BA: not impressed.
Discussion
Really unimpressed with BA - or Willie Walsh - announcing (I am paraphrasing) that the restriction was unnecessary and that airlines should decide to fly or not.
This on the basis of one test flight!
Seems like this is a willingness to play fast and loose with passenger safety to me.
OTOH had the Monarch guy in charge come on TV and say he agreed with the restrictions. This seems a much more sober assessment. This is aviation after all; most accidents happen under great pressure. The 'safe' levels of ash are not well understood and we can't see the ash clouds properly so BA propose what? To just suck it and see? I didn't realise that was how aviation safety works?!
Of course I suspect that BA are saying this to try and get a government bail out really, to heap pressure on the regulators.
Still they have gone down A LOT in my estimations after this.
Also the way they abandoned customers in far flung locations.
This on the basis of one test flight!
Seems like this is a willingness to play fast and loose with passenger safety to me.
OTOH had the Monarch guy in charge come on TV and say he agreed with the restrictions. This seems a much more sober assessment. This is aviation after all; most accidents happen under great pressure. The 'safe' levels of ash are not well understood and we can't see the ash clouds properly so BA propose what? To just suck it and see? I didn't realise that was how aviation safety works?!
Of course I suspect that BA are saying this to try and get a government bail out really, to heap pressure on the regulators.
Still they have gone down A LOT in my estimations after this.
Also the way they abandoned customers in far flung locations.
Have you considered that they might actually be right?
BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
el stovey said:
Have you considered that they might actually be right?
BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
I'm not sure that is exactly how it works. Aircraft are not supposed to fly into volcanic plumes as far as I know. It's not discretionary.BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
Puggit said:
As Robert Peston said on Radio 5 today - any airline that wants to fly must be 100% certain it is safe as one crash due to this could easily mean the end of the airline.
They will have thought very hard about this before flying.
Exactly, airlines have lots to lose by doing risky flights, the entire company, millions of pounds worth of aircraft.They will have thought very hard about this before flying.
SmoothRB said:
el stovey said:
Have you considered that they might actually be right?
BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
I'm not sure that is exactly how it works. Aircraft are not supposed to fly into volcanic plumes as far as I know. It's not discretionary.BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
Where have I said aircraft are supposed "to fly into volcanic plumes"?
el stovey said:
SmoothRB said:
el stovey said:
Have you considered that they might actually be right?
BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
I'm not sure that is exactly how it works. Aircraft are not supposed to fly into volcanic plumes as far as I know. It's not discretionary.BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
Where have I said aircraft are supposed "to fly into volcanic plumes"?
Yes BA have experience of this, but in 1982 one of their 747s flying in the Far East through a similar cloud, shut down all 4 engines, the pilots couldn't get them restarted until 5,000ft (Thats a 31,000 ft drop!!!) During that period its just one big and very heavy glider, now if that happened over the Alps then we would have a big bang. It just isn't worth the risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Fligh... search on Google for the Captain Eric Moody for more versions
Mr Walsh could do with a history lesson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Fligh... search on Google for the Captain Eric Moody for more versions
Mr Walsh could do with a history lesson
Edited by DavidY on Monday 19th April 18:43
el stovey said:
Have you considered that they might actually be right?
BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
Many Airlines don't do what's recommended by the manufacturer's at the best of times...BA (like most long haul operators) have decades of experience operating in volcanic areas and have professional aircrew flying their aircraft. As I've told you many times, the rest of the world outside Europe simply publish where the volcano is and the VAAC give you a picture of the plume and you're expected to operate safely in that area.
Why is it less safe to follow the system those in more volcanic areas use, letting people who actually operate/maintain/fly aircraft decide where they should fly than slavishly follow the met office with their computer based prediction models not designed to track or predict volcanic ash?
That is why the decision is made by an independent body, who has no vested interest in the business state of any particular airline.
Closing all UK airspace may well be an overeaction but sending a few planes up does not prove anything. Even if they did fly at normal altitudes (as many test planes have not), and even if no signs of failure have occurred - you do not know what abnormal wear you're occurring which can lead to operability issues and/or the inability to predict when your next overhaul should be.
I doubt any of the airlines have had time to strip or even borescope their "test" engines yet. How can they say either way until they have at least done this?
The VAAC for the UK is the Met Office...
How do you think other country's VAACs provide advice if it is not through a combination of satellite and computer predictions?
As others have said, this event is unprecedented so I for one am not going to disagree with NATS decision...
DavidY said:
Yes BA have experience of this, but in 1982 one of their 747s flying in the Far East through a similar cloud, shut down all 4 engines, the pilots couldn't get them restarted until 5,000ft (Thats a 31,000 ft drop!!!) During that period its just one big and very heavy glider, now if that happened over the Alps then we would have a big bang. It just isn't worth the risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Fligh... search on Google for the Captain Eric Moody for more versions
Mr Walsh could do with a history lesson
They were a lot closer to the volcano...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Fligh... search on Google for the Captain Eric Moody for more versions
Mr Walsh could do with a history lesson
Edited by DavidY on Monday 19th April 18:43
DavidY said:
Yes BA have experience of this, but in 1982 one of their 747s flying in the Far East through a similar cloud, shut down all 4 engines, the pilots couldn't get them restarted until 5,000ft (Thats a 31,000 ft drop!!!) During that period its just one big and very heavy glider, now if that happened over the Alps then we would have a big bang. It just isn't worth the risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Fligh... search on Google for the Captain Eric Moody for more versions
Mr Walsh could do with a history lesson
I expect he knows about that incident.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Fligh... search on Google for the Captain Eric Moody for more versions
Mr Walsh could do with a history lesson
The big difference is that the BA009 incident happened when an aircraft flew very close to a volcano they didn't know was erupting.
el stovey said:
poo at Paul's said:
So are BA and the others saying there is no "ash cloud" over the UK/Europe?
No they're saying they should be left to decide if they can operate safely. As they do everywhere else in the world there are volcanic eruptions.What is particular about this cloud which is making it a concern?
Those are not rhetorical questions.
Do elaborate.
navier_stokes said:
How do you think other country's VAACs provide advice if it is not through a combination of satellite and computer predictions?
As others have said, this event is unprecedented so I for one am not going to disagree with NATS decision...
Other countries DON'T close huge areas of airspace. In Europe, this situation has happened because we interpret ICAO regulations differently to everyone else.As others have said, this event is unprecedented so I for one am not going to disagree with NATS decision...
As I've said frequently other ICAO member states publish charts showing the volcanic eruption information and let the operators decide how to go about it. That's what BA are asking to do here.
And of coarse BA now want £20m "compensation" for not being allowed to fly
They made the business decision they didn't need insurance, they live with the consequences
I know in the grand scale of things 20m isn't that much, but even so
Top tip willie, get rid of the sour faced old hags who seem to hate dealing with passengers but have a sense of entitlement and a love of the perks, replace them with air crew who don;t think you need to be paid 80k to ask someone if they want beef or fish and actually like doing the job, then you'll make the money back easy
a get a few "mystery shoppers " as passengers and compare their feedback for your flights with the competition, then fix the problem
They made the business decision they didn't need insurance, they live with the consequences
I know in the grand scale of things 20m isn't that much, but even so
Top tip willie, get rid of the sour faced old hags who seem to hate dealing with passengers but have a sense of entitlement and a love of the perks, replace them with air crew who don;t think you need to be paid 80k to ask someone if they want beef or fish and actually like doing the job, then you'll make the money back easy
a get a few "mystery shoppers " as passengers and compare their feedback for your flights with the competition, then fix the problem
Tangent Police said:
el stovey said:
poo at Paul's said:
So are BA and the others saying there is no "ash cloud" over the UK/Europe?
No they're saying they should be left to decide if they can operate safely. As they do everywhere else in the world there are volcanic eruptions.What is particular about this cloud which is making it a concern?
Those are not rhetorical questions.
Do elaborate.
What is different about this cloud is that it's in an area controlled by different aviation member states who have reacted differently.
Tangent Police said:
poo at Paul's said:
So are BA and the others saying there is no "ash cloud" over the UK/Europe?
They are clearly putting their business interests in front of public safety. That is the long and short of it.
You appear to find yourself in a situation where you think the airspace is being opened again when you think it may not be safe to do so.
How will you decide when it's safe?
Edited by el stovey on Monday 19th April 19:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff