Would you fly through the ash cloud?

[6297J]

It seems some Airlines are begininng to question the science behind the closure of air space due to the Volcano. Are the authorities being over cautious? -

[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8628867.stm[/URL]


[B]As it stands right now, would you get on an airliner if it's flight path took you over Northern Europe and through the Volcanic ash cloud?[/B]

[simkid22]

While passengers have little say in flight planning, I would not fly through an ash cloud as there are many examples why it is a bad idea.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867[/url]

With that said does anyone know the concentration of ash currently? There is probably a level that is deemed safe by the engine manufactures but that level is most likely dependent on the airline's insurance and their willingness to reduce the life time their engines. I'm just glad I'm not flying to/from/over Europe right now.

[txnetcop]

Think "lawsuit" if anything should go wrong. No I would not fly through an ash cloud, especially where other lives are at stake.
Ted
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Clarke123]

A week in Benidorm isn't worth a hundred lives

[Milton Shupe]

The engine manufacturers' engineers should test and bless before an airline. The motivation for each to fly or not is different.

[6297J]

[QUOTE=Milton Shupe;397858]The engine manufacturers' engineers should test and bless before an airline. The motivation for each to fly or not is different.[/QUOTE]


Absolutely. I've not heard an engine manufacturer come out and give an opinion yet but some of the smaller European airlines are starting to say that if the ban isn't lifted very soon they will be knocking on Mr Taxpayer's door and asking for a bail out!

[AckAck]

Didn't they have to deadstick a 747 for a while because they flew through an ash cloud? (restarted 3 of the 4 engines after exiting the cloud, something like that?)

Ah, here are a couple:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9"]British Airways Flight 9: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9[/URL]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867"]KLM Flight 867: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867[/URL]

What's the motivation to lose a plane and a couple hundred passengers? Or, on the good side, replacing all engines and glazing?

Brian

[Clarke123]

[QUOTE=AckAck;397875]What's the motivation to lose a plane and a couple hundred passengers? Or, on the good side, replacing all engines and glazing?
Brian[/QUOTE]
Money

[Cratermaker]

I keep hearing about the airlines doing "test flights" through the ash cloud, then inspecting the engines and seeing no damage. But how uniform of density is this ash cloud? Does anyone know? Does the pilot have anyway of detecting a dangerous increase of ash cloud density other than system malfunctions? Is it even harder at night to see particulates in the atmosphere (I'm guessing yes)?

[AckAck]

Money - Right. If the flight is barely profitable as it is (as they all say), then surely they wouldn't [I]make[/I] money by replacing the engines and clear bits every time they flew, even assuming they didn't crash a plane and lose a crew and the soon-to-follow lawsuits.

Maybe try it out with some cargo flights - surely a lost plane and crew, with some dead flowers and a few casualties on the ground would be fine...

(I'm likely answering a different question than is being discussed by the airlines though. I'm sure they aren't talking about flying directly through the plume, but a widely dispersed area of fine particulates. Maybe sandblasting would reduce icing issues... :D)

Brian

[SIZE=1]EDIT - bah - didn't notice that the two links I posted were already posted. [/SIZE]

[cheezyflier]

just another case of profit before all else. greed is their god.

[srgalahad]

Money, math and management..

1989 KLM 747- estimated cost of repairs between $50M and $80M
2010 Airlines estimate losing $200M per day - that's 2.5 747 rebuilds.. but wait! that was 1989 $$ so maybe today's cost would be $100M..

I guess if the airlines shared the cost they could afford to have one encounter per day and come out "ahead"- if it were non-fatal, and no lawyers got involved... but that assumes a lot, like a successful restart and safe landing. Anyone want to start a pool?

The beef is more that EuroControl closed the airspace, forcing the airlines to stop flying. So now EC are the 'bad guys' taking away free business decisions (ash or no ash.. what are the odds? hmmm).
On the other hand, I can just imagine how safe it would be with 200 flights crossing through the airspace at any time, and suddenly getting emergency requests for detours, vectors (how can a controller vector you around something unseen?), and one or more diving flamed-out jetliner making a real mess of the airspace? Having witnessed and been a small part of the aftermath of the 1989 KLM 'event' I know how seriously a volcanic ash warning is taken by flight crews and I bet there is a lot of tension in most flight departments these days. Who's going to be the first to test it?

[I]Dispatch: "Captain, Accounting has said we need some revenue so we've scheduled a couple of North Atlantic flights today. You've got the first hop..."
Captain: " OK, sure, great! I need the paycheck! .. btw, are you and the guy from Accounting coming along on the flight?"[/I]

Of course it's not all bad... VISA, Mastercard and the hotel industry are doing a landmark business from all the stranded people.

Rob

[lefty]

I think you have to bear in mind the fact that most of us in the UK have been gazing at blue skies since the airspace ban came into force, and some people are beginning to wonder whether our Health-and-Safety culture has yet again gone way overboard. There are so many conflicting reports, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment.

And we're not just talking about the frivolity of people having to cancel their week in the sun, we're talking about three-quarters of a million people stranded in a foreign country with no means of getting home, no money, and in some cases no accommodation. Warehouses full of rotting food, huge disruption all round. It is very serious indeed.

As for the airlines making money, well most of them were struggling to stay in business before this happened - it will probably finish many of them off.

[cheezyflier]

didn't i read somewhere that g/a wasn't grounded because they could fly under it? why can't the jets fly at 15,000 ft instead of 30,000?

[Cazzie]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Hollywood has a lot to learn about special effects.

Victim of Mt. Pinatubo. It's not ash - it's grinding paste. A decision was made and the destroyer tender USS Shenandoah (AD-44) ran herself to destruction providing power and lighting while the "big decks" got all the glory saving 20,000-odd folks from the event.

There wasn't enough metal left on the blades of Shenandoah's forced-draft blowers to blow out a birthday cake candle. They saved one of two emergency diesel generators to maintain feed water pressure using the electric feed pump and run the condensate pumps. The other EDG ate itself alive when the grinding paste wore away the babbit metal on the main bearings.

We ran out of respirator cartridges the second day.

That was at sea-level. Not sure what it was like at Angels 20 or 30. Ash is a product of the combustion of a flammable substance. What is in the air there is pulverized, very, very finely-ground rock. Jeweler's paste. Grinding compound. Polishing compound. Turbine blades just love it -- they feel so CLEAN after a quick pass.

I have no horse in that Euro-air race - but I'd hate to see a sky-liner fall OUT of the sky and bang the dirt with revenue passengers on board because they jumped too quick and polished all the good metal out of the rotating elements of the compressor sections of their fairly-closely-toleranced propulsors.

Just some recollections for the one brave soul who wishes to ride through one..

Caz
[/SIZE][/FONT]