Saving Ash from a Volcanic Eruption: A Geologist's Perspective

[Frame Dragger]

I was basically asking you for a website to confirm your comments. Please don't through it back on me. Why? Because it is insulting.

It is responding with the understanding that you were being rude, and patronizing, and apparently unwilling to perform your own research to confirm a statement. In short, returning your "offer" is no more insulting than it was for you to make the request in the first place. You were hardly being subtle, polite, or reasonable. I on the other hand, gave you the benefit of the doubt, a mistake I won't make twice. As for you being a "science researcher", that statement alone gives away a great deal about what you are, and are not. If you have a further issue, feel free to continue, but my new policy on PF is to disengage and report now. Keep that in mind.

 

[Frame Dragger]

You don't have to sell anything. Just wait for a few more days for losses to accumulate and they will be begging you get those planes airborne.

No, they won't. Those losses won't be fatal for a business, but a crash that could be blamed on negligence (can you IMAGINE the civil trials alone?!) could absolutely ruin an airline. A plane that crashes now is immediately going to do ENORMOUS damage to a company's public image, and as Pan AM could have told you, that matters when you're trying to convince people to fly in your aluminum and composite cigar with wings.

EDIT: On the bright side, we just wait those few days and see who is correct. No need for speculation when time will answer this.

 

[ViewsofMars]

It is responding with the understanding that you were being rude, and patronizing, and apparently unwilling to perform your own research to confirm a statement.

Frame Dragger, that is your opinion.

In short, returning your "offer" is no more insulting than it was for you to make the request in the first place. You were hardly being subtle, polite, or reasonable. I on the other hand, gave you the benefit of the doubt, a mistake I won't make twice. As for you being a "science researcher", that statement alone gives away a great deal about what you are, and are not. If you have a further issue, feel free to continue, but my new policy on PF is to disengage and report now. Keep that in mind.

Frame Dragger, that again is your opinion. I think you are skating around to basically avoid answering that last question of mine to you! Which is absolutely not a scientific answer. Retraction from you is never an option as I can see. Furthermore, the language you have used isn't scientific by any means.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Frame Dragger, that is your opinion.




Frame Dragger, that again is your opinion, which is absolutely worthless. I think you are skating around to basically avoid answering that last question of mine to you! Which is absolutely not a scientific answer. Retraction from you is never an option as I can see. Furthermore, the language you have used isn't scientific by any means.

Again, you're rude, patronizing, and making vast assumptions which reveal your intial bias. You're simply not being subtle enough that anyone would miss that either, and frankly, why would anyone BOTHER to reply to you? This is my last reply in this conversation (regarding you), which you are more than welcome to see as a personal victory. I could care less.

EDIT: You know what, even a rabid dog deserves a bone. Here: "Colonel Joseph Duckworth (USAF)". Enjoy learning about how and why people fly into hurricanes. The rest, I leave in your "sceince researcher" hands.

 

[tomkeus]

but a crash that could be blamed on negligence

I don't think anyone reasonable would consider crash in this situation. There were no crashes caused by volcanic ash, and those famous flights everyone is talking about flew straight into the dense plume (nothing even remotely like situation we have now) unaware of what was happening.

Chances of crash happening due to current situation over Europe are so remote that it's pointless considering them anymore than regular risk of flying.

What is worth considering for airlines is potential reduction in engines lifetime and premature overhauls. That is where accumulated losses vs. risks I was talking about come into story.

 

[mgb_phys]

What is worth considering for airlines is potential reduction in engines lifetime and premature overhauls. That is where accumulated losses vs. risks I was talking about come into story.

The BA flight 9 flew into a dense ash cloud and it's engines were essentially destroyed in minutes - so if you fly into an ash cloud 1% as dense are your engines unaffected, affect only 1% as much, have it's life reduced by 1% or be destroyed in a few *100 minutes?

After the flight do you have to do a regular engine walk around, a standard 1000hour boroscope inspection, a 4000 hour medium inspection of a 10,000hour full stripdown inspection.

Engines for a 747 are about $5-10M each - but just to complicate matters they are rarely bought, they are on a complex leasing/support contract with Rolls Royce, what does flying through an ash cloud do to your operations contract?

 

[Frame Dragger]

I don't think anyone reasonable would consider crash in this situation. There were no crashes caused by volcanic ash, and those famous flights everyone is talking about flew straight into the dense plume (nothing even remotely like situation we have now) unaware of what was happening.

Chances of crash happening due to current situation over Europe are so remote that it's pointless considering them anymore than regular risk of flying.

What is worth considering for airlines is potential reduction in engines lifetime and premature overhauls. That is where accumulated losses vs. risks I was talking about come into story.

You keep saying that the risk is remote, because in the past ash hasn't hindered air travel unles you're "flying into a dense plume". Yeah, for a couple of reason I could add:

1.) How long have major commercial pressurized flights been around?
2.) How many near-misses do you think anyone is willing to take with an expensive machine?
3.) Even if there is ZERO respect for human life, each person probably represents ~1 civil lawsuit or a MASSIVE class-action.
4.) You seem to believe that the cost of NOT doing business is in any way equivalent to the cost of a single crash.
5.) Ignoring a crash; pretend the ENGINES simply start to have issues. Better yet, forget that, just imagine that a small amount of volcanic glass DOES form, but it's only discovered upon landing. See mgb's 10,000 hour stripdown.
6.) You can't easily tell how dense an ash-cloud is from radar or from the cockpit by eye. You don't make assumptions with airplanes unless you're tired of living.

EDIT: The ACI and AEA (Airport associations, aka industry groups) are petitioning against the ban. Some flights have shown safe conditions. Here is one view... followed by another:

Olivier Jankovec, director general of ACI Europe, said airports have lost close to 136 million euros ($184 million U.S.) so far. More than 6.8 million passengers have been affected, he said in a statement, adding that the effect is worse than after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

More on how stranded travelers are coping

"While safety remains a non-negotiable priority, it is not incompatible with our legitimate request to reconsider the present restrictions," he said.

"While Europe's airlines and airports consider safety to be an absolute priority, they are questioning the proportionality of the flight restrictions currently imposed," ACI Europe and the AEA said in their joint statement. "The eruption of the Icelandic volcano is not an unprecedented event and the procedures applied in other parts of the world for volcanic eruptions do not appear to require the kind of restrictions that are presently being imposed in Europe."

But an expert who has flown over Europe to check the air said he saw "dangerous" conditions.

Guy Gratton, head of the Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements at Britain's Cranfield University, flew into the skies Thursday and saw "a really strange and complex set of layers of ash," with a layer of perfectly clear air suddenly giving way to a layer of ash, he told CNN. If particles of ash enter a jet engine, when they come out they can solidify on turbine blades, he said.

A group of his colleagues took to the skies Sunday, and in some places saw "quite high concentrations of ash," he said.

"I suspect it's going to be a few days yet" before it's safe to fly, Gratton added.

Oh, and look, the head of someone who DOESN'T make money or suffer in elections doesn't think it's safe. And why?... because the layers are not homogeneous, are not easy to predict, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/18/volcano.ash.test.flights/index.html?hpt=T1

So, most think it's perfectly safe, except for those who don't. Given that, and given the amount of air traffic... do the math.

 

[ViewsofMars]

The BA flight 9 flew into a dense ash cloud and it's engines were essentially destroyed in minutes - so if you fly into an ash cloud 1% as dense are your engines unaffected, affect only 1% as much, have it's life reduced by 1% or be destroyed in a few *100 minutes?

Hi mgb_phys, I read on National Geographic News Watch from News Editor David Brawn's Eye on the World the following.

The giant cloud of ash called to mind the 1982 incident when a British Airways Boeing 747 flew through an ash cloud over Indonesia.

"A strange St Elmo's Fire-like light had appeared on the cockpit windscreen and sulphur-smelling smoke started filling the passenger cabin. Then, within minutes, all four engines had failed," the Telegraph reports on its website.

The plane managed to glide sufficiently out of the ash plume for three of the four badly damaged engines to restart. It had fallen 25,000 feet.
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/technology/

 

[ViewsofMars]

Moving onto Monday, April 19, 2010 article by Martin Evans, Alastair Jamieson, Richard Alleyne and David Millward in the online newspaper Telegraph.co.uk., the article Volcanic ash cloud: British Airways fly in the face of ban.

The chaos caused by the eruption of an Icelandic volcano, now entering its fifth day, has left more than one million British travellers stranded abroad.

The unprecedented disruption to airline passengers, which has threatened to leave schools closed and businesses without workers after the Easter holidays, has already cost the economy £500million and is costing airlines worldwide £130million a day. Last night BA became the latest airline to challenge the necessity of the no-fly zone imposed by British air traffic authorities amid claims they had “overreacted”.

Willie Walsh, the airline’s chief executive, joined four crew in a three-hour test flight from London, over the Atlantic, to Cardiff. Today the airline will study the effects of the flight on engines before concluding whether it is safe to fly or not.

A BA spokesman said: “We would not be doing this if we did not think it was safe and didn’t have the necessary permission. We would not do anything which would jeopardise our crew or aircraft.”

The ban on flights is due to run until 7pm today at the earliest. The test flight came as Gordon Brown called a ministerial meeting amid suggestions the Government had been too slow to react. Five ministers – Lord Mandelson, Lord Adonis, Tessa Jowell, David Miliband and Lord West – lined up outside Number 10 after the talks to announce plans for Spain to be used as a transport ''hub’’ to try to get British travellers back home.

Spain’s airspace was opened up last night and plans were being made for British airline passengers to fly into Spain before being placed on naval or private ships to take them back to Britain.

With replacement bus, train and ferry services running out of capacity, the Tories earlier had proposed that ships be commandeered to get people back to Britain.

The Dutch airline KLM had earlier carried out a test flight through the ash cloud over Dutch airspace. A spokesman for the airline said: “We have not found anything unusual and no irregularities, which indicates the atmosphere is clean and safe to fly.”

Lufthansa also flew 10 aircraft from Munich to Frankfurt on Saturday with the blessing of the safety authorities.

A spokesman said: “We found no damage to the engines, fuselage or cockpit windows. This is why we are urging the aviation authorities to run more test flights rather than relying on computer models.”

Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, the Secretary General of the Association of European Airlines, said: “Verification flights undertaken by several of our airlines have revealed no irregularities at all; this confirms our requirement that other options should be deployed to determine genuine risk”.

Last night Ryanair announced it was cancelling all scheduled flights to and from the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic States until 1pm British time on Wednesday.

Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said: “With thousands of Britons stuck in airports overseas, it is hugely worrying that there is no end in sight for the flight ban. This crisis is costing the economy millions of pounds every day and causing huge amounts of travel misery.

''Those who are stranded abroad need reassurance from the Government that they are doing all they can to help get people home and address the crisis.”

The blanket ban was initially imposed on Thursday by Nats, the national air traffic control service.

Keith Bill, a spokesman for the pilots union BALPA, challenged Nats to prove that they have taken advice from counterparts around the world who have greater experience of ash clouds caused by volcano eruptions.

Jo Gillespie, an aviation safety expert, said: “Without having the data to back up the decision this looks like an overreaction and is hugely damaging to the already suffering airline industry.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...d-British-Airways-fly-in-the-face-of-ban.html

 

[tomkeus]

I don't see how things Guy Grutton is saying are relevant for the entire continent. Ash plume is carried directly from Iceland towards the UK and the UK is most severely hit of all European countries.

What makes things tragic, everything points to entire Europe listening only to the British who are on the path of the direct impact and then just applying what they're doing to themselves. Ash info center is in the UK and their computational model just gives highest possible extent of ash plume disregarding it's density. I know for certain that Serbia and Montenegro, Croatian and Hungarian ATC closed down airspace based on UK Met's computer simulations and I'm fairly certain most of other air traffic authorities did that. No one did actual measurements. Only ones who did, were again, British who, being under highest impact, ofcourse measured high presence of ash here and there and just continue to scare the hack of the rest of the Europe without even considering that what they are measuring cannot be applied to the rest.

My point is: We have eruptions all the time There are procedures, and they certainly do not include locking down the entire continent. We had much stronger eruptions in the past but they didn't cause so much disruption in their respective areas. I mean, this volcano spewed out 150 million cubic meter of material. Met's map show that material distributed over at least couple of million cubic kilometers of atmosphere. Calculate mean concentration, and than take into account that concentration is higher in the areas closer to volcano and falls down further. I mean, the fact the people in the UK can see ash falling on the ground tells us that heavier things fall down from the sky in significant amount before reaching the continental Europe.

Basically, over greater part of closed down area ash concentration is negligible and airliners flying over Middle East or North Africa have to deal regularly with much higher presence of silicate particles in the air but no one is locking down anything down there.

Look at the Russians. They are flying without any lockdowns since this whole thing started. I didn't hear them complaining about the damage or planes falling from the sky.

 

[cristo]

I don't see how things Guy Grutton is saying are relevant for the entire continent. Ash plume is carried directly from Iceland towards the UK and the UK is most severely hit of all European countries.

Guy Gratton and his team flew into the cloud and took some data. Given that he is funded by the British government, it makes sense for him to primarily focus on the ash in British airspace. Just because no other data is being collected by equivalent EU entities does not mean he should be condemned for doing so.

What makes things tragic, everything points to entire Europe listening only to the British who are on the path of the direct impact and then just applying what they're doing to themselves. Ash info center is in the UK and their computational model just gives highest possible extent of ash plume disregarding it's density. I know for certain that Serbia and Montenegro, Croatian and Hungarian ATC closed down airspace based on UK Met's computer simulations and I'm fairly certain most of other air traffic authorities did that.

Really? Did you miss my post above. Here, I'll quote it for you:

Err.. firstly the simulations were not just done by the Met Office in the UK; simulations have been done by many other European equivalents. In fact, once professor whom I saw interviewed yesterday say that there was a remarkable level of agreement between the different simulations. Secondly, planes have been up there collecting data, and test flights continue to be done. However, it makes sense that such flights are done by suitable aircraft to try and gauge the situation, and not by just seeing whether a commercial airliner can fly through the ash.

No one did actual measurements. Only ones who did, were again, British who, being under highest impact, ofcourse measured high presence of ash here and there and just continue to scare the hack of the rest of the Europe without even considering that what they are measuring cannot be applied to the rest.

Are you an expert in these matters? Have you seen the data that the British researchers collected and passed on to the authorities, or the jet engine manufacturers? Did you hear the British researchers make sweeping claims applied to the entire continent?

My point is: We have eruptions all the time There are procedures, and they certainly do not include locking down the entire continent. We had much stronger eruptions in the past but they didn't cause so much disruption in their respective areas. I mean, this volcano spewed out 150 million cubic meter of material. Met's map show that material distributed over at least couple of million cubic kilometers of atmosphere. Calculate mean concentration, and than take into account that concentration is higher in the areas closer to volcano and falls down further.

Oh, I get it, the MET office are too dumb to think of this?

Look at the Russians. They are flying without any lockdowns since this whole thing started. I didn't hear them complaining about the damage or planes falling from the sky.

No, not yet, but then the Russians aren't really known for their air safety. Still, I haven't seen any maps, but it's likely that Russian airspace isn't affected to the same extent; their flights over Europe have likely been above the ash cloud.

 

[tomkeus]

My post was probably badly worded. I wasn't accusing UK Met of anything. I was accusing everyone of listening to them and making decisions without trying to understand what is behind the data.

Besides, it is not the Met who is deciding whether to close down airspace it is ATCs and bureaucrats. Met has qualified people who are not idiots unlike guys sitting somewhere in the office thinking to themselves are they going to be elected for the next term.

By saying that Russia isn't so affected you're just confirming my arguments. Met's maps show large portion of western Russia under the cloud, same as the rest of the Europe. Maybe the ash plume is just too afraid to go over the Russian border, despite what the simulations are telling it to do. BTW, Russians don't have significantly worse passenger air safety record than any other European country. It is just unfounded myth.

Here's another example: Ecuadorans have eruption of Tungurahua for years now but they're still flying. We could learn from them a thing or two.

P.S. Latest Met's map:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271655414.png

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Apparently the eruption has virtually stopped.

 

[mgb_phys]

My post was probably badly worded. I wasn't accusing UK Met of anything. I was accusing everyone of listening to them and making decisions without trying to understand what is behind the data.

The problem is that the Met office can model the movement of the cloud and to an extent the density of the cloud.
What nobody knows is how dense can you fly in?
You need a graph of ash-density vs damage to engine - at the moment there are two data points, no-ash=no-danger, lots of ash = lose all 4 engines in 10minutes.

In the absence of any data somebody will pick a number out of the air and in a few years this will become the standard for safe ash density, in the same way that someone decided that a 3.9oz bottle of shampoo is safe but a 4.1oz one is a threat to the aircraft.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Apparently the eruption has virtually stopped.

Best news I've heard today. Thanks Ivan. Where did you find that info?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Best news I've heard today. Thanks Ivan. Where did you find that info?

CNN has been reporting it all morning.

 

[ViewsofMars]

CNN has been reporting it all morning.

Thanks. I normally don't listen to the news. I'll check it out online or look at the newspaper then confirm it with a website that I consider to be a source for the lastest scientific data.


One brief comment, I did read several days ago in my local paper that the damage to a airplane's engine flying through ash is possible and it could take up to three years before the engine dies. Personally, as a frequent flyer I want to feel secure by knowing I'm safe in the air and on the ground too.

 

[Frame Dragger]

A sulphur lining... http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/18/volcano.ash.test.flights/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[Count Iblis]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/04/airlines-push-to-reopen-airspace-nasa-study-urges-caution/

In 2000, NASA conducted a study where it intentionally flew a DC-8 through volcanic ash that was not visible to the flight crew. Despite the relatively small amount of ash encountered, there was damage to the engines, though it was only seen in a detailed examination after the flight. A detailed report on the test includes pictures of damaged engine parts and explains pilots may not have any clues they are flying through ash.

 

[Frame Dragger]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/04/airlines-push-to-reopen-airspace-nasa-study-urges-caution/

Funny how the people who are urging caution are:

1.) The people with the most experience and qualifications to make such a judgement.
2.) People without a personal financial and political stake in air-travel resuming.

Good to know that eruptions don't change human nature... death before loss of profit or inconvenience.

 

[Andre]

...So why aren't they considering at least some flights (high priority, perhaps) at lower, safe, altitudes? Is it just an admin (ATC) problem?

That may very well be the case, apart from the safety issue of range/endurance and reserve fuel for diversion to alternate airport (legal issue) which of course suffer proportionally but the airspace structure and the rules and regulations limits the capacity for safety. But given these restrictions I concur that some contingency plans could have existed to deal with that and allow for limited high priority air traffic.

 

[joelupchurch]

There are some things being said by authorities which are pretty silly:

A spokesperson from from Nats told BBC News that there was "no threshold" for concentrations at which volcanic ash was acceptable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8629609.stm"

In another place I read:

The problem with such ash is that it is extremely fine – less than 2mm in diameter, and in the case of fine ash only 6 microns in diameter – which means that it is easily carried by the wind; and because it is ejected by enormously hot air from a volcano it will often be thrown high into the jetstream at exactly the height that aircraft like to fly. The ash particles' light weight means that they will then remain there, dispersing so slowly it can take two to three years for them to vanish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/volcanic-ash-bad-for-planes"

 

[Frame Dragger]

There are some things being said by authorities which are pretty silly:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8629609.stm"

In another place I read:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/volcanic-ash-bad-for-planes"

Well, it does take 2-3 years for the gasses and ash from an eruption such as this (look at Pinatubo) to return to earth, but it doesn't mean they are a threat to air-safety for that long. There is ALWAYS particulate matter in the air, but it has to be enough to form glass on the turbines in the case of volcanic ash.

As for "no safe threshold", who knows at this point? I don't take that to mean that as long as a particle is aloft that planes won't be.

 

[mgb_phys]

A spokesperson from from Nats told BBC News that there was "no threshold" for concentrations at which volcanic ash was acceptable

That's what happens when you have a country where nobody with a science background is in charge of anything.

 

[Frame Dragger]

That's what happens when you have a country where nobody with a science background is in charge of anything.

I'm ready to embrace the notion of "Philosopher-Kings" at this point!

 

[tomkeus]

Funny how the people who are urging caution are:

1.) The people with the most experience and qualifications to make such a judgement.
2.) People without a personal financial and political stake in air-travel resuming.

Good to know that eruptions don't change human nature... death before loss of profit or inconvenience.

Exactly. They might as well say, "Hey let's shut down air traffic for the entire year". If you really want to play it safe and the only thing you care about is human life, you will certainly say that. But if safety is the only thing you are concerned, you might as well say, hey planes tend to drop from the sky here and there and cost hundreds of lives each year, so let's ban air traffic altogether.

Point is that things have to function and you have to take risks. All the time. Nothing is absolutely safe and certain. It really begins to tick me off how our Western societies can easily get paralyzed by fear and grind to a halt at the slightest sign of uncertainty.

Look at the safety precautions at the airports now. Getting more draconian all the time. We had planes bombed out of the skies in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, but authorities didn't institute for passenger to get stripped down or cavity searches. The way things are going now I wouldn't be too surprised if within next 10 years the only way to travel by air is to strip naked, get tranquilized and then tied down to your seat.

This article sumps up nicely everything that bothers me about this culture of excessive caution that seems to be emerging more and more lately

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8607/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The way things are going now I wouldn't be too surprised if within next 10 years the only way to travel by air is to strip naked, get tranquilized and then tied down to your seat.

Wow, that would be something. I haven't dated in years.

 

[Hurkyl]

But if safety is the only thing you are concerned, you might as well say, hey planes tend to drop from the sky here and there and cost hundreds of lives each year, so let's ban air traffic altogether.

Only if you're doing it wrong.

If safety was the only thing you are concerned about, then you would have to balance the dangers of air travel against the dangers of people traveling other ways.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Exactly. They might as well say, "Hey let's shut down air traffic for the entire year". If you really want to play it safe and the only thing you care about is human life, you will certainly say that. But if safety is the only thing you are concerned, you might as well say, hey planes tend to drop from the sky here and there and cost hundreds of lives each year, so let's ban air traffic altogether.

Point is that things have to function and you have to take risks. All the time. Nothing is absolutely safe and certain. It really begins to tick me off how our Western societies can easily get paralyzed by fear and ground to a halt at the slightest sign of uncertainty.

Look at the safety precautions at the airports now. Getting more draconian all the time. We had planes bombed out of the skies in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, but authorities didn't institute for passenger to get stripped down or cavity searches. The way things are going now I wouldn't be too surprised if within next 10 years the only way to travel by air is to strip naked, get tranquilized and then tied down to your seat.

This article sumps up nicely everything that bothers me about this culture of excessive caution that seems to be emerging more and more lately

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8607/

I see a clear difference between security screening that routinely FAILS, and is therefore an illusion of comfort (re: your point about western views), and taking a risk when intelligent people are telling you to do different things.

There is this as well... the airlines and airport associations are complaining that they are losing $200 million USD per day. They are already asking governments for recompense. Passengers meanwhile (or strandees more properly) have no such recourse, unless their traveler's insurance covers Force Majeure up to volcanic eruptions.

So, there is a desire for money on one hand, which is nearly devoid of conscience because responsiblity is spread across an industry. On the other you have people who care ONLY about keeping planes from falling out of the sky. Clearly as with all things in life, it's a matter of risk/benefit, but how does a politician make that judgement based on conflicting advice?

Answer: They don't always make the right one. That doesn't mean that the western world is hysterical... it means that gambling with a plane full of people (who may be desperate to get somewhere,and thereofore not making their own clear judgements) is not acceptable. If a plane DID crash due to the ash, can you imagine the outrage?... it would be NOTHING compared to this.

Finally... there is "uncertain", and there is "needless risk". How is erring on the side of caution hysterical? I suspect that based on this, contingency plans for future eruptions will be put in place. THAT is what should have been done already, along with more research to understand just WHAT contitutes a safe concentration of ash. That said, you can't make up for prior negligence by gambling with lives and the confidence of people who fly.

You're also being a bit narrow here... people are TERRIFIED of spending the last minute or two of their lives helpless, in a metal tube, knowing they are about to die. That terror skews judgement, because although we all know we're going to eventually die, and maybe sooner rather than later, an air-crash is a nightmare for most. You mention security in, say, US airports, but you neglect to mention that we have almost NO security for rail travel, and other clear risks. People need to get through life without being paralyzed by terror, and for most, that means a certain level of denial.

Bottom line: People are terrified of falling to their deaths, being eaten alive, burning, and having their eyes, hands and genitals mutilated. Their fear is rooted in reason, but it's amplified by basic human nature, the same that makes Anatomy students faint when they actually SEE a cadaver... especially the face and hands. That isn't reasonable either, but it's enough to force some people out of medicine. We're human, we make human mistakes, and we know that death is final (afterlife or no, it's an end to THIS) so we try not to make mistakes which we SEE as risky.

Governments almost always bow to fear, and realize that they would be out of a job and probably a conscience if something DID go wrong. So, you accept some risks, and when an obvious and unusual (to people) event occurs which contains a great deal of fear and uncertainty... this is what you get.

This, is putting aside the notion that in fact, traveling through an ash cloud IS dangerous, I'm speaking only to the human element here.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That may very well be the case, apart from the safety issue of range/endurance and reserve fuel for diversion to alternate airport (legal issue) which of course suffer proportionally but the airspace structure and the rules and regulations limits the capacity for safety. But given these restrictions I concur that some contingency plans could have existed to deal with that and allow for limited high priority air traffic.

I'm glad you see my point. It is obviously possible to arrange some sort of service which could be optimised for any particular flight ceiling. Even a 25% service at 200% of the running cost would be well worth while.
I should hope that someone in a backroom somewhere has already been told to prepare for a similar eventuality. The present situation has been handled particularly badly and you can see why. The slightest hint of an accident or even 'incident' would have someone's arse severely kicked; air travel is that sort of business and no one admits to placing a value on human life in that particular context. I have always been impressed by the way NICE manage to do that, so explicitly, with regard to medicine without being pilloried.
There should have been a proportionate response. Once 'the dust has settled' there are bound to be huge recriminations about the cost to everyone, including the lives lost when organ transplants and drugs haven't got through. Questions will be asked!:grumpy:

 

[dorlomin]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html"

They also have flown sampling missions in BAe Hawks.

Should lay aside one or two of the myths about this lock down.

 

[Frame Dragger]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html"

They also have flown sampling missions in BAe Hawks.

Should lay aside one or two of the myths about this lock down.

Now THAT, is good stuff.

 

[mgb_phys]

then you would have to balance the dangers of air travel against the dangers of people traveling other ways.

US highway deaths are something like 50,000/year = a full 737 crashing everyday!

 

[Frame Dragger]

US highway deaths are something like 50,000/year = a full 737 crashing everyday!

True, but is that per capita, or a result of how much time people spend in cars vs. airplanes?

This keeps making me think of 'Freakonomics'... granted hardly a scientific trove, but still...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Lk...resnum=4&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false"[

I really appreciate the equation: Risk = Hazard + Outrage.

 

[mgb_phys]

True, but is that per capita, or a result of how much time people spend in cars vs. airplanes?

Mostly a result of confusion about the correlation between wearing a seatbelt and not flying through the windscreen.

The US+Canada have about twice the highway fatality rate of most western european countries, in spite of being in theory safer as more miles are driven on freeways. And the US+Canada have much lower levels of wearing a seatbelt.