“We sent ten Boeing 747 and Airbus 340 jets on transfer flights from Munich to Frankfurt,” Lufthansa spokesman Klaus Walther told the paper. The planes were moved in order to be in the most useful place once the ban is lifted, he explained.
“Our machines flew to a height of 24,000 feet, or around 8,000 metres. In Frankfurt the machines were examined by our technicians. They didn’t find the slightest scratch on the cockpit windscreens, on the outer skin nor in the engines.”
“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.”
Source: “the Local”
At left: the model from the Met Office used to look at dispersion.
The Nuclear Accident Model (NAME) was originally developed after the nuclear accident in 1986 at Chernobyl, which highlighted the need for a capability to predict the spread and deposition of radioactive material released into the atmosphere. The model has continued to be developed and is now applied to a wide range of atmospheric pollution problems, ranging from emergency responses to daily air-quality forecasts.
Over the years, NAME has been applied to a number of atmospheric releases, including radioactive releases, the Kuwaiti oil fires, major industrial fires and chemical spills, and two major volcanic eruptions that occurred in Iceland. Both of these eruptions resulted in aircraft having to be re-routed to avoid potentially dangerous ash clouds. An example of the volcanic ash guidance provided to the aviation community is shown in Figure 1.
Source: NWP Gazette
Here is what Professor Jerom Ravetz of Oxford has to say about the issue (via email):
Interim contribution to the Post-Normal Science debate.
Considering the effects of the Icelandic volcano on air transport, we seem to have:
- Facts Uncertain: how thin must the dust be, for it to be safe enough for flying?
- Values in Dispute: Regulators wanting safety at all costs, others needing to get flying now.
- Stakes High: Crippling costs to industry, versus big risks to aircraft and people.
- Decisions Urgent: Every day the immediate costs mount, and the long-term costs grow.
Is this analysis an invitation to scientists to cheat? Some of my critics would say so, and perhaps even some of my supporters as well!
h/t to WUWT readers Nigel Brereton and Bernd Felsche
This volcano had been steaming for about a month. Why didn’t the Volcano analysis center at the Met and/or the airlines have plans in place to send up drones or scout planes to evaluate the actual ash dispersion? Why didn’t the decision makers start scenario-planning in advance of the event, and consulting with one another? Etc. This isn’t just a scandal about decision making. The quality of the decisions made is arguable. What’s not arguable is the scandalous lack of preparedness and foresight.
Dan (22:27:46) :
ScientistForTruth (16:25:35) :
“That is more or less my point. The Met Office computer modeled ash cloud does not include any information on concentrations. The actual concentrations within the real cloud is very likely varied.
Obviously there is a lower limit below which it is safe to operate.
Until the cloud maps include information on concentrations, the safe approach must be to stay out of the cloud.”
Is that really the case, i.e. “computer modeled ash cloud does not include any information on concentrations”? If you read the papers in the International Symposium I mentioned (1991) and those published since, there are certainly models that deal with concentration and particle size distribution with time and distance from the source. I’ll grant you that a satellite photo won’t give you a lot of information other than position and extent, but that is actually very valuable as more likely to be accurate than any model of extent and position. But position, extent, distance from source, height and time from ejection should, with some fairly simple modelling, give a pretty good starting point.
Practically all the data has shown that there is no ash worth speaking of up to 20,000 ft. Jets are somewhat less efficient at that altitude, and of course to set that as an altitude limit is going to reduce the available airspace, but surely it should be possible to run a ‘skeleton’ service up to 20,000ft, or 15,000ft if one wants to play really safe. If all non-essential flights are curtailed, it should still be possible to run at, say, 25% of normal capacity to be able to repatriate Britons who are currently stranded.
As another commenter has observed, air ambulances are not even allowed to fly, and this is resulting in avoidable deaths. To me, to stop essential and emergency services, which can fly at low level, is absolutely insane. The precautionary principle is defective in that it does not account for the risk of not doing something.
@ur momisugly Daniel H (09:33:31):
Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion. I was quite surprised to see so many nanny-state “better safe than sorry” supporters on a blog critical of the environmental bureaucracy.
@ur momisugly Everyone else: If you think it is “better safe than sorry” – DON’T FLY. Let everyone else make their own personal decisions and succeed or fail by them. You have no right to forcibly impose your will on others, no matter if you have 51% of the vote or even 99% of the vote.
Mike Haseler (15:11:20) :
Tenuc “No need for post normal science in the decision process here. It’s a no brainer – inconvenience travellers or risk killing them!”
“At an average death rate of 1 in 40,000 per day there have already been a dozen or so deaths abroad because of the precautionary principle.
This is just an absurd attitude to risk. Any kind of travelling brings a risk of death and only a complete idiot would try to say: “any risk is too high” because that totally ignores the fact that if people can’t fly they are forced to go by far more risky means of travel.
Wow! I’m glad you’re not the decision maker at NATS.
All evidence shows that flying modern jet aircraft through even light volcanic ash is dangerous. You’d need to be stupid to want to fly until you knew there would be clear air space for the duration of your journey.
ScientistForTruth:
As of yesterday, data from ground-based lidars and several research aircraft flights suggest the majority of the ash is between 2-3.5km altitude – much lower than the most airliners cruise at (and below the 20kft altitude you suggest) So the issue isnt at-altitude ash, it is encountering ash during ascents and descents – the most critical parts of a flight.
ScientistForTruth (01:59:06) :
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271741319.png
On all Advisory Charts (except this one, of course) the Met Office has stated that they do not have any information on the ash concentration.
But you may have a point; The Met Office should have at least a model of the various concentrations, otherwise the computer model would not know where the cloud limits are.
I believe aerial sampling is the only way to go.
“Obviously there is a lower limit below which it is safe to operate.”
Unless we are talking about isolated particles, I seriously doubt it. For the ATC and the air routes to function there will have to be large amounts of clear and contiguous airspace. Establish that with a moving ash cloud is extremely difficult.
“Practically all the data has shown that there is no ash worth speaking of up to 20,000 ft.”
One simply cannot say that there are fronts and systems in play. A warm could push the ash right down to the floor as could a high pressure system, where as a convective cell or terrain can send it up higher.
“Every jet aircraft that flies through a rainstorm is exposed to non-zero concentrations of dust as dust particles serve as condensation nuclei for raindrops. We know well the hazards that aircraft experience in such conditions and glass coatings on turbine blades aren’t anywhere near the top of the list. Those who suggested safe exposure limits to various dust concentrations are absolutely correct and the ignorance of this fact by those making decisions about whether aircraft fly or not is frightening. ”
Of course there is dust in the atmosphere. But to compare rain and a normal everyday environment to volcanic ash is just a symptom of how ignorant people are of the true issues at stake. The fact is that volcanic ash is not like a bit of dust or rain, it is extremely abrasive and destructive. Unlike many other environment factors that we deal with each day, there is no way to mitigate against this risk other than to avoid it. The specific consequences of light ash are unknown but can be sensibly assumed to be bad, unquantifiably so.
“Nothing has surprised me more when I found out there were no test flights but that instead a computer model”
I just shows that you shouldn’t believe what the papers say then doesn’t it. It is seriously surprising that people who read this blog doubt anything related to CC but suddenly jump on this issue as if the MSM knows what it is suddenly talking about.
“Practically all the data has shown that there is no ash worth speaking of up to 20,000 ft.”
The fact is that military jet observation flights have suffered engine damage.
“@ur momisugly Everyone else: If you think it is “better safe than sorry” – DON’T FLY. Let everyone else make their own personal decisions and succeed or fail by them. You have no right to forcibly impose your will on others, no matter if you have 51% of the vote or even 99% of the vote.”
That is a somewhat irrational point of view. Passengers simply cannot assess the level of risk and therefore the decision needs to made for them as is the case for any level of significant risk during any normal operation. I can just see it now ‘Ladies and gentlemen, there is a thunderstorm with 3nm of the far end of the runway. If you want to fly, press the green button and the red button for no. 51% wins the vote. Good luck!”
Today’s Daily Telegraph has this headline banner on the front page: “Met Office got it wrong over ban on flights”. The report says: “The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud”.
This all sounds horribly familiar. In some branches of science – climate science probably being the biggest offender but not the only one – it seems that the output of computer models is more important than empirical data. Of course, models can be useful, but as forecasting tools they can be very, very wrong. A good example is the Met Office seasonal forecasts that they have now abandoned.
It’s quite ironic that the EU, one of the biggest climate alarmists, is actually questioning the validity of this computer model.
The Telegraph also reports that there may be class actions brought by the airlines and other affected businesses against the Met Office and NATS. If this happens, and it does seem likely, the sums will be in the billions of dollars. It could be fascinating: we may actually see a computer model put on trial!
The Met Office have claimed they did make some measurements. In this new climate of data transparency and openness, I trust they will make all the measurements publicly available. Meanwhile, back in the real world….
Chris
The Daily Telegraph is not impressed with the met office nor with computer modelling.
“Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure
The Met Office has been blamed for triggering the “unnecessary” six-day closure of British airspace which has cost airlines, passengers and the economy more than £1.5 billion.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html
Tenuc,
“All evidence shows that flying modern jet aircraft through even light volcanic ash is dangerous.”
Really? Do you have any citation for that assertion? And what do you mean by dangerous? Dangerous as in a non-zero risk exists that particles of ash may stop an engine? Or dangerous as in a reasonable chance exists that this will happen? Statements that I have read suggest that there does not in fact exist any database of volcanic ash concentrations and engine damage, and that the default position adopted is a no fly policy if ANY ash exists.
Of course, if you are correct, that volcanic ash at any non zero concentration presents a measurable risk to life, then this whole argument is redundant and it becomes the axiom that one shouldn’t fly. So the airlines are all wrong when they complain that the airspace closure is an overreaction. The EU transport minister is wrong for now suggesting the same thing. One may ask why they are taking this position if it is already well established that low level ash fallout is a danger to aviation. Wouldn’t that make them legally culpable for any accident, since such an accident would have clearly been forewarned by the data?
Of course, no such data exists, which is why everyone is pulling in different directions.
Jerome Ravetz (11:02:18) :
“Also, what to when the relevant science has been neglected, and all we have are Models. ”
If the science has been neglected we don’t have relevant models. What we have is computerized guesswork.
@ur momisugly Vincent (04:04:39) :
Read this report which I posted earlier to see the effects of even small amounts of volcanic ash on aircraft engines: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88751main_H-2511.pdf
Matt,
That was an interesting link. I noted that the measured ash particle density was aroung 20 – 30,000 parts per cm^3. This was described as diffuse in the paper, but I’m not sure how that compares with the density over Europe. The only test aircraft existing in the UK, they report, with sufficiently sensitive equipment to detect the cloud is a Dornier based at Cranfield, so I suspect the density is somewhat lower than this encounter.
It was also interesting that although no damage was discovered on visual inspection after landing, when the engines were sent to the research center to be stripped down, this was found not to be the case. It is interesting because about 40 test flights have now been carried out by commercial airlines and they have reported no damage. Either the cloud density is a lot lower than encountered in this example, or they haven’t subjected the engines to an in depth strip down.
However, the take away message is that diffuse volcanic ash clouds are “worse than you think.”
Tony:
“Unless we are talking about isolated particles, I seriously doubt it”
Point is no one seems to know. With all volcanoes around the globe active on and off, I doubt there is such a thing as “No Ash”.
Perhaps the certification standards for aero engines need to be revised to include sensitivity to ash. In short, test cell running with metered ash ingestion and subsequent borescoping.
Then we need to equip all airplanes with ash detectors to monitor when the concentration approaches the tested values. Not simple nor cheap, but maybe simpler and cheaper than today’s mess.
Telegraph
Ash models got it wrong (just like climate models).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html
@ur momisugly John from CA (16:57:10) :
What does that even mean ‘The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud’? How do you forecast using fact? That doesnt even make sense! Can you use ‘facts’ to predict the outcome of a roll of a dice? No, you use probability… all bets for future events are made upon probabilities… The Telegraph clearly needs some new writers.
Here is a situation that is desperate for a PNS summary, with input from the precautionary principle.
The Occupational Health and Safety office here once issued a directive that no worker could lawfully climb a ladder unless it was securely fixed at top and bottom.
Over to you, Jerome.
Oh, for act 2, the official sign “Sheep shall not cross this bridge unless accompanied by a drover.”
You are allowed to use “sheep” in the context of several posts above, if it helps.
Sorry … not read all posts here …
So if the EU gets (already is?) top heavy with “warmist” and “eco” types, such as those in Plane Stupid how easy will it be for them to impose excessive rules like this in the future to other industries?
One wonders if the volcano is a great excuse for the EU to flex its muscles. What other restrictions will they impose against industry in the future. Or are they already doing so with silly CO2 targets?
I wonder how Plane Stupid will spin this grounding.
Scary a heck.
Really this is an economic question under uncertainty – for companies, its all about balancing revenue against safety concerns and maintenance concerns. For travelers – its about the cost and inconviencnece of being stuck in an airport vs traveling with perception of increased risk of catastrophic failure.
The LAST people who should be making decisions about flying are The govt bureaucraTS who have no skin in the game.
The ash cloud is still visible on the MODIS image from 11:55 Zulu today, stretching down over the Atlantic to the west of the British Isles. This is fresh ash and lies right on the trans-atlantic routes, hopefully it’s below Flight level 300. This anti-model propaganda is being pushed by financial interests, a clear case of blaming the messenger! Dispersal of clouds by turbulent transport (i.e. the winds aloft) is something that’s been studied and tested for years and is routinely used to plan flights around volcano plumes. In this case the extended plume is over the airports so it’s difficult to route around it.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010110/crefl1_143.A2010110115500-2010110120000.500m.jpg
Today’s Met Office model shows the extension westward which matches the image well.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271741319.png
Re: Obama’s request for video ads from the public via John Galt (14:12:22)
Words cannot express how much I love that our current President feels the need to assign homework to the general population…
I fail to see the similarity between banning air travel and combating climate change. It is known that volcanic ash damages planes. If the planes go back up too early, hundreds of people could die. The cost of delay is huge, but not compared to a disaster. So the Precautionary Principle applies. With climate change, we don’t know whether increasing CO2 or decreasing it will be more harmful, so it’s impossible to decide between the two. The Precautionary Principle does not apply. I don’t see what’s ‘post-normal’ about old-fashioned logic.
I think it is interesting to read what Boeing say about volcanic ash and aircraft. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_09/volcanic_story.html
The primary way safety recommendation they provide for ash is to avoid it.
Hey look – Irish bogtrotters forced to hand over tree ring data. The Guardian takes its usual fair-minded approach –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/20/climate-sceptic-wins-data-victory
So is there zero tolerance for flying into Asian and African dust and pollution clouds? When has a flight been diverted from a Chinese destination because there are too many particles in the air?