Slashdot Mirror


Was Flight Ban Over Ash an Overreaction?

HaymarketRiot writes "Richard Branson has claimed that the flight ban, due to the eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajokull, was an overreaction on the part of the authorities. Britain's government has even called for the airlines to be compensated. This does look like a perfect excuse for already greedy airlines to try and get more money ... any experts care to comment on the effect of volcanic ash on planes?"

20 of 673 comments (clear)

  1. From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by seebs · · Score: 5, Informative

    Basically, the jet's internals are hot enough to melt rock back into glass... So after a couple of passes through ash clouds, you have a thin layer of glass covering all the internal turbine blades. Which completely destroys the engine, and is extremely hard to repair without completely replacing the blades.

    So, basically, what I've been told is that, yes, flying a jet through a volcanic ash cloud is a good recipe for completely destroying the engines, such that they need to be rebuilt, within two or three passes through the ash. It sounds plausible, and I've not yet heard anyone who actually does aircraft maintenance or anything like that suggest that it's harmless.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's some uncertainty over the level of ash that poses a significant threat, though. What's known is that zero ash is fine, and a lot of ash causes significant damage, but not too much seems to be known about the concentration/response curve beyond that.

      Of course, it's also pretty clear that Branson is angling for a handout here, not really deeply interested in science or public policy. He has a pretty big self-interest in convincing people that the cause of the shutdown was government overreaction, in which case the government should compensate the airlines; rather than having people believe that the shutdown was a necessary reaction to the volcanic eruption.

    2. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by BagOBones · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly, I am not sure why past tragedies have not been mentioned by ANY of the officials or NEWS networks..

      I remember seeing something about this on Discovery or History channel years ago and a quick search pointed me to British Airways Flight 9 on Wikipedia, all four engines FAILED!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    3. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Funny

      closing down European airspace for a brief period was justified, keeping it closed for days was certainly an overreaction by burrowcrats who were too scared to take the risk of letting planes fly

      Yeah. If only they'd come out of their burrows into the sunlight once in a while, maybe they wouldn't be so scared.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    4. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Agree, and the argument is more fundamental than that.

      Federal Aviation Regulation 25.1309 relates to airworthiness standards for aircraft, and the fundamental aspect of this regulation is system safety. Excerpt below, with emphasis:

      (a)The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is required by this subchapter, must be designed to ensure that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable operating condition.
      (b) The airplane systems and associated components, considered separately and in relation to other systems, must be designed so that--
      (1) The occurrence of any failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane is extremely improbable, and
      [(2) The occurrence of any other failure condition which would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is improbable.

      Firstly, Aircraft are not designed to fly through clouds of corrosive silica ash.

      Secondly, 'Extremely improbable' is defined in the Advisory Circular (AC 25.1309) to that regulation, which requires chance of catastrophic loss to be less than "extremely improbable" or "1x10^-9" chance of total loss. Techniques such as Fault Tree Analysis are used to allocate reliability of systems to sub-systems, so the entire aircraft can be built from components with realistic reliabilities. However, the volcanic ash offers a 'common mode' failure across all engines including gas turbine Auxiliary Power Units.

      The regulators have an obligation to ensure the chance of total loss of an aircraft due to flying through an ash cloud remains 'extremely improbable', i.e 1x10^-9.

      Also, if the airlines lost an aircraft because they were allowed to go flying, and were being sued by the families of the victims, they'd be screaming blue murder at the regulators saying they didn't do enough to protect the airlines.

    5. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And to go along with your post, the British Airways flight was about 100 miles from the volcano, and all 4 engines started up again after they were out of the ash. One of them failed again, but they were able to make it safely to an airport on their own power rather than strictly gliding.

      After one of the longest glides in history in a regular aircraft, and landing instruments-only because the windshield was rendered almost opaque from the ash, and even then with half the instruments out of commission.

      Given the history of aircraft encounters with volcanic ash clouds - near disaster every time, averted only by heroic efforts by the pilots - the total shutdown was the only appropriate short-term response.

    6. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by foobat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The captain of that flight Eric Moody is hilarious

      Despite the lack of time, Moody made an announcement to the passengers that has been described as "a masterpiece of understatement":[3][4]
      “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.

      followed by the gem

      "He then called out how high they should be at each DME step along the final track to the runway, creating a virtual glide slope for them to follow. It was, in Moody's words, "a bit like negotiating one's way up a badger's arse"."

    7. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did Airbus and Boeing say what levels of ash were OK?

      If they don't say it's OK, you can't fly their planes through ash unless there's practically no ash.

      AFAIK the regulators did their jobs properly.

      The pilots and airplane engineers were singing a very different tune from the bosses of the airlines.

    8. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by leetrout · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it's worth specifying that the wind screen becoming opaque wasn't from ash sticking to it, but was from the ash sand-blasting it. It had the same effect on the landing lights and with this incident happening at night, added yet another level of difficulty to the situation.

    9. Re:From what I've heard, it really is that bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the engines are a good detector for ash clouds you say

  2. They couldn't have got it right.... by johngaunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If one had flown and crashed, everyone would have blamed the governments involved for not stopping all the traffic. While I am no fan of the government, this is one where they could not win.
    Grimjack

    --
    In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
  3. Boeing says it's not a good idea. by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't know if you put any stock in what an aircraft manufacturer might say on the subject, but...

    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_09/volcanic_story.html

    Summary: If you find yourself flying into an ash cloud, turn around immediately.

    So, yeah, maybe Branson wants a check, but flying into ash clouds is a very bad idea. And they don't show up on weather radar.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  4. NASA tested this a while back by VanHalensing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/why-cant-planes-fly-through-volcanic-ash-because-nasa-tried-once It basically starts to eat the plane's internals. So, while it may or may not experience problems immediately, it almost certainly will in the longer run, grounding those planes while they have parts replaced, and costing a fortune in new parts, because most of the shown damage in the pictures is not safely fixable.

  5. Finland tried it. by NEOGEOman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finland's air force flew into the ash cloud, and released some photos of the damage. It ain't pretty.

    My vote's on cash grab.

  6. Re:Engines stalling enough for you? by Tony · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was in Fairbanks at the time, and many people I know where stranded, trying to get home for Christmas vacation.

    That's "were," you fucking moron.

    Jesus, I hate people who can't spell.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  7. Re:Engines stalling enough for you? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey moderators--look a little more closely and you'll notice that the so-called flamer and the person he flamed were the same people!

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  8. I am no expert ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I ain't engine expert nor volcanologist nor geologist, but I'd rather think more than twice before pouring sand into my car's engine.

    Suffice to say that if my car engine dies, only the engine conks, the rest of my car don't break up in pieces.

    But if an airplane's engines die, it'll crash, and everyone inside the plane gonna die with it.

    That old British hippie is getting way too greedy.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I am no expert ... by Maxmin · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's an apple-oranges comparison. The video shows a GE-Honda HF120 turbine, a 2,000 lb two-stage, two-compressor turbofan designed for the light jet market. A very different design from...

      Commercial airline engines are rated from 14,000 (old-school Boeing 737) to over 100,000 (Boeing 777) pounds.

      Aside from that, the difference in scale of a fine volcanic ash particle compared with a grain of sand determines the melt rate. Volcanic ash passing through a turbine is essentially a fluid, one that melts at around 1000 C. Aggregate sand (in the video) melt between 1500-1700 C.

      Turbofan combustion chambers burn at between 1500-2000 C. Grains of sand are too thick to melt, given the airflow rate through an engine (250-1400 mph.)

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  9. Volcanic ash is a poor input by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The engine isn't the only important part of a jet aircraft. Apparently flying a jet aircraft through what's effectively 200 miles of sandblasting has other deleterious effects such as sandblasting the windshield, abrading the skin of the wing and other forward parts and trailing parts including the tail, obstructing the pitot tubes that gauge airspeed. Some of these effects are immediate and inconvenient (landing an aircraft when the windscreen is frosted glass can be challenging), and some are not immediately apparent but can cause aircraft failure several months after the ash is gone. Trailing edge surfaces can also be affected in subsonic aircraft, though these can be less important because critical control lines can not be routed aft of trailing edge surfaces. The mobility of ailerons and flaps can be affected by grit. This grit can cause failures in flight because the maintenance schedules for aircraft do not account for flying through powdered glass.

    Let's review: Glass is harder than steel. Volcanic ash is glass. Volcanic ash in the air can be as course as 1.5", or as fine as 60 microns. The skin of aircraft are predominately aluminum. Aluminum is not as hard as steel. These ash particles can abrade aluminum. If you fly though enough abrasive, the skin of your aircraft will wear through.

    The way airlines work some of these aircraft might be rotated to routes far from northern Europe, placing almost anyone at risk. Did that commuter plane from San Francisco to San Diego accumulate ash damage over the North Atlantic? You don't know.

    It's better safe than sorry I think. We have a long history of airlines ignoring common sense and basic safety to put butts in the seats. They need regulation to keep them from getting stupid.

    It's not like volcanos were just recently discovered. They predate airlines by a good bit, and Iceland volcanos go off on a regular basis. I say it's part of the normal order of the day for these airlines. If they're not insured against this risk then it's their own cost because they're self-insured. I'll bet some of them are getting compensation from their insurance and want to be compensated twice to improve their bottom line. Getting paid twice to not carry passengers is almost three times as profitable as getting passengers to grandma's house - especially if Grandma's house is in Finland, since they save some accellerated depreciation on a very expensive aircraft.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  10. Aerospace Engineer Angle by knapper_tech · · Score: 5, Informative

    The cooling system used in gas turbines (jet engines) is very sophisticated and necessary to keep the superalloy blades from creeping too fast. The system consists of bypass air channeled through the blades and exhausted through tiny perforations, creating a layer of cooler air between the blade and the hot flow from the combustor. Furthermore there are two ceramic layers on the outside of the blade. One to prevent oxidation. One to slow heat transfer (insulate). As has been mentioned in other articles, the cooling pores could get clogged by the ash. I also suspect the coating might fail if impacted by ash. If the coating fails or otherwise reacts with the ash, then you can definitely have a problem.

    If the blades get just a few tens of degrees hotter, they will surely fail. There's not a lot of margin for error with jet engines. Through good design and manufacturing control, we've managed to make gas turbines extremely reliable, but ash is not a design condition at all. It's abrasive, might react with the coating, and might accumulate on the blades, changing both their mass and aerodynamics.

    --
    "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong