Should the Airlines be "leaning" on the CAA?
Discussion
As above - BA and other airlines have undertaken test flights through the ash cloud and now seem to be "leaning" on the CAA and other air authorities to relax the restrictions.
Is this right, should they be doing this and if the CAA capitulate and allow the relaxing of restrictions who would be liable in the event of an accident?
Is this right, should they be doing this and if the CAA capitulate and allow the relaxing of restrictions who would be liable in the event of an accident?
ICAO are the overall authority but different member states interpret their rules in different ways.
There are often volcanoes erupting in busy airspace around the world, Soufriere in Monserrat is a recent example. What will usually happen in most other countries is that the local authority VAAC and met offices will publish charts detailing the eruption and the location of the ash cloud and it is left to the operator and their crews to decide how to fly around it. When Soufriere erupts, some airlines will continue as normal, some will fly by day so the pilots can see the cloud others might not fly anywhere near it at all.
Pilots every time they go flying are given charts showing where weather is, where jet streams are, where there might be clear air turbulence etc. We are expected not to land or take off into a thunderstorm when the airport could still be open and you have been cleared for take off. In the UK (unlike the states) air traffic controllers don't even have weather displayed on their screens so it's up to the crews to avoid it when you are given a heading which leads you straight towards it. Some of us have weather radar but it doesn't display everything that can catch you out and it won't show clear air turbulence. There is no requirement to land if the weather radar stops working during the flight.
For some reason the europeans interpret the ICAO rules differently and close the airspace instead, unfortunately we don't get so many big eruptions with plumes in our airspace so it's a problem which we haven't had test us like this before.
Why not just publish where the plume is/might be next and simply let the operator and their crews decide how to go about it? That's exactly what happens everywhere else in the world. A safe and pragmatic approach based on professionalism, not a blanket ban based on predictive computer models not even designed for monitoring volcanic ash.
It will be interesting to see how the Americans and Canadians respond to the approaching cloud as it arrives in their airspace.
There are often volcanoes erupting in busy airspace around the world, Soufriere in Monserrat is a recent example. What will usually happen in most other countries is that the local authority VAAC and met offices will publish charts detailing the eruption and the location of the ash cloud and it is left to the operator and their crews to decide how to fly around it. When Soufriere erupts, some airlines will continue as normal, some will fly by day so the pilots can see the cloud others might not fly anywhere near it at all.
Pilots every time they go flying are given charts showing where weather is, where jet streams are, where there might be clear air turbulence etc. We are expected not to land or take off into a thunderstorm when the airport could still be open and you have been cleared for take off. In the UK (unlike the states) air traffic controllers don't even have weather displayed on their screens so it's up to the crews to avoid it when you are given a heading which leads you straight towards it. Some of us have weather radar but it doesn't display everything that can catch you out and it won't show clear air turbulence. There is no requirement to land if the weather radar stops working during the flight.
For some reason the europeans interpret the ICAO rules differently and close the airspace instead, unfortunately we don't get so many big eruptions with plumes in our airspace so it's a problem which we haven't had test us like this before.
Why not just publish where the plume is/might be next and simply let the operator and their crews decide how to go about it? That's exactly what happens everywhere else in the world. A safe and pragmatic approach based on professionalism, not a blanket ban based on predictive computer models not even designed for monitoring volcanic ash.
It will be interesting to see how the Americans and Canadians respond to the approaching cloud as it arrives in their airspace.
Edited by el stovey on Monday 19th April 09:33
If the BA flight shows no adverse effect I should imagine that they will be a lot of pressure to switch to an "advisory" notice. Personally My thoughts are that the "Horror" stories posted on the news channels are those where the Airliner flew though the Main Plume of the volcano not the low levels of Ash we have currently grounding planes over Europe.
telecat said:
If the BA flight shows no adverse effect I should imagine that they will be a lot of pressure to switch to an "advisory" notice. Personally My thoughts are that the "Horror" stories posted on the news channels are those where the Airliner flew though the Main Plume of the volcano not the low levels of Ash we have currently grounding planes over Europe.
... and none of the aircraft that previously flew through a volcanic ash plume ever crashed. Their engines recovered when they lost altitude - in one instance this happened twice to the same aircraft, losing 4 engines twice and regaining all four engines twice. Silver993tt said:
telecat said:
If the BA flight shows no adverse effect I should imagine that they will be a lot of pressure to switch to an "advisory" notice. Personally My thoughts are that the "Horror" stories posted on the news channels are those where the Airliner flew though the Main Plume of the volcano not the low levels of Ash we have currently grounding planes over Europe.
... and none of the aircraft that previously flew through a volcanic ash plume ever crashed. Their engines recovered when they lost altitude - in one instance this happened twice to the same aircraft, losing 4 engines twice and regaining all four engines twice. 
ked, they couldnt see out of the windscreens and landing light lenses were so badly 'sanded' that they let bugger all light out.Lucky is an understatement for that aircraft!!
All the aircraft manufacturers that my work deal with have sent advisories out saying dont fly if you dont have to in ash covered areas, they are even calling in some cases to borescope aircraft that have been parked on the ground!! There was a 'test' dornier 328 flown over Gatwick yesterday at 5000ft that came back with ash damage!
Take a look at these pictures,
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/34...
Now if they lift the ban due to 'pressures' do you want to chance it?? i would certainly think twice.
Something that my company is also taking into account is even if the flights go ok, what if 6 months down the line we take an engine off for overhaul and they find ash on some of the parts and need to replace them. Who do you think will cover the costs? the engine service plans certainly wont!!
Edited by S3_Graham on Monday 19th April 11:02
S3_Graham said:
Silver993tt said:
telecat said:
If the BA flight shows no adverse effect I should imagine that they will be a lot of pressure to switch to an "advisory" notice. Personally My thoughts are that the "Horror" stories posted on the news channels are those where the Airliner flew though the Main Plume of the volcano not the low levels of Ash we have currently grounding planes over Europe.
... and none of the aircraft that previously flew through a volcanic ash plume ever crashed. Their engines recovered when they lost altitude - in one instance this happened twice to the same aircraft, losing 4 engines twice and regaining all four engines twice. ked, they couldnt see out of the windscreens and landing light lenses were so badly 'sanded' that they let bugger all light out.Silver993tt said:
S3_Graham said:
Silver993tt said:
telecat said:
If the BA flight shows no adverse effect I should imagine that they will be a lot of pressure to switch to an "advisory" notice. Personally My thoughts are that the "Horror" stories posted on the news channels are those where the Airliner flew though the Main Plume of the volcano not the low levels of Ash we have currently grounding planes over Europe.
... and none of the aircraft that previously flew through a volcanic ash plume ever crashed. Their engines recovered when they lost altitude - in one instance this happened twice to the same aircraft, losing 4 engines twice and regaining all four engines twice. ked, they couldnt see out of the windscreens and landing light lenses were so badly 'sanded' that they let bugger all light out.
As far as im aware the BA 747 is in scotland being inspected today. To be fair... their flights just prove that where they flew at that particular time was ok. you'd have to be pretty unlucky for anything bad to happen.. but i can see why they are doing it! If you look at the data we have at work here the cloud is huge but they are now saying above FL350 its clear now!
Grounded airline fears ash damage from quick return to flight
By David Learmount
At least one airline grounded in the European areas affected by the volcanic ash cloud is worried that it might be pressured to fly again before the risk is over.
EasyJet has told Flight International that it is taking advice from Boeing, Airbus and the engine manufacturers about the risks involved in flying when there is still "residual" volcanic ash in the air because of the potential for damage to the aircraft engines.
Even if the engines were to continue to operate despite the ash, the airlines fear that resulting component erosion by could affect their performance for life, reducing their efficiency and therefore increasing emissions.
EasyJet says it fears a powerful media expectation that the airlines must rush to clear up the backlog of thousands of stranded passengers might force a return to flying before it is safe, and that such an eventuality could produce repercussions the industry would regret for years.
By David Learmount
At least one airline grounded in the European areas affected by the volcanic ash cloud is worried that it might be pressured to fly again before the risk is over.
EasyJet has told Flight International that it is taking advice from Boeing, Airbus and the engine manufacturers about the risks involved in flying when there is still "residual" volcanic ash in the air because of the potential for damage to the aircraft engines.
Even if the engines were to continue to operate despite the ash, the airlines fear that resulting component erosion by could affect their performance for life, reducing their efficiency and therefore increasing emissions.
EasyJet says it fears a powerful media expectation that the airlines must rush to clear up the backlog of thousands of stranded passengers might force a return to flying before it is safe, and that such an eventuality could produce repercussions the industry would regret for years.
Pothole said:
Grounded airline fears ash damage from quick return to flight
By David Learmount
similar to my companies standpoint.By David Learmount
here is the info from Bombardier,
ADVISORY WIRE
AW600-00-2344
INTRODUCTION:
Volcanic ash is present in Europe due to the Icelandic volcano emissions.
DESCRIPTION:
With the associated airspace closure, it is important to underscore that volcanic ash is harmful to the aircraft, the aircraft components, and especially the aircraft engines. As well, Aviation radar is not good at reporting volcanic ash clouds
ACTION:
It is not recommended to subject the aircraft to the volcanic emissions if at all possible. If aircraft operation is absolutely necessary, care should be taken to avoid operation in a volcanic ash-laden environment and limit the amount of time spent in the environment.
If the aircraft may be subjected to volcanic ash while static proactive measures should be taken to protect the engines and windshields with covers.
This is still not to say you CANT fly... there has been a takeoff this morning at Farnborough and a few with APU's running...
Edited by S3_Graham on Monday 19th April 11:36
[/quote] .. and all the flights conducted over the last days by Lufthansa, KLM, BA and others have shown absolutely not even a single chip or mark due to any airborne particles. The engines of these aircraft were also found to be as before take-off.
[/quote]
- Cough* seen the latest breaking news F16's come back from test flight with engine damage
S3_Graham said:
- Cough* seen the latest breaking news F16's come back from test flight with engine damage
How close exactly was the aircraft to the volcano?
Edited by el stovey on Monday 19th April 12:19
S3_Graham said:
was half joking as i think they are icelandic ones!
but just goes to show that these test flights can be misleading!
Too right. It's safe because of 'X''s flight! No it isn't look what happened to 'Y'! but just goes to show that these test flights can be misleading!
I think sometimes with 24hr news, journo's just churns out these half complete stories in a rush to get there first. Sure it's news but the lack of useful information just creates confusion.
el stovey said:
S3_Graham said:
- Cough* seen the latest breaking news F16's come back from test flight with engine damage
How close exactly was the aircraft to the volcano?
Edited by el stovey on Monday 19th April 12:19
There's a story in todays Gaurdian (sorry, I know...) that the airlines and regulators have been talking for a long, long time about relaxing the "no flying in ash, ever" rule to something based on dangerous levels of ash and so on.
Unfortunately, the airlines, aricraft and engine manufacturers don't want to say "this is a safe level" for fear of the liabilities if a plane crashes, and the regulators say that in a modern "goal setting" safety regulation system, it's not their job to say the safe limits are.
But now that there's a real ash situation, everyone's mind has been focuused on the question, and some answers have been found (although the airlines have tried to shift the liabilities onto the engine manufacturers!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/airlin...
Unfortunately, the airlines, aricraft and engine manufacturers don't want to say "this is a safe level" for fear of the liabilities if a plane crashes, and the regulators say that in a modern "goal setting" safety regulation system, it's not their job to say the safe limits are.
But now that there's a real ash situation, everyone's mind has been focuused on the question, and some answers have been found (although the airlines have tried to shift the liabilities onto the engine manufacturers!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/airlin...
According to the BBC they've now settled on a concentration of ash that is considered safe to fly through.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8634276.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8634276.stm
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff