By Steven Goddard
As reported on WUWT, The UK Met Office is taking a lot of heat for airline financial loses, caused by no flight rules during the Icelandic volcanic eruption. Many readers have expressed their agreement with those criticisms.
I don’t agree with all of these criticisms, and here is why.
Suppose you are taking a ten hour 8:30 PM flight from Seattle to London. You pass Iceland eight hours into the flight, and ash conditions may have changed dramatically since you left. A new volcanic eruption may have occurred overnight, and your plane is almost out of fuel. No matter how accurate the circulation models are, they can not predict the behaviour of the volcano. The modelers and the people in charge of decision making have to be conservative.
Do you want to be on a plane over the frigid waters of the North Atlantic, which can’t progress forward and does not have enough fuel to turn back? I know I don’t. Erupting volcanoes can change in the blink of an eye, as people near Seattle found out at 8:32 AM on May 18, 1980. There is always going to be some risk, but this particular volcano has been spewing out a lot of ash and deserves particular caution.
Now that enough information has been gathered, the decision has been made to restore the flight schedules. It has been a very long week for travelers, but in terms of the required science and engineering – seven days isn’t very long when making life or death decisions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Safety comes first. The people who were complaining should try flying in it. If they want to plummet 40,000+ feet to their deaths because the ash destroyed or severely damaged every single engine on board, I say they should go for it, and good luck to them. But they don’t have the right to gamble with other people’s lives.
I say the Met Office made the right call.
Are you arguing that the Met Office were correct in pushing their inaccurate ash distribution model – as they were effectively factoring in the risk of new eruptions? What else can the program do – predict meteor showers (?) (we know it isn’t particularly useful for weather prediction).
I am beginning to suspect that the Met Office simulation fortran program features a large array called ‘W’, a large number of mysterious integer offsets into this array, that only Julia claims to be able to understand, and after chewing through large amounts of compute time, it either prints out ‘No’, ‘Maybe’, or ‘Much hotter’.
Steve, airplanes dont follow rails or tunnels, they can divert or change altitude. volcanic ash was never reported above FL350 and liners can fly at those altitudes. a diversion north of island (or where deemed suitable) would have avoided eventual ash without leaving thousands stranded and airlines with massive losses. airplanes on the ground eat money like crazy.
if you read the report about the famous BA 009 flight over indonesia, you will see that the flight was very eventful, with sant’elmo fires and very visible phenomenons reconducting to volcanic ash, but the pilots, unaware of the eruption, failed to recognize them. a total ban was truly and massively OTT.
Steven,
I could not agree more with this analsyis. It is the prudent, risk mitigating thing to do. What I cannot understand is why you do not apply the same logic to climate change. A large number of models and scientists are telling us to be prudent and take action yet you choose to ignore them and take a wait and see approach. I for one am extremely dissapointed that people such as yourself are taking such a huge gamble with our collective future. shame on you.
MJK.
Seven days to determine what level of ash can safely be handled by jet engines. Billions of dollars lost.
Why were not the standards set years ago. Volcanoes are not a new invention. Iceland has been on the North Atlantic flight paths for a very long time. Why was nott his work done years ago?
Steven,
A couple of qualifiers to this discussion:
1.) Commercial flights are rarely “nearly out of fuel” – even then, your point is an appropriate consideration for international flights but not local European flights.
2.) If there was, as you say, a new eruption it would take some time for the ash to get into the flight path for Heathrow – there could always be a new eruption and this is something that has to be managed regardless. The concern is what’s going on in the flight path of a given flight.
3.) A big part of the complaint is that the MET almost, if not completely, exclusively used computer models to predict dispersion. They also appear to have gone off of a zero tolerance policy. Without confirmation by real measurement, there was no way to tell if the risk was even real or just the figment of a computer’s imagination.
This is a disagree without being disagreeable moment as far as I’m concerned – hope there are no hard feelings. If anything, this seems to be a nice lesson in the risk of reliance on computer models paired with alarmism.
An old aviation saying …….”It is better to be on the ground and wishing you were in the air, than to be in the air and wishing you were on the ground.” Imagine if there had been (or in the future… was) a serious ash incident.
The Met was correct in immediately grounding the flights— their failure was not following up with testing. Additionally, risks are not always avoided- they are often transferred. Automobile travel per passenger mile is significantly greater to passengers and pedestrians than is air. Zero air travel risk causes increased auto risk– the question is where is the inflection point?
Kind of funny for MJK to come in at this late date in defense of the flight ban when just about the entire world has agreed that it was an incredibly wasteful knee jerk overreaction, based on flawed computer modeling.
And Steve, I’ve got to agree with GianMarko – why a complete ban, when a simple diversionary flight path would have worked just fine? Add one stop for refueling if you must, and simply divert several hundred miles to the south.
Also, why not a flight overhead to see how high the ash levels were really going? What kind of useful “precaution” can be obtained from trusting computer models without any kind of real world verification???
There were many prudent, realistic choices available here – and none of them were followed. The path followed was that of the brainless apparatchik who is terrified of being assigned blame for anything, so he decides that zero activity at all is the only possible salvation.
“gianmarko (08:14:55) :
Steve, airplanes dont follow rails or tunnels, they can divert or change altitude.
”
I agree with this. Would adding 800 miles to this journey be so bad?
I would feel fine about flying the route, as long as, the plane always had enough fuel to divert back to the usa airbase in greenland or NE canada.
In reality, i probably would not fly the route because i am afraid a cost-cutting, money-losing airline is not putting enough fuel on the plane.
i. If there was an unexpected eruption then one need only drop below FL350, and divert to GLW or EDH. Sin problemo.
ii. The statistical fact is that even if we sustained 1 airplane loss in every 1000 for a week or so, airplanes are so safe that in the long run they would still be the safest form of transport. So I don’t see what the problem was.
The argument is not whether this was dangerous or not, but rather that the airlines and the passengers should make the risk assessment. The problem with the government making the assessment is that they are very risk-intolerant and will almost always make a decision that is too conservative.
Steven,
You suggest that many object to the notification of an eruption or a general warning of ash cloud. I disagree, I think the criticism is directed at the longer term use of the models to project ash cloud locations when they have been shown to be inaccurate. Clearly, observation is the more accurate method of locating the ash clouds. Also, the criticism seems directed at the aviation authorities moreso than the Met Office. If the Met deserve criticism , it is that they appear not to have properly advised authorities on the limitations of their model. The great failure here is the failure to implement an observation scheme to locate ash cloud extent and to identify just how much ash constitutes a dangerous level. I do take your point that some may direct their criticism inappropriately.
Yes, they would simply have to circle until they crash and burn into the volcano because there are no divert airports between SEA and LHR. Canada has no airports at all, and there are no other countries between the West Coast and Europe.
Wait a minute, perhaps not…
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020508&slug=websas08
It’s sad that most people have no clue about risk assessment. They’ll happily drive to the airport, but then worry themselves stupid about a bit of dust in the atmosphere, which has never caused a single airliner to crash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8633484.stm
That explains the first ± 2 days of flights on the great circle route, as shown on the graphic. Most reasonable people would agree with that. Looking at some of the many other images recording the volcanic action leaves one to wounder about subsequent days and closing the whole lot for such a long period.
I think you are missing the point here. The Met off role in all this was merely to provide a forecast of upper wind direction and therefore the location of volcanic ash in the atmosphere at all heights to 36000 feet~approx. The zero tolerance was inflicted by the european and british governments. Therefore, if the met off model showed dust in the atmosphere all flights had to be stopped through that part of the atmosphere.
The difference here was that in past eruptions elsewhere in the world, planes continued to fly but at a distance from the eruption deemed to be safe. This was not a zero tolerance policy but a safety first policy. The zero tolerance policy is the same one being inflicted on us by the CO² loonies. The problem is identical. The authorities don’t know what amount of dust / CO² is safe so they impose their zero tolerance policy and everyone pays but them.
Aircraft engines inhale dust/sand/earth all day everyday, it’s fine, low density powder which does no harm at all. As the test flights showed, you need to be in the volcanic cloud, close to the volcano to suffer serious damage. If you applied their principle to everyday life you would stay in bed. There is a risk with everything we do and we consciously assess that risk as we go about a daily routine and we would never say “I’m not eating that beef because of CJD, or I’m staying on this side of the road because I might get knocked down
This is exactly why we see the faults in The Met Office models.
The met uses models and can’t gather actual data from observation. Yes the plane flies at an altitude higher than the “plume”. The plane also flies faster than the dispersion of the plume. If a plane flies west to california, it’s actual ground speed is still greater than the jet stream it flies into. If the cloud travels at 80 miles an hour and the plane flies at over 400, it can out run the ash cloud safely.
So if a plane takes off from Seattle, we calculate it’s speed and we can get wind direction and speed at varius altitudes applied to the volcanoe, we may still beat it to Heathrow when the eruption is at the same time.
If flights had been allowed to proceed and one or two went down, who do you think would have been sued for it? The government agencies that allowed the planes to fly, of course. The fact that airlines lost money due to this natural event is the cost of doing business.
Steve, while I understand the decision to be cautious, I also have sympathy for the position of Lufthansa airlines which said.
“The flight ban, which is completely based on computer calculations, is causing economic damage in the billions. This is why, for the future, we demand that dependable measurements must be available before a flight ban is imposed.”
This statement was made after Lufthansa sent ten Boeing 747 and Airbus 340 jets on transfer flights from Munich to Frankfurt. They flew to a height of 24,000 feet. After the flights the planes were examined by Lufthansa technicians in Frankfort where they didn’t find the slightest scratch on the cockpit windscreens, on the outer skin nor in the engines.”
Once again, the Met Offices use of computer models failed miserable proving they are no substitute for actual real world measurements.
Madman: It is all part of the nanny state. People have the right to infinite contract. If we want to take to risk, and the airlines are willing to take the risk, then I do not see why there needs to be a ban. The only problem would arise if the airlines lied about the risks in order to induce customers. Besides, as I said, even if a few planes had crashed here and there, airplane travel would still be statistically the safest form of transport over the long term.
I freely admit I dont understand people who say things like “Safety comes first” (let alone those who screech it it).
If safety comes first then these people wouldn’t leave their houses, since driving is one hell of a lot more risky than flying. Indeed, you’d need about 50 volcanos constantly erupting to make flying as risky as driving.
Just because the airline schedules the flight and the flight crew agrees to fly the plane doesn’t mean the passengers are forced to get on it.
“safety” is an infantile fantasy, and people who think it is more important than anything else give me the screaming hee-bee jee-bees. Especially those who claim to be highly focussed on their personal safety and then blithely hand their lives over into the jdugements of bureaucrats … take some responsibility for your own decisions, please!
Yes, the immediate risk of death is worth some caution. Especially because if you’re near to Iceland and have to change course to elsewhere in Europe, you need a lot of extra fuel to make 45-to-90 degree turns and fly hundreds of extra miles to go around a wide cloud. If you’re really worried, fly to Italy via Rio de Janeiro.
The above only concerns the risk of death to passengers of one flight. For the airlines and passengers, money is a strong secondary factor. If the volcano’s cloud is always below 35,000 feet, any plane which can stay above 45,000 feet can reach Europe once – it might destroy its engines during descent, and that is an expensive repair. Airlines have to first protect their passengers and secondly protect their planes or they can’t afford to fly. People who can afford to pay for new airplanes are always an exception. Passengers of diverted flights might find themselves in the wrong country and have to spend time and money traveling to their destination (at least within the EU there should be few legal travel complications – imagine if your flight was diverted to a place which required a visa which you didn’t have).
Flying out of Europe is a different situation, as the engines may be damaged at the start of the flight. However, the return flight has to be considered by passengers planning to travel to Europe. Why fly there if you only have time and money for a two-week vacation, and you might not be able to leave there for several days? Do you plan to try to leave 4 days early? If you’re on a tour you may have little flexibility in scheduling.
MJK – I do not fear a one or two degree change in temperature, and after looking at the science I think it is not likely that our CO2 has caused much change. Our black top roads and humid lawns have indeed caused local changes.
please notice that at any rate even the worst case of flying into a volcanic ash cloud, the famous BA009 flight, didnt result in fatalities. engines were heavily damaged and flamed out but could be restarted at lower altitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
lots of info on this flight and even a veryt good documentary in the well known series on discovery channel
as for the comment about cost cutting airlines not loading enough fuel, that is nonsense. aircrafts cost substantially more than fuel, and no sane person would intentionally fly an airplane without enough fuel to reach destination. moreover, there are strict regulations about the necessary endurance for passenger flights.
Whilst I don’t like to see professional people ridiculed for no good reason, & I know some of the people who work at the Met Office in Exeter, the perhaps over-reliance on computer modelling alone is not a good idea, even if it is Deep Thought! As I have said before, this thing can do 2 billion? calculations a second, but if what is being put into the blunt end & coming out at the sharp end is wrong, it doesn’t matter how fast your “puter” actually is, one just gets the wrong answer that much faster, but one doesn’t know it’s wrong. As others have pointed out elsewhere, a regime of air quality testing should have been in place almost immediately to assess particle dilution & density, & a little less “intolerance” from aero-engine manufacturers should also have been imposed, nothing has zero tolerances in my book! What happens to lower altitude planes in a dust storm?
Also, what about those aircraft already in flight? What are they supposed to do, put the handbrake on at 30,000 ft & stop for a coffee break for the duration? No, they would have to continue on their journeys & take a……risk. The problem is the EU itself among other things, the Met Office is simply a part of the problem, & as expected, Mr Everybody is blaming Mr Somebody, but Mr Nobody is taking responibility.