drive back home, than to attempt to live in an airport for a week.
interestingly, lots of travel insurance companies are simply shrugging their shoulders when people try to make claims over this, sorry, act of god, not covered by insurance.
BTW, back in the day, we used to hear the sonic boom from Concorde, I have heard some talk that while a 747 cruises at 39,000 feet, Concorde's ceiling of 60,000 feet meant that it could have flown OVER these dust clouds...
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Sending multiple 50M aircraft into ash clouds to prove what we already knew: that even a brief encounter with volcanic ash will fuck your turbines up but good. And your surfaces. And your Plexiglass. And your ventilation system. And and and...
Nobody seems to be talking about the effect that this volcano will have of the weather. Previous large eruptions have caused mini ice ages.
That animation isn't based on a measurement though, it's based on a computer simulation with debatable accuracy (whose initial conditions were based on some measurements, again with debatable accuracy).
I don't know if you know this, put giant props are often powered by turbines. Especially as they get to be more giant.
If you're going to lead off with snarky phrasing like that, you need to be correct. Not partially correct, 100% I-can-talk-like-a-prick-because-I-have-every-possibility-covered correct. You missed that threshold.
Actually the glassy ash will melt in the jet engine and quickly accumulate to the point where the engine stops working.
Note that the ash is also acidic. When you get to clearing it off, bear that in mind.
Attempting to brush it off will be fairly damaging. Washing it off with water could be a problem too. Best bet is probably very large quantities of water to dilute anything faster than it can cause damage.
(This is a problem all the airlines will also be considering.)
Um, no. Most commercial props are powered by Turboprop engines. These are still jet engines, they have just been modified to provide shaft horsepower instead of thrust. They are still affected by ash just like turbofan engines are.