Iceland volcano eruption (Merged)

Moderator Message

We’ll be shutting this thread down as its reached the 20 page limit. See you all in the second part of the topic.

At last, RYR01T EI-DHV up over Islay and the Clyde on a test flight?

A scientific rebuttal..?

I know this is a bit long, but is an editorial from the Research Fortnight comic we get in our office.
————————————————-
Where safety and risk assessment are concerned, a policy maker’s place is in the wrong. Everyone in the UK, it appears, knows someone becalmed by the Icelandic volcano. Several members of our own staff are stranded, waiting to return to homes and work. All of us are hanging on the latest expert commentary. Will the volcano continue to be active? Where next for the ash cloud? What risks to the health of both humans as well as Rolls Royce areo engines?

One additional question we have been asking ourselves is whether science should be working rather harder to either predict these events or, at the very least, tell us whether it is or isn’t safe to fly a plane through a volcanic dust cloud.

As ever, the answers are not simple and the stakes are high. Giovanni Bisignani, director general of the International Air Transport Association, said the past week’s air space closures were costing airlines “at least USD200 million a day” in lost revenue. British Airways, which carried out a test flight through the murk on Monday afternoon with no mishap, puts its losses at between £15m and £20m a day.

At issue is whether the blanket closure was justified, or whether as IATA suggests, risk assessments could have been used to allow some flights to take off at various times in the volcanic plume allowed.

The IATA is posturing, because its members are losing money. Bisignani called for the European air-navigation safety organisation, EUROCONTROL, to establish a centre that would coordinate decisions on volcanoes that affect aviation.

He must know, surely, such a body exists. The London Volcanic Ash and Aviation Centre is one of nine such centres created by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Its job is to track ash clouds from eruptions and notify aircraft so that they can avoid these clouds. It couldn’t be, could it, that the impotent IATA knows everything that can be done is being done but feels the need, nevertheless, to look as if it’s protesting on behalf of its members?

IATA also criticised what it derisively calls Europe’s “unique methodology” of closing airspace based on computer modelling of an ash cloud. Computer models, while never perfect, are the best method we have. How else does IATA suggest these decisions should be taken?

The models try to forecast the location and movement of ash clouds and on the whole are pretty good. They take into account variables such as plume height, the volcano’s eruption rate, duration, and the fraction of volcanic fragments with a particle size below 63 microns.

Models can also assess the impact of dust particles striking a body 800 km/h. They depend on the temperature of the particle, its corrosiveness and the shape of what it hits. Some of this data is available from direct observation, some not, so modellers have to include data based on historical knowledge of the particular erupting volcano. The difficulty with Iceland’s Eyjafjallöjokull is that such data is very thin.

No technology can guarantee whether a dust plume is totally safe. Stranded passengers are not the result of a failure of policy, nor of a lack of government commitment to the vulcanology community. They are stuck because stuff happens. Once in a while it does us no harm to acknowledge the limits to our technology to describe a problem, never mind do much about it.

Strange that Ryanair have not decided to return to operation. Surely sitting idle while everyone else is flying will hurt their pocket even more?

Presumably it’s in keeping with his policy of irritating and confusing his customers.

I see Air Crash Investigation is covering the BA incident again on TV this evening. I love TV. First we see the media keep hinting at the authorities being over cautious for locking airspace down, then as soon as airspace opens again they put a show on to put the SH**S up people who could be flying in the next day or so.

That is a helpful and instructive response to my earlier question. Many thanks.

WRT to previous eruptions I would like to add the following information.

There have been very many more than 20 eruptions in the last 100 years. Popo, Santa Maria, Sangay, Soufriere Hills, Fuego, Tungarahua, and a few others spew pretty much continually in Central and South America. Not the volume of this eruption, but eruptions nonetheless. This problem is managed by the airlines by basically flying upwind. Please note that a lot of the North American/South American flying is conducted at night, when the ash cloud is not visible (and radar doesn’t detect it). SJU often reports ash in their METARS……still the airlines operate until it get too thick and they decide to stop.

Last year, a major eruption occurred on the Kamchatka peninsula, which affected R220 and many other heavily traveled airways between Asia and the U.S. There were a few diversions and traffic was disrupted for a day or so, but nothing occurred like the total airspace shutdown from this event. Basically, the responsible party (the airlines) flew around the ash.

When Mount Pinatubo and Mount St. Helens had major eruptions, there was not a total airspace shutdown for a week like in this case.

To my knowledge no airline had an actual ash encounter in this event. There were a few military encounters in this event. Test flights flew for several days with no problems – yet the airspace was still closed.

I’ll stick by my assertion that the air traffic service providers (whose primary responsibility is traffic separation) stuck their nose where it didn’t belong, into an environmental/meteorological situation that is the responsibility of the airline.

Also, no one has mentioned: What about the EU? Why did the individual countries respond individually? At what point will the EU have control over the civil airspace in all of Europe?

Strange that Ryanair have not decided to return to operation. Surely sitting idle while everyone else is flying will hurt their pocket even more?

End of the week mate.

Interestingly, while EZY flights are filling the skies I don’t see any Ryanair flights showing up on the virtual radar web pages. Are they back up flying yet?

OK, perhaps the word nonsense was a little strong but you still haven’t really answered it. You’ve replied and diverted away from the actual question, but haven’t answered it. 😉

Anyway, I guess you’re right. I think we’ve run out of road on this one! All of that aside I’m sure we can all agree it’s nice to see contrails over the UK once more. 🙂

There was nothing ‘pejorative’ about it whatsoever. I asked you a question which you still haven’t responded to. You’d make a fine politician being so evasive. :rolleyes:

Well, I didn’t think it was “nonsense” and I have actually answered the question twice, so I suggest we let it lie, before either of us says something we might later regret.:(

He has standards?

If you’ve got a shovel… 😀

Both of your names have been added to The List. 😎

There was nothing ‘pejorative’ about it whatsoever. I asked you a question which you still haven’t responded to, and I asked that question because your initial posts had a tone that implied other incidents have a direct bearing on this one, and it’s that point I need explaining because I simply can’t understand why that’s the case.

Yes, the eruption that caused the ash cloud which the BA 747 flew through in the early 80s caused a lot of flights to re-route, especialy after the BA incident.
However that particular ash cloud headed out to sea and did not cause much disruption from there on.

In the case of this Icelandic eruption, the ash cloud made landfall, hence the severe disruption. Had the prevailing winds sent the ash northwards or contained it over the atlantic, some flights would have had to re-route, but things would have otherwise been business as usual.

Thank you.

I’m not putting words into your mouth at all, just responding to what you’ve written.

There are very clear implications above that that previous incidents have some kind of bearing on whether the decision on this one is correct or not. I’m curious to know why, that’s all. Again, several posts later I’m still waiting for that to be explained. If you can’t actually explain your reasoning then by all means just tell me so we can end this nonsense, but I’d really like to hear it explained.

“just seeking information, which I presume the authorities will be doing, so as to detemine how to react next time. It is presumptious of anyone to dismiss previous incidents as irrelevant without analysing the incident.

If this does not answer your question then I certainly agree to end this “nonsense”, to use your perjorative description of our exchanges.

He has standards?

If you’ve got a shovel… 😀

He has standards?

Lance, even by your standards that was bad! 😀

No, it was because it was from 1821 to 1823…;)

Only three minutes, then? That’s a short eruption.

I’ll just get my coat……..