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?"
...of the tests because the conditions these tests will have to deal with vary from amount of dust, to concentration,composition (chemically) and type of equipment to be used.
To make matters even more interesting, the impact of this dust on an aircraft engine also depends on what the load is on the particular engine, not to mention type and condition.
To me, I see the results as those that will be of no consequence.
I think that 'Better safe than sorry' is a good way to handle this... however straight after closing the airspace there should have been real tests going on how much ash there actually is. The warnings given by the Volcanic observation center are just based on simulations and there is no middle way between 'ash' and 'no ash' currently.
I totally understand that the airlines are starting to complain - even more when they have to _prove_ themselves that there is no problem with low concentrations.
There hasn't been any weatherballoons or similar testing by the governments right after closing the airspace.
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
The question here is - how long will the eruption and the ash cloud last? Judging from historical records, it's not uncommon for eruptions to last decades. If - then what? New routes? Limit cross-atlantic flights endpoints to southern Spain or something?
-- Sig down
Several countries have grounded low level jets, prop planes, piston powered helicopters, gliders, paragliders and balloons.
There is a slight chance that ONE of those might be affected at high altitude. All the rest are just collateral damage. Note that Sweden have only prohibited turbines from flying, so glider pilots from Norway and Denmark are crossing the border to get to fly again - and lo and behold homeopathic quantities of vulcanic ash does nothing!
Prop planes have started from dry grass fields since the infancy of flying, and still do so today. There is far more sand and dust there, than what we have seen from this volcano. This is pure "think of the children"-madness.
I wonder if something that makes this volcano different than all other volcanoes is that it's erupting at a time when almost all translatlantic flying is done on two-engine planes. To get long-range over-water certification (ETOPS), the manufacturers and maintenance organizations go to great lengths to ensure that there is no common threat to the two engines. The engines are serviced separately by independent crews, fueled separately, and so on. Flying into an ash cloud, though, even if the threat is small, it is certainly a common threat to both engines at the same time.
I was looking for flights to Europe recently, and couldn't find a single 747 or A340 -- it was all 767, 777, or A330. I know 747s fly those routes, but they are a small minority now.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I don't know enough about the extent of the ash cloud to make a decision about this. In fact, I suspect no one knows much about it and that's the crux of the dilemma. I do know that when Mt. St. Helens erupted the area where I live was seriously impacted by the ash and many vehicles were severely damaged. Of course, this area was only 150 miles east of the volcano and the ash cloud was dense enough to block out the sun. The ash cloud over Europe is likely to be much less dense. I have been an airplane and glider pilot since 1970 and I, personally, would not want to risk flying until I understood more about the risk.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
British Airways Flight 9.
...a massive corporation intent on re-establishing its cashflow ...
I don't know if you know this, but big corporations don't get to be big corporations by spending more money in repairs than they receive in receipts. In other words, if the big corporations are clamoring to get back in the skies in the middle of a volcano after verifying the safety of the passengers, you know damage to equipment is going to be less than the receipts they'll get from flights.
In other words, as long as the safety of the passengers is maintained, who the hell cares if they fly? If you're concerned about flying through an ash cloud and don't want to "risk it" (even though there is likely little or no actual risk to you), then don't buy the damn ticket and don't get on the damn plane.
Isn't it just amazing how that works?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
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.
I know a few people that are stuck across the Atlantic from their homes, that really has to stink. A bunch of them had to go on business trips (separate locations) and are now stuck.
I guess there's always the ship / cruise option but I imagine those tend to be a tad more expensive than a company would want to pay for. Especially when they can go to another work-site and use their network to do some of their tasks.
I've taken the train around, even though co-workers prefer to fly. They claim "well the flight's only an hour..." Yeh, but between security and delays you're only really saving an hour over the train. Heck, splurge on 1st class and it's about the same price and quite a pleasant experience to ride the rails for a few hours.
Nobody seems to be talking about the effect that this volcano will have of the weather. Previous large eruptions have caused mini ice ages.
BoingBoing brought it up. They say it's too early to be certain, but so far, the latitude of the eruption seems to be high enough that the ash isn't going to block enough solar radiation to cause any noticeable impact. They point out how eruptions at high latitudes, even huge ones like Mt. St. Helens, have very little impact on climate, whereas smaller ones at low latitudes have a much larger one.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Too right, AC! As I flew from Vienna to Nuremberg via Munich just over a week ago, I was thinking the same thing. Much smoother and more comfortable way to travel, and quick enough that shorter trips like that are still within a reasonable time frame.
I don't therefore I'm not.
On the other hand the lack of aircraft contrails after 9/11 was said to result in a marked increase in temperature. It'll be interesting to see if climate modeling accurately predicts the outcome on the next couple of years of weather.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
If you're concerned about flying through an ash cloud and don't want to "risk it" (even though there is likely little or no actual risk to you), then don't buy the damn ticket and don't get on the damn plane.
Where have you been for the last 50 years of ever increasing liability lawsuits? Even if you could get all of the people on board to make a statement about acceptable risk then in the off chance of a crash the survivors would sue that the risks weren't actually made clear to them and the families of the dead would sue that they weren't willing to take the risk of losing that person. Personal responsibility = dream on. In light of this trend, I think if the airlines are willing to start the flights again then it's probably OK. KLM, BA, etc, These aren't some disount airlines in third world countries. They manage risk quite well.
There are still a few transatlantic liners. If you're stuck in Europe, the Queen Mary 2 sails from Southampton to New York in four days. There's already a waiting list, but it's quite possible that some people planning to take the trip as a cruise can't get to Southampton, and space may open up.
So they send up half a dozen flights without problems, but this doesn't prove anything. The ash is not evenly distributed; it appears to be in layers in the atmosphere. If you fly up or down through a layer the exposure is brief and you don't see a problem. But if ATC unknowingly tell an aircraft to fly at the same altitude as a layer of ash then you have a big problem. The bottom line is that a few flights prove nothing. If the risk to a single flight is 1% then you won't see anything, but when you restart aviation aircraft will be dropping out of the sky.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
The real worry is about idiot managers of incompetent airlines who want to gamble on this.
Sounds like Ural Airlines, which tried to fly from Moscow to Rome. They thought that they were being smart by flying below the ash cloud, but they forgot to consider the increased fuel consumption this would cause. While en-route they had to contact the Vienna air traffic controller to ask for an emergency landing, since there was almost no fuel left.
I'm just surprised they actually got their flight plan approved, since Austria (among others) had their entire airspace closed at the time. Or maybe they didn't file a flight plan, figuring they could fly by VFR. :)
Indeed, Sixty Symbols (the University of Nottingham's physics dept) did a nice YouTube video on the effect of volcanic ash on jet engines.
It will only kill an engine when sufficient amounts have built up to cause enough airflow disruption. Such an amount is easily observable after each flight. The engines can have maintenance done at the appropriate time. Presently large amounts of European airspace have very small concentrations of ash between certain latitudes. Jetliners can fly below this layer as well as above it at 38,000 feet. They can take off and if deemed necessary, fly several hundred miles under the layer to a thinner area, ascend through it, and cruise above it.
There has long been a theory that the upper atmosphere condensation caused by jets affects the temperature on the ground. If the ash cloud has only a small effect, the lack of contrails may cause a substantial heat increase over the next few weeks.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.