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?"
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!
...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...
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.
This links leads to a page with a video of an ambulance helicopter that was coated in a fine layer of ash in Norway today. It flew during a small windows of opportunity where the air cleared to pick up a patient in Sweden. The link is in Norwegian, but the video is, obviously, visual.
The interesting part is at ~00:30 where he shows of the ash (requires Flash): http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/04/18/nyheter/innenriks/aske/vulkan/flyforbud/11335687/
Makes me think that a large passenger jet flying long routes and sucking in a whole load of air on the trip might be at risk of engine failure as they say.
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.
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
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.
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.
The ash allegedly contains shards of glass, and I can see how this would cause serious problems for turbines... but I think it's obvious that just like any other phenomena of weather, the ash will be non-uniform. It makes perfect sense that one test would have completely different results from another. Thus, broadly-based testing would be necessary to derive any useful result...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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!
There is a slight chance that ONE of those might be affected at high altitude.
OK, Sparky. You go first.
That's what Mr. Hartman, the CEO of KLM just did.
Yes and those were at least back then mostly powered by ICE, which would have had air filters (even if just a bit of cloth) and don't depend on fragile, fine turbine blades cranking at 10K rpm; but instead had relatively robust pistons of steel and iron. Dust will harm and ICE but it causes premature ware one pistons, rings, liners, values, guides, and any thing else being lubes from a common oil sump where dust might get into the oil (also filtered during operation). A Jet is a little or turbo prop is a little different beast then the that old barn storming Jenny.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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
...and also risk the life of innocent bystanders on the ground? You know, if you throw up a few tonnes of metal and plastic, it'll come down eventually and potentially kill people when it lands on their heads.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
No, no, this is not the end times you have been reading about. This is the DAWN of a new age of travel! A GLORIOUS adventure on the high seas! See the world ANEW! Why measure your transatlantic travel in hours when it can be measured in DAYs or even WEEKS? Relive a bygone era when it was the JOURNEY that mattered most, not the destination. After a lazy brunch, take a mid-morning stroll on the upper deck in your best pinstripes, while your lady swings her parasol without a care in the world. Dine on the finest cuts of meat, drink the finest wines! Try your luck at the baccarat tables! End your evening with a stout cigar, staring blissfully toward the star filled night sky. It's the future!
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...
This is all a ploy by Apple to stop Europeans flying to the USA to buy iPads, after the worldwide launch was delayed!
Its not clear whether Jobs has actually placed iNukes in the Icelandic volcano to cause the eruption or if Apple have teamed up with the CIA, SPECTRE, THRUSH, SkyNet and the Milk Marketing Board to hack computers and exaggerate the threats!! Maybe that's not ash on the computer projections - its the famous Reality Distortion Field!!!
Expect the ban to persist until the end of May!!!!
Now I expect all the Apple fanbois will crawl out of the woodwork and start trying to deny the obvious truth, and I'll be modded down faster than an Airbus with both engines on fire. If Microsoft had done this everybody would be up in arms!!!!!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Flights disruptions caused by the ash cloud is only the *beginning*.
The volcanic ash is now attacking servers! Check the disclaimer here, to convince yourself of the problems we're now facing : http://www.ascii-codes.net/cp861.html
Nobody seems to be talking about the effect that this volcano will have of the weather. Previous large eruptions have caused mini ice ages.
Some Spanish airports are now open again. Madrid is open The ash cloud has moved north. But the volcano is still erupting, ejecting ash to a height of 4Km. The northwestern part of Europe is going to be grounded for a while.
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.
Actually the glassy ash will melt in the jet engine and quickly accumulate to the point where the engine stops working.
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 volcano whose name shall not be spoken. Or at least can not be spoken by anyone who does not speak Icelandic. It's amusing watching news readers avoiding naming the volcano. Perhaps it needs a friendlier name... anyone?
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. :)
There's a Finnish article saying that old Douglas DC-3 planes with desert filters (aavikkosuodatin) could fly in the ash cloud. There are two of them still operational in Finland and they could be used for emergency flights.
Here's the Finnish article: http://www.kauppalehti.fi/5/i/talous/uutiset/etusivu/uutinen.jsp?oid=2010/04/32610&sort=false :)
Here's a Google translation, which translates badly, title should be "DC-3 does ignore the ashes" instead of "DC-3 does not ignore the ashes"
Douglas DC-3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3
Thanks to your comment I read the Wikipedia article in its entirety and the below excerpt is phenomenal:
Despite the lack of time, [Captain Eric] Moody made an announcement to the passengers that has been described as "a masterpiece of understatement":
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control. I trust you are not in too much distress.