Volcanic eruption closes down UK/Scandinavian airports

[cosmicalstorm]

Yesterday there were long streaks of misty see through clouds going from one end of the horizon to the other, that did not look like any cloudtype I ever saw over the skies of Gothenburg before.

[Admiral Valdemar]

NATS reports as of 0300 BST that the restrictions across the UK will remain in place till 1900 BST at least. The cloud has engulfed all the flyzones permitted briefly between N.I. and West Scotland. No change in wind direction, Eyjafjallajökull is erupting consistently.

[FSTargetDrone]

Saw a short piece on NBC Nightly News saying how some travelers stuck in the US may have to wait up to 2 weeks to get a rescheduled flight back to Europe.

[UnderAGreySky]

Finnish F-18s reveal ash damage

The Finnish air force has released images showing the effects of volcanic dust ingestion from inside the engines of a Boeing F-18 Hornet fighter, while it prepares to make inspections on several additional aircraft.

Five of the air force’s Hornets were involved in a training exercise on the morning of 15 April, just hours before the imposition of airspace restrictions due to the ash cloud spreading from a major volcanic eruption in Iceland.

Images at the website.

[Sky Captain]

Apparently KLM testflight has gone well and there is no damage to plane caused by ash.

AMSTERDAM – KLM, the Dutch subsidiary of Air France, said Sunday it wants to resume passenger flights in Europe as soon as possible after it flew a plane through the cloud of volcanic ash covering much of the continent without suffering any damage.

KLM carried out the test flight above Dutch airspace Saturday. It said initial inspections afterward showed no damage or irregularities from the ash in the air that has led to a ban on air travel over much of Europe since Friday.

The airline says it now plans to return seven airplanes without passengers to Amsterdam from Duesseldorf Sunday.

"We hope to receive permission as soon as possible after that to start up our operation and to transport our passengers to their destinations," said Chief Executive Peter Hartman, who was aboard Saturday's flight.

Germany's Lufthansa flew 10 empty planes to Frankfurt from Munich at low altitude on Saturday under so-called visual flight rules, in which pilots don't have to rely on their instruments.

But the KLM flight, a Boeing 737, flew up to 41,000 feet (13,000 meters), the maximum altitude at which the aircraft is certified to fly.

"We observed no irregularities either during the flight or during the initial inspection on the ground," Hartman said in a statement.

The flight ban has caused massive delays to people and goods, and has left thousands of passengers stranded across the globe.

Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf quoted Hartman as having said at a news conference late Saturday that the airline has been "begging" the European air navigation safety agency Eurocontrol to consider lifting the ban, but the agency has so far refused to discuss the matter.

KLM spokeswoman Saskia Kranendonk said she could not confirm those remarks, but said the company does wish to resume flying passengers in most parts of Europe as soon as possible.

The Dutch Transport Ministry Sunday said national airspace will remain closed to passenger traffic until at least 2 p.m. local time, but confirmed it is allowing further test flights.

"The goal of these test flights is to make measurements in Dutch airspace about the possible consequences of the ash on the airplane parts, the ministry said in a statement.

Southern Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull (ay-yah-FYAH'-plah-yer-kuh-duhl) volcano began erupting for the second time in a month on Wednesday, sending ash several miles (kilometers) into the air. Winds have pushed the plume south and east across Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia and into the heart of Europe.

Scientists say volcano ash can be catastrophic to plane engines.

In 1989, a KLM Boeing 747 that flew through a volcanic ash cloud above Alaska temporarily lost all four motors. The motors restarted at a lower altitude and the plane eventually landed safely.

The volcanic eruption is ongoing and forecasters said light prevailing winds in Europe — and large amounts of unmelted glacial ice above the volcano — mean that the situation in the air is unlikely to change in the coming days.

[CJvR]

The first transatlantic flight have landed.

A jet made the detour around Iceland and landed at Kiruna in northern Sweden.

[Broomstick]

From Reuters, about the potential impact of the ash cloud. Of course no one knows how long this problem will go on, whether or not flights will resume, and so forth. This is offered as food for thought about this Black Swan event

As usual, I can't resist a comment or two of my own, and a reference to other threads here in SD.net.

Economy impact to rise sharply if ash cloud lingers

LONDON (Reuters) - The economic impact of the volcanic cloud halting flights across Europe will increase sharply the longer disruption continues, forcing holiday cancellations, delaying deliveries and reducing jet fuel demand.

African exporters of flowers and vegetables by air to European supermarkets, technology companies relying on "just-in-time" deliveries of components, event organizers and others could all feel the pinch.

Actually, they have already all felt a 'pinch". What will happen if this goes on is that the pinch will become a punch will become breaking bones. If it goes on. Really, this could all clear up by next Wednesday. Or get worse. It can't be predicted, really, at this point in time.

Economists say so far they have not changed their models or predictions for European growth, hoping normal service could resume this week.

This is called crossing your fingers and hoping really really hard it's not as bad and you think it might be. Human nature, really, but not always the best approach.

But in a worst-case scenario in which the ash cloud closes European airspace for months, one economist estimates lost travel and tourism revenue alone could knock 1-2 percentage points off regional growth as long as it lasts. European growth had been predicted at 1-1.5 percent for 2010.

In other words, Europe goes into "negative growth", which is Newspeak for "economic contraction". Which would be bad.

It is not, however, truly the worst case scenario, but I don't feel like skipping down the merry path of pessimism this morning so I'll just leave it at that. Except to note that one reason economics is so vulnerable to Black Swans when they do hit is because economics almost never really consider the true worst case scenarios.

"That would mean a lot of European countries wouldn't get any growth this year," said Vanessa Rossi, senior economic fellow at Chatham House. "It would literally stifle the recovery. But the problem is it is incredibly hard to predict what will happen. Even the geologists can't tell us."

The event is a classic example of a "Black Swan," a totally unexpected event with widespread impact, impossible to predict and hard to model.

The key questions now are whether the volcano keeps erupting and spewing ash into the atmosphere, where the wind takes the ash and how long the ash already in the sky remains over Europe.

Vulcanologists and meteorologists say they cannot immediately answer those questions as volcanoes are particularly unpredictable. They warn the last time the volcano under the Eyjafjallajokull glacier erupted, it lasted more than a year. But it may not continue to spew ash for the entire eruption.

Most had originally expected the cloud and disruption would linger over Europe for several days.

Travel and tourism accounts for around five percent of global gross domestic product -- some $3 trillion -- with Europe accounting for a third of that, much of it accruing over the summer months. Not all of this will be lost, but Rossi estimated a prolonged shutdown could cost up to $5-10 billion dollars a week in the industry.

This translates into bad for everybody. Obviously Europe would be hit the worst, but the knock-on effects will be global. Someone in my area basically said in my hearing this week "why should I care what happens in Europe? I'm in America.". You should care because if it gets bad enough it will affect everyone.

Now, I wish to emphasize that there will, actually, be winners during this Black Swan. Providers of ground transportation, for example, will benefit especially those who can keep up with sharply increased demand. But most people won't fall into the winner category, and even winners are likely to feel a pinch in some areas of their lives.

But the impact will likely be wider. Most of the world's goods by volume may move by sea and land, but transport analysts estimate 40 percent by value moves by air.

Note - low bulk high value items travel by air, because their low bulk and high value compensates for the extra cost of air transit. So, while the bulk of the volume of goods transported will be unaffected nearly half the value will be. Some of that can go by alternate means... but a significant portion can't because it is not only high value/low bulk but time sensitive.

From my own neck of the woods - the only reason the Chicago area has large quantities of fresh ocean fish is due to air transport - it's not practical to get fresh fish from sea to mid-continent any other way. The alternative would be frozen fish in refrigerated ground freight (which, personally, I'm perfectly happy with but others are not). I use that example because I'm familiar with it, but there are, I'm sure, many imports into Europe that would fall into the same category of time sensitive. If you can't ship by air certain regions just won't have them. No one is going to starve because of such a lack, but the impact will be felt and it will hurt business that make a living providing such goods.

NO "JUST-IN-TIME"

The world's biggest air freight operators say they are moving what they can by road and looking at contingency plans of using southern European airports that are outside the cloud. But they say deliveries will be sharply affected.

"If your just-in-time operation is depending on parts that come from Asia or the U.S. or Africa or the Mideast... , you just can't get it," said United Parcel Service Inc spokesman Norman Black.

And here we go... it's not just consumers affected.

Now, I've thought for a long time that this "just-in-time" delivery trend has some hidden drawbacks. The system is designed around the idea that transport can work perfectly all the time. Which it can't. Why? Because machines break, people make mistakes, and no one controls the weather. (That's also why we'll never eliminate accidents) Throw in a Black Swan and the whole system comes to crashing halt.

This is also the hidden drawback to the increasing globalization of everything, and shipping all your manufacturing to other continents. The shit hits the fan and suddenly you can't get your stuff anymore. This was touched on during page two of this thread and serves as a real life example why keeping some manufacturing in your own territory might not be a bad idea. Also, the concepts of "inventory" and "stockpile" would be advantageous in these circumstances.

"DHL and UPS use airhubs in Germany, Fedex Corp relies on an airhub in France and all that airspace is closed. There's just not an option right at the moment while we all wait and see how long this is going to take."

I could go on a rant about the downside to the modern hub-and-spoke approach to air travel, but I won't.

Pharmaceutical firms are heavy users of air freight, but most said on Friday they had enough stocks to avoid a short-term crunch.

And this is one area where this event could be fatal for some - pharmaceutical shortages are nothing to laugh at, although no doubt there will be a high priority given to find alternate means of getting these things moved around to where they're needed.

Last-minute high-tech imports between Asia and the United States are flown over the Pacific and will be unaffected, but European firms may feel the pinch.

Most food and beverage deliveries move by sea, but some premium products such as the finest Scotch whiskeys -- retailing at hundreds of dollars a bottle in China or Japan -- can no longer be moved.

Like I said, no one will starve - luxuries may be lacking, but basic needs will be met as far as food goes.

That could mean the most vulnerable national economies to the shutdown could prove to be African producers of fruit and flowers that will swiftly perish if not shipped to market.

And that's where the third world gets hurt in globalization - I'm assuming a nation like Kenya could weather a prolonged lack of air transport to Europe, but it will hurt them. Fruit and flowers may not be something practical to ship via other means due to how fast they deteriorate. That will hit their economies hard, very hard. In those countries it might impact the ability of some people to obtain basic necessities.

"Kenya, as the largest supplier of cut flowers to Europe, where tourism is also an important sector, is likely to be the most vulnerable; followed by the East African soft commodity producers more generally," said Standard Chartered chief Africa economist Razia Khan, herself stranded in Botswana by a canceled flight.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates airlines are losing $200 million a day from the shutdown, which has caused chaos well beyond the immediate European airspace closed. Most airlines will be uninsured for this loss, although insurer Munich Re said on Friday it would consider offering cancellation insurance in future should the crisis produce demand.

That's because a volcano is classified as an "Act of God", which most insurers don't cover. Or, if the atheists prefer, they don't cover Black Swans.

NO MONEY FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

European airline shares dipped on Friday and will likely fall sharply if it appears disruption will be prolonged. Even if the wind shifts, ash clouds over the Atlantic and Arctic would continue to disrupt flights to North America and Asia.

Analysts estimate the shutdown is reducing demand for jet fuel by some 2 million barrels a day, last week undermining jet fuel prices. This could filter into the wider oil price if the shutdown continues.

A reduction in fuel prices is not necessarily a bad thing... but even if it is an unexpected positive it will not nearly compensate for the negatives in this Black Swan.

The wider travel and tourism industry so far has suffered less. The problem will be if the shutdown lasts long enough to deter future travel.

"Right now the hotels have people who are stranded. If after a while, no new people arrive, that hurts the hospitality industry, " said Rajeev Dhawan, director, Economic Forecasting Center at the Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.

Even if the initial cloud clears, vulcanologists warn the same thing could happen again for as long as the eruption under the glacier lasts, further threatening struggling firms.

"If this had happened a couple of years ago, governments would have had the money to step in and provide support," she said. "But right now, after the crisis, that money isn't there. This could be enough to push some weaker airlines and travel companies to the wall. It couldn't have happened at a worse time. On the other hand, it could all clear overnight and we could be back to normal by next week."

It could be worse. Scientists say this eruption looks unlikely to impact agriculture outside Iceland itself, in contrast to the much larger 1783 Laki eruption, also on Iceland.

"They were famines in France due to crop failure and this might well have been a factor in the French Revolution," said Prof Steve Sparks, director of the Bristol Environmental Risk Research Center at Bristol University.

So... happy pondering. Who knows what will happen? No one at this point.

However, yet another unintended consequence which I hope we don't see involves resumption of air travel. There is, of course, considerable pressure being exerted to get the airplanes moving again. While those actually on Europe can find alternate means to get home all those across oceans are in much more of a predicament. If the test flights over Europe show that flights can be safely completed that's all well and good - unless conditions change again (well, they're always changing, but I mean for the worse) and we wind up with airliners with dead engines over Europe. Best case outcome to that is everyone lands safe and needs a change of underwear, but the potential scope of tragedy if we get worst outcomes for that scenario... well, that's why there's a ban on air travel over Europe today, isn't it? I really, really don't want to see that.

[FSTargetDrone]

However, yet another unintended consequence which I hope we don't see involves resumption of air travel. There is, of course, considerable pressure being exerted to get the airplanes moving again. While those actually on Europe can find alternate means to get home all those across oceans are in much more of a predicament. If the test flights over Europe show that flights can be safely completed that's all well and good - unless conditions change again (well, they're always changing, but I mean for the worse) and we wind up with airliners with dead engines over Europe. Best case outcome to that is everyone lands safe and needs a change of underwear, but the potential scope of tragedy if we get worst outcomes for that scenario... well, that's why there's a ban on air travel over Europe today, isn't it? I really, really don't want to see that.

I can certainly understand the pressures on the various airlines, but it's only going to take one airliner full of passengers to (hopefully) land with fouled engines to stop everything cold again, right?

As an aside, I haven't flown in years and have no need to do so (nor do I see myself flying anywhere in the foreseeable future--due to cost, not for any other reason). But if I had, say, been getting ready to travel overseas for vacation, I think I'd give it a second thought (at least in the short term).

[Sky Captain]

Although it`s difficult to get good image of a volcano from webcams because of low clouds it seems that eruption has stopped or at least greatly reduced. Also various news sources are reporting radar imagery shows no ash plume which means if there is any plume at all ash cloud don`t exceed 3000 m altitude However this can be only temporally and there is no guarantee the volcano don`t spew a fresh cloud of ash next day or week. A prolonged activity with sporadic eruptions can be worse than one big eruption because of uncertainty factor it will add to future flights.

[Broomstick]

I can certainly understand the pressures on the various airlines, but it's only going to take one airliner full of passengers to (hopefully) land with fouled engines to stop everything cold again, right?

Correct.

It only takes one.

But given the size of the ash cloud it could well be several. Also, if they fly at lower than normal altitudes then if there is a total failure of engines on the airplane(s) then there is less time to successfully deal with the situation and a higher risk of fatal outcome.

No matter how you cut it, as long as that ash cloud is over Europe the safety margin is narrower. That doesn't mean safe flight is impossible, it just means that the odds of a bad outcome go up.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I can certainly understand the pressures on the various airlines, but it's only going to take one airliner full of passengers to (hopefully) land with fouled engines to stop everything cold again, right?

Indeed, because you can bet the CEOs of the airlines won't get the blame, just the scientists and regulators who aren't worried about a profit margin right now.

As an aside, I haven't flown in years and have no need to do so (nor do I see myself flying anywhere in the foreseeable future--due to cost, not for any other reason). But if I had, say, been getting ready to travel overseas for vacation, I think I'd give it a second thought (at least in the short term).

Me neither, I've not been in a plane since 2002. But you're a silly drone who needs to be shotdown, so flying is hazardous for you.

On a serious note, the preliminary inspections of KLM 705 and the Lufthansa flight show no damage. But so what? Two planes flying for an hour or so, at varying altitudes is a good statistical set now? Please. The apparent lack of damage so far is no cause for calling the bureacrats on a supposed bad judgement call to curb all flight by jet aeroplanes. The computer models the Met Office, the Icelandic equivalent and various European agencies all showed remarkable fidelity in results. And anyway, while this may be doing horrific harm to the economy that has only just started to turnaround, and an air industry that is barely breathing as it is, that is by no means an excuse to throw caution to the (ashy) wind and allow millions of people up in the skies that could very easily lead to disaster.

It's not like we have any real data on the ability of modern aircraft to deal with ash clouds sufficiently and safely. The advice given by the likes of Boeing is "Avoid it or pray", not any quantitative value on what is survivable. Given turbine blades require their porous crystalline structure be absolutely clean to enable efficient heat transmission, the injection of many cubic metres of ash sown air will affect that quality and lead to engine problems in the near future, even if there are no formations of silica slag on the fuel nozzles or late stage compressors. And we're ignoring the pitot tube problen. Remember Air France's flight disaster last year? Are we so short sighted to think that the loss of major flight instrumentation, along with throttling back and descending to avoid a suddenly detected ash cloud ahead of you, relying on visual cues (except now your windscreen is turning opaque) is a good thing? That kind of problem can kill even the pros, and we're talking about damage that can occur in perfectly clear, blue skies. Even if it's only one flight out of the tens of thousands in Europe every day, you can just imagine the fallout were a plane to crash and be found that the reason was ash damage. Assuming the aircraft didn't start dropping out of the sky, the eventual damage to engines, even from tiny concentrations of aerosolised ash, would cause economic hardship anyway. The engines represent the biggest single cost of the plane, and account for a 1/4th of its value. How often should they be checked? Every flight? Every week? Month? There are no guidelines on what to do with ash, because there is no way to prevent it other than to avoid it. No aircraft manufacturer will tell you otherwise.

Sure, let's trust the airlines. Not like they have a vested interest in flying or anything.

"We have not found anything unusual and no irregularities, which indicates the atmosphere is clean and safe to fly," said a spokeswoman for KLM, which is part of Air France-KLM.

Sounds like famous last words. Pity the scientists, regulators and engineers disagree, Mr. Executive.

Additionally, I was just in the local waiting for a tasty pizza and overheard a horribly typical southerner going on about having to drive to Bedford to pick up auto parts because the local garages had not been able to restock. Looks like it's hitting people already, and as Broomie mentions, I am no fan of the Just-In-Time delivery system our entire society is based on. It fell apart in September of 2000 in this country during the fuel protests. Now you can see why things like this volcano or peak oil are very real threats to extremely complex, interconnected systems, where only one failure can cascade and cause the whole shebang to collapse and do so VERY quickly.

Anyway, there are meetings going on now between COBRA and the Met Office and VAAC in the UK, and the big airline industry voices on the continent. If they give in to airline pressure, then I truly despair of the situation. And it's not like this isn't affecting me or my family either, given my company relies on clinical samples and synthesized compounds or biologics to be sent from the US or Japan for studies ongoing, sometimes for years. If those get delayed, then millions could be wasted and the science totally ruined. And my dad wants to go on a piss-up in Spain with some mates in a fortnight. How will he cope if he can't?

P.S.

If I see one more comment online asking why jetliners can't fly at 10,000 feet instead, or that there's no threat because one can't actually see a huge grey block of ash over them, I'll kill something.

[Admiral Valdemar]

A pilot over at PPRuNe.org.

The fact that someone can make a "Test flight" and return the aircraft in one piece after exposure to some level of volcanic ash proves absolutely nothing. Detailed examination of the hot section of the engine is required, probably right down to the microscopic level and including sectioning of first stage turbine blades and nozzle guide vanes to check the cooling passages for contamination.

I'm not sure what turbine blade life is these days, but it must be of the order of at least 6000 hours plus, and probably well over 10,000 engine hours. If volcanic ash contamination compromises the figures for blade life in the slightest then airlines cannot fly because they are buying themselves a simply massive maintenance cost increase in the future. Furthermore, there would not be enough blade and vane manufacturing capacity available to satisfy demand.

To put it another way, I can take the air filter off my car and still run it up and down the road today and nothing will happen, however I would be wrong to conclude from that experiment that the provision of air filters by the car manufacturer was unnecessary overkill designed merely to boost profits.

To put it another way, If the engines will get their lives shortened by dust contamination, then the aircraft cannot fly, at least not at todays ticket prices anyway.

Having experienced the disruption caused by Fog at Heathrow for a few days years ago, I have a rough idea of the scale of disruption this event is causing. My Son is in Spain at the moment and I have just had to explain to him that there is no way he is getting to England until this clears up, as I imagine that train/bus/ferry systems are overloaded and will remain so. I've also had to explain that if this continues his plans for summer employment in holiday related industry are similarly moot.

..As for those conspiracy theorists and critics of NATS, especially those wondering why there is no "Plan B" to get them to their holiday destinations, I just shake my head in bemusement.

I think that if this continues for another week, even if a few flights are possible, there is going to be a need to ration available seats to essential travel only, and prioritise it to first return stranded people to their homes. I also suspect that some form of Government welfare support is going to be needed for the stranded because I don't think travel insurance covers it (force majeur?) and people must be fast running out of money and credit.

God knows what this will do to the tourism industry around the world, let alone the airlines.

On another note, I wish I had studied geology at college.





Moose, you must be loving this stuff. What are they saying at Lancaster, or have you left the uni?

[Sky Captain]

Wow, those images with tons of lightning in ash column are absolutely awesome. Is the second image even real cause it looks kinda photoshopped?

Where did you found those pictures?

[Admiral Valdemar]

They're from the picture archives of Stromboli Online, which is a Swiss educational site for the Earth sciences.

[Broomstick]

On a serious note, the preliminary inspections of KLM 705 and the Lufthansa flight show no damage. But so what? Two planes flying for an hour or so, at varying altitudes is a good statistical set now? Please.

It's also a set that conveniently ignores the ash-damaged Finnish F-18s from an earlier flight which prove the concerns that shut down the airspace were not unfounded.

By it's very nature, such a widespread phenomena will vary in intensity and over time. Just because it's safe to fly Friday morning doesn't mean Saturday afternoon will be safe. How do you monitor these things? Who will be responsible for such monitoring? How large an area needs to be sampled, and how often? These questions have not been addressed over such a wide area before.

It's not like we have any real data on the ability of modern aircraft to deal with ash clouds sufficiently and safely. The advice given by the likes of Boeing is "Avoid it or pray", not any quantitative value on what is survivable.

Actually, we do have data on how modern aircraft deal with volcanic ash, and that data all says "not very well". Hence the advice "avoid it or pray". That's not a cop-out based on lack of data, it's advice based on the incident/accident databases which indicate that volcanic ash does not play well with airplane engines of any sort.

And we're ignoring the pitot tube problen. Remember Air France's flight disaster last year?

Good catch! I had forgotten about that myself. It's yet another thing ask can fuck up on an airplane.

Are we so short sighted to think that the loss of major flight instrumentation, along with throttling back and descending to avoid a suddenly detected ash cloud ahead of you, relying on visual cues (except now your windscreen is turning opaque) is a good thing?

It's called wishful thinking. Flight on instrument flight plans is safer than pure visual navigation - that's why no matter how nice the weather commercial airlines have instrument flight plans as standard procedure. Eyeballs are an excellent backup in most circumstances, and work to confirm flight instruments are operating properly via cross checking, but as you point out they still need a transparent window to look out of.

Give a pilot airspeed, altitude, rate of descent, and a clear view and he/she can fly to a safe landing.... except the first three rely on the pitot system, and the last on a clear windshield, none of which may be available by the time the ash-choked engines quite working.

That kind of problem can kill even the pros, and we're talking about damage that can occur in perfectly clear, blue skies.

That's part of the problem - you can't see the danger. It's like radiation and germs, two other things people have misguided notions about, because you can't directly sense the problem. You have to rely strongly on your intellect to perceive the danger, and let's face it, most people aren't intellectuals.

If I see one more comment online asking why jetliners can't fly at 10,000 feet instead, or that there's no threat because one can't actually see a huge grey block of ash over them, I'll kill something.

It's ignorance. I try to be patient the first time I hear those from someone, because most people just don't have the knowledge base in aviation to understand the problems. The ones who are genuinely curious will learn something - but there's that subset that just want Magical Sky Daddy to make it all OK again, make the bad stuff go away, and get back to life as normal. Well, reality isn't like that. Reality is often a poopy-head that way.

[Admiral Valdemar]

My parents rang before, and while this subject came up, I did mention that previous eruptions from historical accounts put Eyjafjallajökull at erupting for at least several months, if not longer. I could hear my dad say "Get out of it, so what are they supposed to do?". Given he's an engineer (and one from the RAF, no less) I expected better. The answer is "Nothing. And they'll like it". The simple fact is, as with my many discussions on things that are very Black Swan too, such as resource depletion (although it can be argued they're not, as they can be predicted very easily), even people with a head on their shoulders can find the idea of BAU not carrying on, or the powers that be not finding a solution, is really quite abhorrent. Remember Ismay's confused and shocked exclamation that "This ship can't sink!" when the Titanic was listing. The many people out there calling shenanigans over this problem are Ismay, and the volcanologists and aerospace boffs are Mr. Andrews. The problem is the cognitive dissonance going on, with people not rationalising properly that BAU can't go on with airline travel for now because there is a problem, but they simply cannot fathom that this is anything but a minor, soon to disappear blip.

I wish I had studied psychology more now too, because it is interesting how many people may start to side with the airlines in the calls to remove flight restrictions, as nerves fray to the edge and businesses are hurt further in an already highly unstable economic climate. Nothing like this has happened before when we've had global air travel available, but they HAVE happened. That people don't seem to connect the two and realise that, yes, this could mean no flying for months and that there is sweet fuck all we can do about it, is part of the problem. It's classic technocopian religious thinking, coupled with the belief that all they have ever known is all that will be, forever more. These things only happen in Roland Emmerich films, of course.

So, until this abates (and there is NO indication at all that Eyjafjallajökull is even weakening, quite the opposite looking at tremor seismographs), everyone will just have to eat humble pie, and accept that some routine things can be suddenly thrown off kilter by nature, and we've just got to ride it out. This is probably why I prefer the term Outside Context Problem to Black Swan, if we're using the rather traditional and myopic thinking and vision of the average person.

[Phantasee]

How easy or difficult is it these days to cross the Atlantic by ship? I would think the majority of shipping traffic was freight, and there wouldn't be much in the way of passenger ships besides the hideously expensive cruise ships.

[Sky Captain]

How easy or difficult is it these days to cross the Atlantic by ship? I would think the majority of shipping traffic was freight, and there wouldn't be much in the way of passenger ships besides the hideously expensive cruise ships.

While there are`t dedicated transatlantic ocean liners these days I think retasking few cruise ships to run transatlantic routes so the stuck travellers could get home should be possible.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How easy or difficult is it these days to cross the Atlantic by ship? I would think the majority of shipping traffic was freight, and there wouldn't be much in the way of passenger ships besides the hideously expensive cruise ships.

While there are`t dedicated transatlantic ocean liners these days I think retasking few cruise ships to run transatlantic routes so the stuck travellers could get home should be possible.

Repositioning sailings for the normal summer cruising season in European waters are available for booking and are being booked out solid by people trying to get home to Europe. The Queen Mary also sailed with a full load from New York.... It's a damned shame the SS United States is in poor condition--if I knew this thing would last two years, well, easy enough to do a rush job of restoration in 9 months and then reap a killing on profits for the next 15, but that's unlikely. Cruise ships could certainly be used across the Atlantic, and most freighters also have a half a dozen to a dozen cabins that can handle like 10 - 20 passengers. I imagine those will rapidly get booked out by savvier individuals.

[MKSheppard]

you do realize that the ash cloud of europe wouldn't be as big a problem if we were flying in 2707-400s?

"If you look out your right windows, you will see the ash cloud at 35,000 feet. Luckily we are cruising at our standard altitude of 75,000 feet..."

Of course, you'd have to descend to land in Europe; but it would beat cruising in the clag for the majority of the flight...

[Admiral Valdemar]

Space planes would be nice (or having a rocket boost phase to get through the ash cloud, and relying more on GPS), but I don't think it really helps our present predicament any more than my wish for atomic city block sized airships. But it looks like the ATC are getting pressured even more by the airlines to let them fly, so it may be that eventually they'll just let them go.

A comment from the Eruptions blog:

"What is the normal oil change/filter replacement cycle on jet turbine engines?"

I think that is sort of beside the point in this case. Take the case of an airline where an aircraft might be expected to make several hops per day. An example in the US might be Southwest Airlines where a plane might fly from Las Vegas, to San Jose, to Burbank, to Phoenix, to Vegas in one day. Now imagine it must be torn down for service and inspection *at each stop*.

Now look at the financial equation. If an airline does this, they incur spectacular financial expense in trying to keep any kind of schedule going at the same time they would experience a reduction in number of flights. In other words, ticket prices though the roof. If they do not conduct the checks as recommended by the manufacturer for the flying conditions, they risk extraordinary punitive damage from any lawsuits resulting in an accident unless flying is done with an explicit "at your own risk" waiver.

It is time for airlines to become consolidated "transport" companies that might own airplanes, boats, rail cars, buses etc. and can move passengers by several different modes from place to place. First "airline" to do this wins as they operate in all conditions, all the time and can shift passengers from one mode to another as conditions warrant but they continue on their way.

The airlines are currently looking for a way to stay alive in the face of current conditions. It is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars per day to remain grounded. They can not survive that very long.

[MKSheppard]

That'll last only as long as the first major all-engines out failure over EUrope.

[Broomstick]

My parents rang before, and while this subject came up, I did mention that previous eruptions from historical accounts put Eyjafjallajökull at erupting for at least several months, if not longer. I could hear my dad say "Get out of it, so what are they supposed to do?". Given he's an engineer (and one from the RAF, no less) I expected better. The answer is "Nothing. And they'll like it". The simple fact is, as with my many discussions on things that are very Black Swan too, such as resource depletion (although it can be argued they're not, as they can be predicted very easily), even people with a head on their shoulders can find the idea of BAU not carrying on, or the powers that be not finding a solution, is really quite abhorrent. Remember Ismay's confused and shocked exclamation that "This ship can't sink!" when the Titanic was listing. The many people out there calling shenanigans over this problem are Ismay, and the volcanologists and aerospace boffs are Mr. Andrews. The problem is the cognitive dissonance going on, with people not rationalising properly that BAU can't go on with airline travel for now because there is a problem, but they simply cannot fathom that this is anything but a minor, soon to disappear blip.

Ah, modern hubris - nothing annoys modern citizens more than having the universe slap them in the face and remind them they are NOT in control! Technology does not solve all problems. In fact, in some ways, technology created this problem because if we didn't have air travel outside of Iceland itself this would be moot!

The first/industrialized world is worse for this attitude than the third world, where people have many fewer illusions about being truly in control.

Nothing like this has happened before when we've had global air travel available, but they HAVE happened. That people don't seem to connect the two and realise that, yes, this could mean no flying for months and that there is sweet fuck all we can do about it, is part of the problem.

Actually, there ARE things we can do about it... but they don't involve flying; they will be awkward, time consuming, and even expensive; and not one of them will allow us to go back to last Monday and business as usual.

There are several alternatives here:

1) The air will clear and flights will resume

2) The air will NOT clear, but flights will resume anyway and Bad Things will likely happen

3) The air will NOT clear, people will finally accept that fact, and start working on actual alternatives for the weeks/months/whatever it will take for the volcano to settle down and for the air to clear.

(There may also be other alternatives I haven't thought of, but the above is my current best guess)

This is probably why I prefer the term Outside Context Problem to Black Swan, if we're using the rather traditional and myopic thinking and vision of the average person.

While not all Outside Context Problems are Black Swan Events, all Black Swan Events are Outside Context Problems.

In hindsight Black Swans don't seem so unforeseeable, but one of their features is that they aren't anticipated even with data available.

For example - the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US were definitely foreseen as a possibility by a few people but the vast majority had never considered it, and certainly not the policy makers. I'd argue it was a Black Swan, but even if it wasn't, it was certainly an OCP. As it happens, the reaction was every bit as disruptive as the current European no-fly restrictions. It is a credit to how robust the US air traffic system was/is that despite an unprecedented situation, absolutely no rules or procedures in place to cover the situation, and an unprecedented order (land all aircraft NOW!) that the aviation side of the emergency was handled with as little loss of life as occurred. OK, now the world has precedent for a continent-wide (or nearly so) shut down of air travel. I have no doubt that businesses incorporated that possibility into their contingency planning from that point forward. But although it was a man made flight stoppage, as opposed to a nature-driven one, it was very disruptive and it took weeks to sort everything out once airplanes started flying again.

Of course, this figures into the current mess. The airlines have a MUCH better idea this time around how long it will take and how much it will cost to sort everything out. No doubt that's why they're clamoring for a return to flying. The problem is that this Black Swan is a slightly different shade of black - unlike the post-9/11 situation mankind has NO control over this one. The world accounted for a man-made stoppage, NOT a nature-driven one with no clear time table. There have been volcanic eruptions before, and they have required re-routing airplanes or temporary flight restrictions, but a volcanic eruption producing an ash cloud this disruptive is new, and no one ever planned for it. That's what make it the OCP or Black Swan. It's a new problem and the old solutions don't fit. If the skies don't clear (or if the ash thickens once again) then people will be forced to genuinely new solutions. That prospect scares the living shit out of the airlines, because under those new rules they will NOT be the winners.

How easy or difficult is it these days to cross the Atlantic by ship?

Pretty easy, really - modern navigation and and weather forecasting makes it much less hazardous than in the past, as most true hazards you can now go around, even as the authorities continue to track them. Shipping is thriving.

The problem is that the passenger-carrying capacity of shipping is much, much lower than it used to be.

I would think the majority of shipping traffic was freight, and there wouldn't be much in the way of passenger ships besides the hideously expensive cruise ships.

You are correct.

However, governments HAVE chartered cruise ships before for various purposes. For example, in the US they have been used to provide emergency housing after hurricanes. In the 20th Century cruise ships have been used to transport military troops in time of war. The RMS Olympic - sister ship the Titanic and Britanic and just as luxurious - was used as a troop transport during WWI. So did the Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary. So use of cruise ships to move large numbers of people across the oceans certainly has precedent.

Of course, such voyages are considerably less wonderful than vacation cruises. The object is to cram as many aboard as you safely can and get them the hell across the water. The food is nourishing, there is sufficient water for true needs although showers may well be restricted, and boredom will be an issue for some because there won't be much if anything in the way of shipboard entertainment.

In other words, the world does still retain the ability to move large numbers of people in ships. It will, however, be terribly inconvenient, impact yet another segment of economy (the cruise ship companies won't be happy if their ships are commandeered, and if they receive fair payment for the shipping time their customers who had had cruises planned will not be happy) and that solution will be likely as crowded as an airliner, with people just as unpleasant, but instead of taking mere hours to compete the journey it will take days or even weeks in some cases. Welcome back to the 19th Century, people!

It is, however, quite doable. If we must. If people are forced to accept the possibility. Everyone CAN get home... eventually.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That'll last only as long as the first major all-engines out failure over EUrope.

Edited my post. But yes, the thing many miss here is that, even assuming the planes can weather the ash cloud, the number of engines that will need to be checked frequently and have replacements ordered will soon deplete all spare components on the continent. That's why if KLM got the green light, everyone else would want to fly too. If they're all grounded, they all suffer the same, and none can bid higher for whatever parts are left to keep their fleet flying.

[Broomstick]

That'll last only as long as the first major all-engines out failure over EUrope.

True.

On top of that, what the European airlines seem to be lobbying for is an opportunity for a multiple tie situation for "first major all-engines out failure over Europe".

I think any airline contemplating returning to the sky against the advice of meteorology and ATC should have an executive (at least one) on board each launched airplane. These guys need some skin in the game, you know?

Of course, even if it makes them think twice there's no guarantee it will result in a better decision.