Volcanic activity in Iceland delays flights to/from Europe
Apr 17, 2010, 4:57 pm
#181
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
Already is. Mainly to airlines in Europe. But of course they are all suffering. Also to tourism, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Which is why I expect that some (reasonable?) work around will be found. We'll have to trust airlines that they will not take chances.
On the danger involved, I continue believing that there has to exist some middle ground such that the added risk is mainly limited to engine life.
We know of three incidents, BA, KL and NASA. None of these crashed. All suffered engine damage. These flew through an ash cloud that must have been pretty bad. Would we know that in some areas, while there is some ash, concentration is rather low, I would think these might be more or less OK.
We are now familiar with the three events. How many more times did a plane fly close to an ash cloud and that nothing happened?
Which is why I expect that some (reasonable?) work around will be found. We'll have to trust airlines that they will not take chances.
On the danger involved, I continue believing that there has to exist some middle ground such that the added risk is mainly limited to engine life.
We know of three incidents, BA, KL and NASA. None of these crashed. All suffered engine damage. These flew through an ash cloud that must have been pretty bad. Would we know that in some areas, while there is some ash, concentration is rather low, I would think these might be more or less OK.
We are now familiar with the three events. How many more times did a plane fly close to an ash cloud and that nothing happened?
Apr 17, 2010, 5:41 pm
#185
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
The BA and KL cases are not all that significant in the sense that they likely went through a much worse cloud than what you have over most of Europe.
The NASA case is relevant. However, it was only because it was instrumented and they picked up the cloud that they went and checked the engines. That plane itself was never in any real danger. How many more times have commercial planes flown in similar clouds that no one ever noticed?
But some tough decisions ahead for sthe people involved...
Apr 17, 2010, 6:20 pm
#186
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE100K, HH G
Posts: 2,454
As to whether these clouds are a real danger, I would think that the answer should not be black and white. Includes a good deal of "we don't know. Also a good deal of "they are very bad for the engines."
I would think, for instance, that if the cloud does not go above FL350, flying above should be OK as long as the concentration at lower levels is not too bad and there is an alternate that can take the plane. In an emergency, the engines might get ruined, but it's not like they'll stop working alltogether.
I would think, for instance, that if the cloud does not go above FL350, flying above should be OK as long as the concentration at lower levels is not too bad and there is an alternate that can take the plane. In an emergency, the engines might get ruined, but it's not like they'll stop working alltogether.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-volcanic.html
I don't think there is any guarantee that engines won't stop altogether. Maybe the chances are better -- but would you like to take a chance? I don't think there are enough parachutes for all the pax.
Apr 17, 2010, 6:23 pm
#187
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE100K, HH G
Posts: 2,454
We know of three incidents, BA, KL and NASA. None of these crashed. All suffered engine damage. These flew through an ash cloud that must have been pretty bad. Would we know that in some areas, while there is some ash, concentration is rather low, I would think these might be more or less OK.
We are now familiar with the three events. How many more times did a plane fly close to an ash cloud and that nothing happened?
We are now familiar with the three events. How many more times did a plane fly close to an ash cloud and that nothing happened?
Two of them (BA and KL) lost engine power completely and dropped several miles before being able to restart them -- they survived simply because they were at a high enough altitude.
The F-18 didn't completely lose power but suffered substantial engine damage.
Apr 17, 2010, 6:24 pm
#188
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE100K, HH G
Posts: 2,454
Apr 17, 2010, 6:25 pm
#189
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
Did you look at this?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-volcanic.html
I don't think there is any guarantee that engines won't stop altogether. Maybe the chances are better -- but would you like to take a chance? I don't think there are enough parachutes for all the pax.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-volcanic.html
I don't think there is any guarantee that engines won't stop altogether. Maybe the chances are better -- but would you like to take a chance? I don't think there are enough parachutes for all the pax.
They must have been in a pretty dense cloud. Before it had a chance to spread hence lower the concentration. Also, fighter planes are a different animal. Different tradeoffs. Their turbine is designed to operate at a much higher temperature hence a much shorter life.
Apr 17, 2010, 6:34 pm
#191
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 5,132
Keep in mind that civilian traffic + volcanic ash has 2 possible consequences:
1) As others have pointed out, engine damage could be very costly.
2) Most importantly, what if an airplane crashes because the engines give out and can't be restarted in time? The human tragedy for something that's arguably avoidable would be incalculable.
1) As others have pointed out, engine damage could be very costly.
2) Most importantly, what if an airplane crashes because the engines give out and can't be restarted in time? The human tragedy for something that's arguably avoidable would be incalculable.
Apr 17, 2010, 6:45 pm
#192
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: YOW
Programs: AC SEMM; AA,DL, Hyatt and Starwood. Ex-status:SQ PPS,CSA,Hilton,AA,UA
Posts: 743
Some suggestions I came up with for a friend - have not cross-checked these are and will continue operating tomorrow, though:
Delta from Athens to NYC
Royal Air Maroc from Casablanca to Montreal or New York
EgyptAir from Cairo to New York
Emirates reports it is still flying to Moscow, Athens, Larnaca, Malta, Istanbul; then from Dubai to North America (note Etihad appears to have cancelled flights)
Continental from Lisbon to EWR (and to Casablance for RAM above)
Delta from Athens to NYC
Royal Air Maroc from Casablanca to Montreal or New York
EgyptAir from Cairo to New York
Emirates reports it is still flying to Moscow, Athens, Larnaca, Malta, Istanbul; then from Dubai to North America (note Etihad appears to have cancelled flights)
Continental from Lisbon to EWR (and to Casablance for RAM above)
Apr 17, 2010, 6:46 pm
#193
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,808
My point remains that in a large fraction of the current cloud area that's closed that would be extremely unlikely.
Granted, LHR is probably going to be out of bounds for a while.
Interestingly NCE is still open although it is well within the cloud. To see the cloud as per the UK simulation:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271545732.png