“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
“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…”
Rod… thanks for making me laugh. We know that lower CO2 limits do, in fact, cause more damage to living organisms that NEED CO2 to thrive. I’m not going to list any of them for you. Submariners handle over 5,000 ppm for extended periods of time–yes, I wouldn’t recommend that level forever, but…
As long as the govs demand whoever is making the decisions pay for all the loss of income, expenses and such, I don’t see a problem… lol. They are paying the people’s way, aren’t they? Wait… that means my tax dollars… damn, get those planes up.
Phil,
“This anti-model propaganda is being pushed by financial interests, a clear case of blaming the messenger!”
There seems to be some confusion on this point. A number of people are taking away the message that because the need for the ban is in dispute, this is because the models are wrong or in doubt. This is not the case. The models are correctly predicting the dispersion of the ash. The uncertainty is in how much of a risk this poses to aircraft saftey. I think, basically, there has been little research on this in the past and the default position of zero tolerance has been adopted. That is where the “facts are uncertain” comes into the picture.
Vincent (10:18:49) :
If the models can correctly predict the ash dispersion — was their a need to ground aircraft in unaffected areas?
Fact is, the satellite data isn’t accurate under a certain ash particle size and they Don’t trust the lack of accurate input model data when lives are actually at risk.
I don’t blame them but its a big tell about the Climate model mess.
sorry, s/b “was there a need to ground aircraft”
It’s also a nice equation to add to PNS but I’d love to hear anyone tell me what’s been “Normal” since Jacques Derrida condemned the metaphysics to a single thermodynamic law.
… and oddly, the single thermodynamic law relates to Physics and Language.
John from CA (11:14:07) :
“Vincent (10:18:49) :
If the models can correctly predict the ash dispersion — was there a need to ground aircraft in unaffected areas?”
Seems like the Met office model was wrong after all. The latest info is that the airspaces have been opened after measurements showed the ash cloud was confined to the North Atlantic when the model showed it was over Europe.
What was I thinking, believing the models were right? Doh!
Vincent (06:56:59) :
John from CA (11:14:07) :
“Vincent (10:18:49) :
If the models can correctly predict the ash dispersion — was there a need to ground aircraft in unaffected areas?”
Seems like the Met office model was wrong after all. The latest info is that the airspaces have been opened after measurements showed the ash cloud was confined to the North Atlantic when the model showed it was over Europe.
What was I thinking, believing the models were right? Doh!
As of course they were, the models predicted the decline of the earlier plume over Europe and the newer plume from yesterday’s eruption drifting over the Atlantic and a general drift north.
See:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271763280.png
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271785386.png
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271806239.png
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271827786.png
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/data/VAG_1271849344.png
Ref – Matt (04:44:52) :
@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
________________________
I’ll bet Teflon or Kevlar or Gortex or something could solve that little old problem. How about Bondo?
Have any of the propeller heads at the Met Office heard of “Hamatan”?
I suggest someone look into it because sand filled skies are a common state of affairs in West Africa around Xmas….yep, yes sirree …this happens EVERY year! No point in washing your car during Hamatan as it is yellow from dusty sand the next day.
Do these Met Office boffins live in caves?
I am appalled.
We were flying regularly during Hamatan in West Africa even though visibility was terrible some days.