Volcanic eruption closes down UK/Scandinavian airports

[CaptainChewbacca]

Either the UK knows something we don't, or they've redefined 'acceptible losses'.

[Dartzap]

Either the UK knows something we don't, or they've redefined 'acceptible losses'.

Lord Adonis hoping Willy Walsh gets caught in an ash cloud? Quite likely...

The interesting thing about the whole thing is that UK airspace was never officially closed down by the CAA, but it was NATS pretty much saying "No air control support, har har" so technically speaking, BA and the like could have gone zooming around, and landed by eye and to hell with everyone else.

Mind you, even they arnt that daft... oh wait...

[Broomstick]

Could some sort of super hard coating on most vulnerable engine parts help to reduce the wear?

Jet turbine blades are already made of some of the strongest, hardest stuff on earth. They are also made to very small tolerances. No, there's no way to coat them with anything without ruining their efficiency.

Suppose volcano continues to spew ash causing continuous pollution of airspace. Not enough concentration to cause immediate danger by clogging and stopping the engines, but enough to seriously reduce time between major engine overhauls. Are there any solutions that could be applied to make engines more resistant to dusty air?

No.

Normal air contains enough dust to cause wear. It's just a fact of life, the air isn't really that clean even in a natural, unpolluted environment.

As Admiral Valdemar mentioned, it's not abrasion that fucks up the jet engines, it's the ash melting into glassy shit and coating parts, clogging cooling systems, and so forth. The abrasive danger is to OTHER parts of the aircraft (you'll note I said "airplane parts", not "engines") Sure, airliners have been landed safely without working engines (let's just conveniently ignore the ones that didn't land well) but being able to see out the window is more than a little important, too. Repeated exposures will continue to wear other parts, which could lead to failures. Not to mention that shit clogging pitot-static systems which, by the way, are essential to safe flying when you can't see out the window!

[Broomstick]

Either the UK knows something we don't, or they've redefined 'acceptible losses'.

More likely, someone is gambling that the wear on the aircraft will fall into some sort of acceptable range in regard to shortened component lifespans. Jet engines do, after all, have to tolerate a certain amount of dust and crap going through them. The question is... how much is too much? No one ever did a thorough study on jet engines and volcanic ash because, until now, it was more economically sensible and also feasible to just avoid ash clouds.

It's not the ideal way to obtain data on this phenomena.

[UnderAGreySky]

You probably saw THIS baby, Valdemar. She's been putting in a lot of hours

FAAM is the result of a collaboration between the Met Office(TM) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and has been established as part of the National Centre for Atmospheric Sciences (NCAS) to provide an aircraft measurement platform for use by all the UK atmospheric research community on campaigns throughout the world.

The modified BAe 146-301 large Atmospheric Research Aircraft (the ARA) is owned by BAE Systems and operated for them by Directflight. Our Home Base is at Cranfield University, Bedfordshire.

[UnderAGreySky]

(if anyone is troubled by the image size, lemme know I'll fix it into a link instead)

[Admiral Valdemar]

That'd be her. Given the restrictions still in place, it couldn't be anything else, and I had heard they'd finally got the NERC aircraft put back together again at the Met's request.

Not that it seems to matter now.

[Broomstick]

One would hope that, with flights resumed, authorities will continue to monitor the air situation. One would hope.

[JointStrikeFighter]

No.

Normal air contains enough dust to cause wear. It's just a fact of life, the air isn't really that clean even in a natural, unpolluted environment.

Ahem. There are dust filters you can fit to certain [particulary helicopter] engines that would probably prove...useful. Will fuck up fuel efficiency, range and performance though.

[eion]

No.

Normal air contains enough dust to cause wear. It's just a fact of life, the air isn't really that clean even in a natural, unpolluted environment.

Ahem. There are dust filters you can fit to certain [particulary helicopter] engines that would probably prove...useful. Will fuck up fuel efficiency, range and performance though.

Do these dust filters go on the outside of the engines say over the blades? Because otherwise a helicopter is subject to just as much wear and tear as a normal airplane.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Do these dust filters go on the outside of the engines say over the blades? Because otherwise a helicopter is subject to just as much wear and tear as a normal airplane.

Yes.

The box atop the cockpit is the dust filter. I am not sure any exist for fixed wing jet aircraft but theres no reason they couldn't be made.

[eion]

Do these dust filters go on the outside of the engines say over the blades? Because otherwise a helicopter is subject to just as much wear and tear as a normal airplane.

Yes.
[img]http://www.scale-rotors.com/files/[uid] ... around.jpg[/img]
The protruding cylinder bits are the dust filter. I am not sure any exist for fixed wing jet aircraft but theres no reason they couldn't be made.

You misunderstand. The photo Broomstick posted was of the propeller from an aircraft, what would be the rotor-blades of a helicopter. Unless the filter goes over the entire airstream itself, and can filter out particles down to the size of talcum powder, it's pretty useless against volcanic ash. And even if it could filter out such small particles the loss in power and fuel economy would make such a device pointless.

And it would still do nothing to prevent the damage to windscreens or even the fuselage itself. It is literally flying through sandpaper.

[Broomstick]

The filtersJointStrikeFighter is referring to are for the engines of turbine powered helicopters which, essentially, are a form of jet engine. Said engines are being used to turn rotors instead of providing direct propulsion, but nonetheless they run on the same fuel and at the same temperatures as the engines on jet airplanes.

(And while previewing I see an illustration has been posted.)

A turbine helicopter, though, doesn't fly at the same speed as an airliner, which I assume affects dust flow and air requirements for that engine. Admittedly, this is not an area where I have expertise. Indisputably, it has proven feasible to mount such filters on helicopters. That doesn't mean it will be feasible for airplanes.

Yes, you could, I suppose, fit the engines on a jet airliner with filters of some sort - and as noted it totally fucks up fuel efficiency, range, performance, etc. For a short haul flight you might get away with it, but probably not on a trans-oceanic flight. I can't say for sure - the math is within my grasp but I don't have the all important information and figures on things like fuel burn and engine efficiency at various altitudes and all the other variables that go into that sort of flight planning. The other hitch is that such filters have never been developed before so you're essentially testing brand new equipment whose effect on the overall system called a "flying airplane" is unknown. While I have been known to fly airplanes registered under the "Experimental" category I would not be eager to do such flying across an ocean. I suspect the general public would be even less eager to try such a thing.

[Broomstick]

Do these dust filters go on the outside of the engines say over the blades? Because otherwise a helicopter is subject to just as much wear and tear as a normal airplane.

Yes.
[img]http://www.scale-rotors.com/files/[uid] ... around.jpg[/img]
The protruding cylinder bits are the dust filter. I am not sure any exist for fixed wing jet aircraft but theres no reason they couldn't be made.

You misunderstand. The photo Broomstick posted was of the propeller from an aircraft, what would be the rotor-blades of a helicopter. Unless the filter goes over the entire airstream itself, and can filter out particles down to the size of talcum powder, it's pretty useless against volcanic ash. And even if it could filter out such small particles the loss in power and fuel economy would make such a device pointless.

And it would still do nothing to prevent the damage to windscreens or even the fuselage itself. It is literally like flying through sandpaper.

Helicopter rotorblades are more comparable to piston-engine props than to jet engines - in fact, in the Osprey the rotorblades and props are really the same thing. Volcanic dust can and does impose rapid wear on rotorblades, but it's a very different issue than what happens inside a jet engine.

Again - even if you fix problems that interfere with the engines running you STILL have the excessive wear on windows and other parts of the airplane. A fogged window or a clogged pitot-static system is just as potentially deadly as a complete lack of engine power.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, another economic crash is a real possibility. On the other hand, you don't want to turn air travel into Russian roulette. Sometimes there is not a good answer or solution to a problem. We're all getting a hefty reminder that mankind is NOT in control of everything.

And sometimes when you have two shitty options you have to have to make a tough choice and pick the least shitty option.

Keep in mind, we just dodged a Great Depression. Another crash could land us in one. Keep in mind as well that economic disaster contributed to the rise of the Nazis, and WWII.

If the price of averting a decades-long global nightmare is a few plane crashes, well, what would you do?

[eion]

Really? BA needs to get flying or the Nazis might show up again? That's the weakest implementation of Anti-Godwin's law I've ever seen.

[The Romulan Republic]

Really? BA needs to get flying or the Nazis might show up again? That's the weakest implementation of Anti-Godwin's law I've ever seen.

Its not that simple, and I do not appreciate the mischaracterization.

What I am saying is, this could fuck up the economy, and that could lead to a lot of bad things. I don't consider an exact repeat of the 1930s to be particularly likely, but I would expect some rather unpleasant things. What exact form those take is impossible to predict.

Yes, I'm considering worst-case scenarios. People should to that more often.

[eion]

Really? BA needs to get flying or the Nazis might show up again? That's the weakest implementation of Anti-Godwin's law I've ever seen.

Its not that simple, and I do not appreciate the mischaracterization.

What I am saying is, this could fuck up the economy, and that could lead to a lot of bad things. I don't consider an exact repeat of the 1930s to be particularly likely, but I would expect some rather unpleasant things. What exact form those take is impossible to predict.

Yes, I'm considering worst-case scenarios. People should to that more often.

I could have a brain aneurysm while I'm typing this. It's incredibly unlikely, unpredictable, and unpreventable. Let's be clear, the airlines got flying again because they were losing $200 million dollars a day. They could give two figs about a resurgence of national socialism. You could have made a perfectly sensible worst-case scenario argument without dragging the fucking Nazis into it. It was lazy.

"The economy is just starting to recover in Europe, and even just barely, and the airlines are just starting to recover from the worldwide travel slump caused by 9/11. If they don't open up European airspace soon it could send several airlines into bankruptcy and further cripple European travel and freight shipping, further delaying the economic recovery and perhaps causing another period of negative growth."

See, no Nazis. Simple. Bad economic times do not equal right wing fascist anti-Semitic, homophobic xenophobes. If something is impossible to predict, why try?

[folti78]

This is just in.

Latest Volcanic Ash related aircraft incidents ?

By Miyuru ( K FLYER ) on April 21, 2010

Following incidents have been reported after the re-opening of UK airspace last night and are currently believed to have been caused by volcanic ash. But please note that these events are *still* under investigation.

A World Airways Boeing MD-11, operating for Allied Air, that flew from Benghazi, Libya to Ostend-Bruges, Belgium via Maastrichat ( on 20th ) was grounded due to ash found in engines. The engine reportedly suffered non-serious damage. The aircraft is currently being inspected.
The aircraft in question is N384WA. Allied Air is a Nigerian operator.

A Thomas Cook 757, reg G-JMCF, on a positioning flight as TCX952P, returned to Manchester due to a loss of compressor bleed air from one engine after crew sensed an ‘intense smell of volcanic ash’ during the climb between FL160-FL200. The aircraft was out over the North Sea off Norfolk/Suffolk.

The live ATC recording of the Thomas Cook incident could be found here.

Legal Disclaimer : This recording was not done by this author and was found at another aviation forum online. This is posted in this blog in good faith solely with the intention of keeping readers informed. No airline or airport or any employee was meant to be harmed. If any involved party believes that this is in violation of legal regulations or that it harms them, please contact me and I will remove this right away.

[The Romulan Republic]

I could have a brain aneurysm while I'm typing this.

Hyperbole aside, it might help if you calmed down and stopped misinterpreting everything I say.

It's incredibly unlikely, unpredictable, and unpreventable.

An resurgence of Nazism persay in the event of a Depression may be unlikely. Political unrest, extremism, and violence are not.

Unpredictable? Since I wasn't trying to predict the return of Nazism specifically so much as using it as an example of the kind of negative political consequences that can occur in an economic disaster...

Unpreventable? Hardly. The whole point of my initial post was that the planes should (maybe) start flying again and accept some increased risk in order to prevent an economic crash.

Let's be clear, the airlines got flying again because they were losing $200 million dollars a day. They could give two figs about a resurgence of national socialism.

No doubt. My point is that this may be the right decision, regardless of weather the airlines have the best motives for making it.

You could have made a perfectly sensible worst-case scenario argument without dragging the fucking Nazis into it. It was lazy.

Perhaps. Was there some more obscure historical example of the possible political results of an economic crash that you would rather I have used?

Economic trouble can lead to political upheaval and extremism with long-term global consequences. I may have worded that point badly, but the point itself is not an invalid one.

"The economy is just starting to recover in Europe, and even just barely, and the airlines are just starting to recover from the worldwide travel slump caused by 9/11. If they don't open up European airspace soon it could send several airlines into bankruptcy and further cripple European travel and freight shipping, further delaying the economic recovery and perhaps causing another period of negative growth."

See, no Nazis. Simple.

Well, I was going beyond simply describing the economic fall-out and trying to touch on the potential long-term political fall-out of an economic crisis, even if I chose an overused and melodramatic example by which to do so.

Bad economic times do not equal right wing fascist anti-Semitic, homophobic xenophobes.

I never said they did, inherently. But they do tend to equal political upheaval and violence. I used the Nazis as a well-known example, but that is not the same as saying I expect an exact repeat of the 1930s as you are trying so very hard to insinuate.

If something is impossible to predict, why try?

I am not saying that we would see a resurgence of Nazism persay (though there certainly are fairly strong Neo-Nazi movements in parts of the world). Surely you understand the difference between pointing out broad historical parallels and claiming the exact same thing is happening again?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Just avoided a depression? We're not even out of it! Unless you believe massaged as fuck GDP figures, which makes the already nebulous idea of GDP indicating growth even worse.

The Thomas Cook flight is also VERY interesting.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, rather than saying we avoided a depression, I could say we have thus far avoided it being as bad as the Great Depression. Small comfort, but still, this eruption seems to have happened at a very bad time economically (as if there's a good time for something like this to happen).

[Sky Captain]

Could some sort of super hard coating on most vulnerable engine parts help to reduce the wear?

Jet turbine blades are already made of some of the strongest, hardest stuff on earth. They are also made to very small tolerances. No, there's no way to coat them with anything without ruining their efficiency.

Suppose volcano continues to spew ash causing continuous pollution of airspace. Not enough concentration to cause immediate danger by clogging and stopping the engines, but enough to seriously reduce time between major engine overhauls. Are there any solutions that could be applied to make engines more resistant to dusty air?

No.

Normal air contains enough dust to cause wear. It's just a fact of life, the air isn't really that clean even in a natural, unpolluted environment.

As Admiral Valdemar mentioned, it's not abrasion that fucks up the jet engines, it's the ash melting into glassy shit and coating parts, clogging cooling systems, and so forth. The abrasive danger is to OTHER parts of the aircraft (you'll note I said "airplane parts", not "engines") Sure, airliners have been landed safely without working engines (let's just conveniently ignore the ones that didn't land well) but being able to see out the window is more than a little important, too. Repeated exposures will continue to wear other parts, which could lead to failures. Not to mention that shit clogging pitot-static systems which, by the way, are essential to safe flying when you can't see out the window!

Well, then I imagine companies who make jet engines and spare parts and provide aircraft maintenance can say thank you Eyjafjallajokull

And today we have another increase of volcanic activity with fresh ash cloud spewing to some 5 - 6 km and small surges of water coming out of glacier. Compare images taken early in the morning with those taken later and see the difference.

http://picasaweb.google.com/10217539123 ... fApril2010#

[Broomstick]

Yes, another economic crash is a real possibility. On the other hand, you don't want to turn air travel into Russian roulette. Sometimes there is not a good answer or solution to a problem. We're all getting a hefty reminder that mankind is NOT in control of everything.

And sometimes when you have two shitty options you have to have to make a tough choice and pick the least shitty option.

No argument there, however, not many people are eager to be guinea pigs.

The more information we have on the effects of ash clouds on airplanes the better our decision making will be. I expect there has been a massive accumulation of new data over the past few weeks. That's a good thing. A problem is, though, that the airlines and the public want certain answers. At this point there aren't any - just best guesses.

Keep in mind, we just dodged a Great Depression. Another crash could land us in one. Keep in mind as well that economic disaster contributed to the rise of the Nazis, and WWII.

I dispute your assertion we dodged a depression - we didn't. It's not as bad as the 1930's, in part because of social safety nets and banking regulations, but it's still dicey. I won't pile on with the Nazi issue, because I was clear you were using it as an example, but maybe next time choose a different one, or offer it as one of several examples.

Other notable depressions included the Long Depression from 1873 to 1896 which may have contributed to the rise of anarchist and communist movements, and the Panic of 1837. Latin America and Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet era also had depressions which contributed to all sorts of negative effects.

5 minutes of Google would have brought up numerous examples of depressions and their social and political fall out beyond the 1930's and the Nazis. See as an educational opportunity.

If the price of averting a decades-long global nightmare is a few plane crashes, well, what would you do?

I'm a little less cavalier about this than you are. We need to examine all practical alternatives before just throwing airplanes full of people back into the skies. Those choices range from a risk assemblymen level that balance shortened engine life against the economic consequences of grounding airplanes, and possibly reviving travel by sea. I suspect the best long term solution (assuming this is a long term problem) is a COMBINATION of alternatives and not simply just one solution.

What I am saying is, this could fuck up the economy, and that could lead to a lot of bad things. I don't consider an exact repeat of the 1930s to be particularly likely, but I would expect some rather unpleasant things. What exact form those take is impossible to predict.

I actually think we're closer to an economic repeat of the 1930's than almost anyone really wants to contemplate. I don't think we'll see Nazis again because history doesn't repeat that neatly. The social and political fall out of another Great Depression will manifest in a different manner than before, but we are already seeing major economies either stagnant or slightly shrinking, and unemployment edging up to 20% whether officially acknowledged or not.

As for the World Airways and Thomas Cook flights - I expected something of the sort. The ash cloud didn't go away simply because the airlines were upset about being grounded. If they insist on flying through volcanic ash this sort of thing is going to happen. Such damage obviously didn't doom the flight but it's really going to drive up costs as items have to be repaired or replaced. Expect to see more of the same. And remember, it's not just the engines but windows and air pressure sensors and various other mechanical parts. Certain types of on-board de-icing equipment is vulnerable to volcanic ash damage. The engines are big dramatic items but they are hardly the only important parts of the aircraft.

[The Romulan Republic]

No argument there, however, not many people are eager to be guinea pigs.

Fair enough. I wonder, what about a partial lifting of the flight ban, allowing cargo flights to go ahead but limiting or outright blocking passenger flights?

The more information we have on the effects of ash clouds on airplanes the better our decision making will be. I expect there has been a massive accumulation of new data over the past few weeks. That's a good thing. A problem is, though, that the airlines and the public want certain answers. At this point there aren't any - just best guesses.

True enough.

I dispute your assertion we dodged a depression - we didn't. It's not as bad as the 1930's, in part because of social safety nets and banking regulations, but it's still dicey. I won't pile on with the Nazi issue, because I was clear you were using it as an example, but maybe next time choose a different one, or offer it as one of several examples.

Point taken.

Other notable depressions included the Long Depression from 1873 to 1896 which may have contributed to the rise of anarchist and communist movements, and the Panic of 1837. Latin America and Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet era also had depressions which contributed to all sorts of negative effects.

5 minutes of Google would have brought up numerous examples of depressions and their social and political fall out beyond the 1930's and the Nazis. See as an educational opportunity.

I chose an easy example that made the point quickly, but next time I'll consider going with something a bit less obvious.

I'm a little less cavalier about this than you are.

I wouldn't call my attitude "cavalier." I'm certainly not happy about the risk, but there's really nothing good about this whole mess.

We need to examine all practical alternatives before just throwing airplanes full of people back into the skies. Those choices range from a risk assemblymen level that balance shortened engine life against the economic consequences of grounding airplanes, and possibly reviving travel by sea. I suspect the best long term solution (assuming this is a long term problem) is a COMBINATION of alternatives and not simply just one solution.

Agreed. In the short-term, governments are looking at using ships to get stranded nationals back home. I also think that (as stated above), allowing only a reduced amount of air traffic (say, government/military/cargo flights) might be a good idea.

I actually think we're closer to an economic repeat of the 1930's than almost anyone really wants to contemplate. I don't think we'll see Nazis again because history doesn't repeat that neatly. The social and political fall out of another Great Depression will manifest in a different manner than before, but we are already seeing major economies either stagnant or slightly shrinking, and unemployment edging up to 20% whether officially acknowledged or not.

No denying the economic situation was bad, is still bad, and could easily get worse.