It's been an interesting 11 days since Eyjafjallajökull blew his/her/its top.
Working as I do, for an international courier company, I've spent a lot of time looking at the web sites of NATS, the UK Met Office, Eurocontrol and the Icelandic Met Office.
Watching the NATS updates change over time, it's interesting to see various things creep into the reports. On Sunday the 18th, in the 1500 update this wording appeared:
NATS is maintaining close dialogue with the Met Office and with the UK’s safety regulator, the CAA, in respect of the international civil aviation policy we follow in applying restrictions to use of airspace. We are currently awaiting CAA guidance.
We are working closely with Government, airports and airlines, and airframe and aero engine manufacturers to get a better understanding of the effects of the ash cloud and to seek solutions.
What quickly became apparent was that there was no agreed safe limit for the amount of ash through which an aircraft could fly. After events like BA Flight 9 ash clouds were strictly off limits.
Since it's not possible to order up ash clouds of varying density it's not easy to test the effects of different levels on ash on aircraft. It's interesting to see that IATA has a International Airways Volcano Watch Operations Group which in 2007 reported that Icelandic volcanos could disrupt European air travel. In particular it noted that
"There is no definition of a safe concentration of ash for different aircraft ... In order to give a reliable and justifiable all-clear, once a plume has dispersed enough to be undetectable, clear limits of ash content are required from both the manufacturers and aviation licensing authorities." It acknowledged that establishing a safe lower limit was a "difficult and longstanding problem".
It seems that no one in the air transport industry was interested in finding and setting the acceptable limit for the amount of ash that aircraft could safely fly through.Of course, since the problem was only theoretical why bother with the expense?
How times change!
Working as I do, for an international courier company, I've spent a lot of time looking at the web sites of NATS, the UK Met Office, Eurocontrol and the Icelandic Met Office.
Watching the NATS updates change over time, it's interesting to see various things creep into the reports. On Sunday the 18th, in the 1500 update this wording appeared:
NATS is maintaining close dialogue with the Met Office and with the UK’s safety regulator, the CAA, in respect of the international civil aviation policy we follow in applying restrictions to use of airspace. We are currently awaiting CAA guidance.
We are working closely with Government, airports and airlines, and airframe and aero engine manufacturers to get a better understanding of the effects of the ash cloud and to seek solutions.
What quickly became apparent was that there was no agreed safe limit for the amount of ash through which an aircraft could fly. After events like BA Flight 9 ash clouds were strictly off limits.
Since it's not possible to order up ash clouds of varying density it's not easy to test the effects of different levels on ash on aircraft. It's interesting to see that IATA has a International Airways Volcano Watch Operations Group which in 2007 reported that Icelandic volcanos could disrupt European air travel. In particular it noted that
"There is no definition of a safe concentration of ash for different aircraft ... In order to give a reliable and justifiable all-clear, once a plume has dispersed enough to be undetectable, clear limits of ash content are required from both the manufacturers and aviation licensing authorities." It acknowledged that establishing a safe lower limit was a "difficult and longstanding problem".
It seems that no one in the air transport industry was interested in finding and setting the acceptable limit for the amount of ash that aircraft could safely fly through.Of course, since the problem was only theoretical why bother with the expense?
How times change!
Comments
Post a Comment