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.
Here is the official explanation from the CAA. Should clear up most of the nonsense that has been flying around this thread.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/7622520/Why-it-took-six-days-to-reopen-the-skies-after-the-volcano-erupted.html
wobble (20:45:28) :
I said nothing of the sort. You are making things up.
That report by Dame Diedre Hutton seems logical and reasonable. There is always a conflict between turbofan manufactures who have no ash tolerance and airlines who need to keep the cash flowing, the CAA acted well as a moderator.
Another interesting comment from a pilot…..
At best, I predict that operators are in for a torrid time covering wildly escalating turbine maintenance costs, quite apart from the downtime waiting for non-available spares.
That should be quantifiable.
I lost track of precisely what procedures he is talking about, and I have to start getting ready to leave the hotel in few minutes, so I apologize in advance if I miss the point.
Procedures already exist to divert around areas of severe weather, which, in principal, is no different than what we are talking about here.
I think the UK made a good call initially to shutdown the airspace; however, because they essentially dumped the whole notion of risk management, it took way too long to get things going again.
I must admit I wasn’t flying in Europe when the volcano popped, so I don’t know for sure what the concentrations were over the continent, but my impression is that they never amounted to anything.
Thanks for the link; I did.
Keep in mind that I was talking about air safety, not airworthiness. I know that sounds like I am repeating myself, but I’m not.
By air safety, I mean that concentrations of ash too low to be visible will have no effect on the outcome of the flight.
The link directs additional measures to ensure the aircraft’s airworthiness before the next flight: in essence they direct mechanics to do additional ground inspections to determine if there are any effects accruing but that have not yet affected normal ops.
It is worth noting that many, if not most, airplanes (remember AF 447) automatically datalink all kinds of operating parameters throughout flight.
Rolls Royce, for example, tells its customers when an engine needs work by the data linked to its ops center.
That’s crap. It’s not the Met Office’s job to give a thumbs down about something they don’t know enough about and can’t predict.
They should have simply said that they don’t know enough about it and can’t predict it.
Oh really?
Regardless of what you think, your “Six days” is too long to implement simply daylight VMC restrictions. Six hours is a more realistic timeframe.
wobble (23:33:01) :
I take it that you didn’t read the CAA explanation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/7622520/Why-it-took-six-days-to-reopen-the-skies-after-the-volcano-erupted.html
Wobble, let me explain because I’m not arguing.
When was the last time you heard about a car “accident” on the news? When did CNN last provide 24/7 coverage of a fatality car crash? (Other than Princess Diana…) The fact is that we can somehow conveniently avoid seeing ground travel fatalities because otherwise we might be terrified of driving. When two passenger cars collide and occupants die, it’s one at a time. One at a time is how we go anyway. It’s “acceptable”, and I use those quotes for a reason.
When a plane, train, bus, ferry or other mass transport crashes, sinks, overturns, etc. and groups die, that is not acceptable. It’s all we hear about for days or weeks. We analyze it. We draft rules. We fix technical problems and establish procedures to deal with the human factor. In this regard, plane crashes are not “acceptable”.
You can never actually quantify with certainty how many “extra” fatalities resulted on the ground from this incident, and I agree that it might well be an unacceptable number, but we’ll never know. Even if it was quantifiable I’m fairly certain that number would never be made public.
I still maintain that the correct course of action would have been more thorough risk assessment, and I will always maintain that for this type of situation the people most able to perform proper risk assessment are those with something to lose: airlines, NOT government.
By the way, the stereotype of the “cold heartless” corporation only concerned with their bottom line is absolute crap. Airlines depend on their reputation. Airlines have no interest in losing passengers, or their expensively trained people, or their incredibly expensive equipment. It is the airlines that had the absolute MOST incentive to perform accurate risk assessment. That was taken away from them, at the cost of much goodwill and an overall loss of customer satisfaction and confidence. Will the governments reimburse them?
“Keith Minto (19:13:08) :
Hey Skipper (18:44:27) :
Thunderstorms are discrete, visible, radar detectable and dangerous.
Airborne basaltic volcanic ash is diffuse,generally invisible, variable in density, not detectable on radar and dangerous.”
Thunderstorms are not necessarily discrete. They can be in several hundred, even thousand mile long lines with severe convection from almost ground level to 45,000 feet or more. Convective cells actually build and fade in a few tens of minutes although the chain of storms can last for days. From a flight planning point of view there is little difference between severe convective weather and volcanic ash. Each hazard needs a certain level of avoidance that can be planned for.
There is another similarity. There is ALWAYS convection going on; that is what you feel with the continual minor turbulence. There are even areas of clear air turbulence which can be and have been sufficient to bring down aircraft. In some areas of the world such as Florida there are always severe convective storms in the warmer months Similarly, there is ALWAYS volcanic ash in the air most of the time at extremely small concentrations.
Someone needs to decide at what level of these hazards is it unsafe for an aircraft to operate in them.
Therefore what is needed is sensible risk management and the identification of the person(s) who has the responsibility, accountability and authority over the decision and all its effects. Normally, the roles are extremely clear.
* The meteo services supply information and in a format that is well defined. An occurrence that is hazardous for aircraft in flight is reported in a SIGMET (the hazard, its degree, the definition of the volume of airspace, and its motion in time and possibly how long).
* The air traffic service provider is normally responsible for ensuring that the aircraft flight crew are fully aware of any active SIGMET that may affect the flight in the air traffic service provider’s airspace.
* the aircraft operators and flight crew are responsible for obtaining all pertinent information NOTAMS, SIGMETS, weathers etc that may affect their flight and then planning the route of flight and the amount of contingency fuel and cargo/passenger weight. They are also the normal decision makers on whether to it is safe and commercially sensible to fly.
* Airports may in severe weather conditions, enforce a ground stop and in poor visibility they impose maximum landing rates.
What you will notice is that the decision making is at the operational level – not at national bureaucrat or political levels. The problem we saw with the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud was inept high level interference in what is a day to day planning and flight safety activity.
Ian W (04:02:26) :
There is nothing “day to day” about a volcano spreading ash all over northern Europe, and no one has presented one shred of evidence here that The Met Office did *anything* wrong.
More on the ridiculous complaints lodged against the Met Office :
From the original Telegraph article :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html
If they didn’t know what the safe level is, how could they possibly have kept British airspace open with an ash cloud covering the entire country?
The volcano “triggered” the closure of the airspace, not The Met Office. After the ash cloud dissipated at 30,000 feet, the airspace was reopened.
The stranded passengers are getting screwed by British Airways.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/23/stranded-britons-british-airways-seat-prices
This is what BA said on Tuesday. No complaints about The Met Office then.
FLIGHT PLANNING
Anthony, you miss certain aspects of flight planning when the risk is known – the flight shouldnt’ be dispatched without the fuel to divert if the ash location changes. To me that is normal practice, as for example in the case of an airport that has only one runway because the other is being worked on – you have to assume an airplane will crash and block that runway. Additional precautions can be taken, such as increased spacing between flights in case they have to divert.
Symon makes the ridiculous claim that Canada does not have any airports – can s/he spell the well-known “Gander Newfoundland”? Can s/he spell “Greenland”, which Danish terriroty, which has an airport regularly used as a diversion, though its variable weather must be considered during flight planning.
Observe that you show a route from the west coast of NA to the UK, whereas from east coast of NA to southern France would be different and much more in the NAT Track system than the flight you show. However, flights will normally shift substantially north or south from the great circle route depending on winds, which typically are westerly, to minimize fuel consumption. (IIRC against the wind would go north of the GC track, with the wind south of it. I was once on a 757 SEA-LHR non-stop and the tailwind was a very low 9 knots, we passed over Churchill airport in Manitoba.)
Note that aircraft are supposed to have constant communication with ATC, and can relay through other aircraft they know are in the area and perhaps can see on their collision avoidance system. On oceanic routes they have HF and SATCOM, both voice and datalink, as well as VHF to contact other aircraft on designated frequencies especially the standard emergency one.
I’ll also comment on flying above the ash – the crew must be able to descend if pressurization is lost, and will descend if an engine fails as they cannot maintain altitude (perhaps that latter diversion could be sideways if the area of ash is very narrow, the former descent must be immediate and rapid).
And I’ll rant at the suggestion to take the risk of an airplane or two or going down. Nonsense! we in aviation don’t operate that way. We take measurably low risk, and operate to a high probability of success.
Anthony, there is too much nonsense talk in this thread on top of your error. Rob Honeycutt, D. Patterson, Austin, acementhead, and Billy Liar, thank you for trying to get a bit of sense into it regarding flight planning.
The big question in my mind is how airplane crews and ATC can know where the ash is real-time. See my ASH & AIRPLANES comment below.
ASH & AIRPLANES
The Seattle volcano example is not a great one, as Mt. St. Helens was known to be an eruption about to happen (areas around the bulging volcano had been evacuated). I tell you, having been involved then, that airplanes did fly through visible light ash from Mt. St. Helens, but at least one was damaged from heavier ash in Spokane WA (which had a substantial amount on the ground, engines could suck it up at low speed, whereas successful operations had only a small fraction of an inch depth).
I am curious as to how ATC and the aircraft operators can know real-time where the ash is going and how thick it is, unless they only fly in daylight without water-based clouds. Traditionally weather radar did not show ash, though I expect radar developers have studied possibilities. Predictions must be conservative, or a safety margin added in defining no-fly areas. My impression is that the predictions weren’t great in this case though there was little data to go on, and the ability of airplanes to fly safely in light ash was not remembered.
Note too that volcanic ash may vary, and is not necessarily the same as vegetation fire ash. (I suppose both depend on where the ash is, as further afield it would be finer as heavier particles would precipitate out sooner.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8634276.stm
Keith Sketchley (08:08:32) :
Anthony didn’t write this article, I did.
The ability to divert to another airport depends on whether or not there are other airports in the region to divert to. If all of the airports in Northern Europe and the UK are shut down, there is likely to be a problem.
This shutdown was a unique circumstance in many aspects and the CAA chose to take unique actions.
Of course, I read it, Steven.
Part of the reason it took 6 days is because they had to overcome the fact that they were handed bad data from the beginning. If the Met Office had been upfront about their cluelessness from the beginning, the process might have been expedited.
Steven, if a weather service temporarily lost the ability to forecast weather for a certain region would it be ok for them to simply claim that the entire blacked-out region is full of thunderstorms, low ceilings, and zero visibility?
Or should they merely tell the operators that they’ve lost the ability to predict the weather in that region?
“stevengoddard (09:17:03) :
Keith Sketchley (08:08:32) :
Anthony didn’t write this article, I did.
The ability to divert to another airport depends on whether or not there are other airports in the region to divert to. If all of the airports in Northern Europe and the UK are shut down, there is likely to be a problem.
This shutdown was a unique circumstance in many aspects and the CAA chose to take unique actions.”
Steven it is my understanding that the _airports_ were open – but the _airspace_ was closed. Therefore an aircraft diverting would not have had a problem finding an airport. Indeed, it may even have been easier as there was almost no traffic.
I knew this article would be controversial. Summarizing the arguments :
“Computer models are useless” – remarkably out of touch viewpoint
“West Coast flights don’t pass close to Iceland.” – wrong
“GPS systems on planes aren’t accurate” – wrong
“Decisions were made based on computer models without actual measurements” – wrong
“The Met Office made the decisions” – wrong
“Planes divert all the time” – Not hundreds of them with all major airports shut down for 2000km
“I’m an expert, you know nothing” – Sounds like Hansen, Mann and Schmidt
“You can sense ash clouds with radar” – wrong
“Volcanic ash and smoke ash are similar” – wrong
Perhaps the airports could have been open a day or two sooner, but that was not the Met Office’s decision.
wobble (09:39:54)
Please produce some evidence supporting your claim that The Met Office is unable to forecast circulation in the atmosphere.
Ian W (09:53:29) :
The reason Heathrow (the world’s first or second busiest airport) was _closed_ was because there was concern that there was no safe approach through the ash.
http://www.newser.com/story/86079/iceland-volcano-grounds-europe-flights-shuts-heathrow.html
There was undoubtedly a need for caution. Interestingly though, Icelandair itself didn’t have a blanket grounding, although they did cut some services and most of their flights would have been through the thicker part of the cloud:
“Despite closures of European airspace Icelandair has added new flights to its
schedule when possible. Over the weekend Icelandair flew to Norway and Scotland and scheduled flights from Iceland to Finland and Sweden commenced this morning. Furthermore, several cargo flights have been operated between Iceland and Europe since the eruption started.
According to the latest weather information Keflavik airport will remain open
throughout the week. No disruption has been in Icelandair‘s scheduled flights
to the USA and Icelandair will continue to operate flights from Europe to the
USA over the course of the week.
https://newsclient.omxgroup.com/cdsPublic/viewDisclosure.action?disclosureId=397020&messageId=477620
stevengoddard (09:53:44) :
Misrepresenting the statements and arguments is killing your credibility here.
“stevengoddard (10:05:42) :
Ian W (09:53:29) :
The reason Heathrow (the world’s first or second busiest airport) was _closed_ was because there was concern that there was no safe approach through the ash.
http://www.newser.com/story/86079/iceland-volcano-grounds-europe-flights-shuts-heathrow.html“
The airport may not have been allowing take-off’s and passengers would be told it was closed. But if an aircraft was _airborne_ and needed to land there, it would not have been turned away. There are in any case at least 20 airports and airfields in UK that could take a wide-body on diversion or in an emergency. In fact many of those would be more suitable for an emergency landing than Heathrow as they are not in urban areas.
Oh and Heathrow is about 12th on the list for number of movements its claims that it is busiest ‘international’ airport is only valid if short flights to Europe count as ‘international’. However, it is probably at the maximum number of movements safely feasible on a 2 runway airport.