What is the prognosis over the next couple of weeks regarding the 'volcano'?

ElleDee,

At the moment, everything is looking fine but if the volcano increases the amount of ash it's spewing out, air traffic could be disrupted again. It's an unknown really.

Darren

Beggars belief that anyone thinks Walsh would risk all those billions of dollar planes and passengers. They were never at risk more or less been acknowledged that it was all a needless decision. Anyone listen to Branson on TV yesterday...he said the same. Some heads should roll for all that disruption. Even at it's worst it was only one-twentieth of the limit and the RAF jets who flew close to the volcano had NO damage.

Seems that most nervous flyers would rather take the story of the pilot who flew almost over the top of the volcano not 1200 miles away and apply to every volcanic situation

Jacky,

As posted previously, there simply wasn't the information available about the potential damage to aircraft other than there are several cases where aircraft have been damanged by volcanic ash. All research up to this incident suggested aircraft should not fly in it and it should be avoided at all costs, hence the airspace restrictions. This comes from aircraft and engine manufacturers themselves as well as plenty of PhD's. The information simply wasn't available to suggest the ash concentrations were safe to fly through so the precautionary principle was applied. Research carried out in the days of the ash cloud then suggested the risk to aircraft was lower than first thought and providing steps were taken to inspect aircraft, particularly engines and increased maintanance, current concentrations were considered safe. This research is ongoing and takes time to carry out and analyse. A best guess is not acceptable in the circumstances. There are a couple of suspected cases of volcaninc ash damage to aircraft that have flown through UK airspace over the last week. However it's been deemed generally safe. I don't think heads should roll, far from it. Given the risk to life both in aircraft and on the ground, the correct decisions were made in the interest of safety until those who make the decisions were in full view of the facts and could make informed decisons. The question of why the research wasn't done earlier is more than valid, but it's always been acknowledged aircraft should fly around the problem. This case was unprecidented as it covered a major part of the worlds aviation centre so they couldn't fly around it. The main thing is, the aviation world has learnt a lot and know how to deal with such a situation in the future, ensuring aircraft and passenger safety.

Darren

Hi Busdriver,

In answer to your post where you wrote:

"Where was the info that they nearly ran out of fuel? No mention of a "Mayday" call which surely would have made the tabloids. Diversion does not mean that they were running out of fuel just that they were being prudent not knowing what the onward delays might be."

If an aircraft was low on fuel it wouldn't put out a MAYDAY - it would possibly put out a PAN-PAN depending on how low on fuel they were. A PAN-PAN means they could be encountering danger and must be given priority, whereas a MAYDAY means they need immediate assistance i.e. firefighters, ambulances etc.

Occasionally an aircraft will put out a PAN-PAN, but it won't make the news.

Diversions can be for all manner of things, too. It isn't necessarily just because an aircraft is low on fuel. It's actually very unusual for an aircraft to run out of fuel; the fuel load is worked out according to weight, air miles, weather etc and they always have back-up fuel for emergencies and to keep the aircraft in the air long enough to reach another airport in case of fog etc.

Strawberry

* A Distress Call means that the aircraft is threatened by serious or imminent danger and requires immediate assistance. This is a Mayday call.
* An Urgency Call means that there is a safety issue concerning the aircraft or a person on board, but it does not require immediate assistance. This is a Pan Pan call.

Aircraft running out of fuel is a mayday call. There is no priority with a pan call; aircraft does not require immediate assistance.
I would imagine that, at the time of diverson, the aircraft had at least 2 hours fuel on board made up as follows: enough fuel to Heathrow and to make an approach, fuel to alternate, holding fuel. The decison to divert would be made as the fuel on board the aircraft approached this level. No imminent danger, aircraft did not require immediate assistance in fact, a non event.

We have flown into Heathrow at peak times and circled for over half an hour.

From the Daily Mail, seems this site doesn't allow links to it

Sorry, I've had to remove your post for copyright reasons. As you / Holiday Truths doesn't have copyright permission, the article can't be pasted on to the thread. If you can't post a link to the article, by all means PM me and i'll add it for you. Thanks. Dazbo HT Mod

Just for information the minimum fuel an aircraft will have on board when it leaves the gate is made up as follows: Taxy fuel + trip fuel + contingency fuel @ 5% of the trip fuel + fuel to an alternate airfield (including a 5% contingency) + 30 minutes holding fuel at the estimated landing weight. There is quite a bit of fat in the system and the captain can always load additional fuel at his discretion subject to the maximum take off and landing weights.

Hi Busdriver,

Re your post...........................

* A Distress Call means that the aircraft is threatened by serious or imminent danger and requires immediate assistance. This is a Mayday call.
* An Urgency Call means that there is a safety issue concerning the aircraft or a person on board, but it does not require immediate assistance. This is a Pan Pan call.

Aircraft running out of fuel is a mayday call. There is no priority with a pan call; aircraft does not require immediate assistance.
I would imagine that, at the time of diverson, the aircraft had at least 2 hours fuel on board made up as follows: enough fuel to Heathrow and to make an approach, fuel to alternate, holding fuel. The decison to divert would be made as the fuel on board the aircraft approached this level. No imminent danger, aircraft did not require immediate assistance in fact, a non event."

You're not quite right. You're correct when you say a MAYDAY call requires immediate assistance, and I already said that. And I also said a PAN-PAN call was one step down from a MAYDAY; but a PAN-PAN call will most certainly give that aircraft priority over others - that's the whole point of calling one.

An aircraft would only issue a MAYDAY if it was running out of its RESERVES fuel - and that NEVER happens. Highly trained pilots would not allow fuel levels to drop to such a low level that they had to call out a MAYDAY - they would be sacked! They would take swift action long before fuel levels were dangerously low! The amount of fuel (and reserves) needed for a flight are worked out so accurately that it's unheard of for a plane to run out of fuel.

And aircraft do not hold 2 hours flying time of fuel in reserve - nowhere near that! They usually carry a reserve of anything between 20 minutes and 45 minutes depending on the airline. Most airlines try to keep to the lower limits to keep costs down.

Strawberry

Just to clarify I just stated that diverting into Shannon they probably had about two hours of fuel remaining which would have left i with less than the minimum legal fuel at Heathrow.

You are correct when you say that aircraft carry minimum fuel when conditions permit but the Captain can use his discretion to carry as much as he wishes. In this scenario I would think that quite a lot extra was carried subject to take off limitations. I certainly would have done!

Well Dazzbo I have now sent you the link. Not sure why this site doesn't allow Daily Mail links, never had trouble posting links on other sites Makes it seem as if you are trying to stifle genuine debate.

Anyway folks if you take a look at yesterdays Mail you should find the article I (tried) to post which demonstrates that the whole fiasco was bunkum...who has lost the most....us holidaymakers
Here is the link AGAIN

See what I mean....every other website allows links to the Daily Mail...WTF

How is it I can't post links and other posters can...anyone know

A few of this morning's posts have unfortunately had to be edited or removed. Please note that as part of its Copyright policy and Terms of Use, the Daily Mail website disallows weblinks as well as reproduction of its material.

However, googling 'The ash cloud that never was' will lead you to the story.

David

I am confused, this must be the only site that doesn't allow links from the Mail....are they all breaking copyright?

I suppose we are allowed to discuss the article? without a link of course

Even at it's worst it was only one-twentieth of the limit and the RAF jets who flew close to the volcano had NO damage.

That is not what was reported in the local press up here in the north and east of Scotland where said fighters are stationed. The news up here was that the RAF largely grounded their planes during the height of the emergency (and I didn't realise just how much planes from RAF Leuchars were a feature of our local airspace until they were absent from it - goes to show just how much noise you can get used to!) They then started re-flying on the understanding that after each sortie the engines would be completely stripped and cleaned to find out just how much ash penetration there was and these inspections did pick up both ash deposits and some engine damage to the planes. The RAF then took the decision that the amount was not sufficient to warrant continued grounding of the fleet when risk of continued damage was balanced against the need to maintain the security Bristish airspace (yes, they do still have to monitor Russian incursions into UK airspace despite the endings of the 'Cold War') but that increased inspections and cleaning would be needed and maintianed between flights. They could afford to do this but would commercial companies being able to afford to do this after every flight? Doubtful I would say.

Interestingly given that the bulk of the national press coverage centred on the risks to jet aircraft but there were some indications up here that helicopters were at risk too. The Coastguard helicopters are used up here for emergency medical evacuations from Orkney and Shetland to the mainland and they continued flying these missions but again subject to the proviso that their engines were stripped and cleaned after each flight. These inspections early on in the crisis picked up that again there was some damage caused by the ash to their engines hence why their flights were restricted for a time to emergencies only in an attempt to ensure that they weren't damaged further and uneccessarily. One consequence of this was that there was a great deal of disruption to the staff transfers on and off the North Sea oil rigs because they are routinely done by helicopter and now most rigs have no provision for doing these transfers safely by ship. The commerical operators who run these flights and do so at much lower altitudes than commercial jet flights were not rpepared to take the risk of the cumulative damge that might have ensued - especially since their turnaround times do not permit the exhaustive inspection and cleaning routines that were instituted for the Coastguard helicopters.

Again I would always place my trust in the engineers about what is and isn't safe rather than a Daily Mail journalist and would want flights stopped until such time as they can prove to me that it is SAFE to fly rather than flying being continued until someone proves that it is dangerous to fly.

SM

PS Jacky, David's recent post makes it clear that it is the Daily Mail that doesn't permit HT to link to their site and not the other way round. And yes, if other websites are allowing articles to be copied from the Daily Mail then they are breaching copyright law and run the risk of the site owners being prosecuted and/or the site being closed down as a result. I regard HT to be too valuable to run that risk and commend the Mods for always making sure that HT stays the right side of the law and hence continues to exist for us users.

So can we put the URL as a static address ie not a web link or actual text quoted ? (surely they cant copyright a url ?)

Their copyright policy disallows reproduction of material, their Terms Of Use disallow weblinks from any other site.

David

Hi Busdriver,

That isn't quite correct when you wrote:

busdriver wrote:

Just to clarify I just stated that diverting into Shannon they probably had about two hours of fuel remaining which would have left i with less than the minimum legal fuel at Heathrow.

You are correct when you say that aircraft carry minimum fuel when conditions permit but the Captain can use his discretion to carry as much as he wishes. In this scenario I would think that quite a lot extra was carried subject to take off limitations. I certainly would have done!

The Captain cannot carry as much fuel as he wishes - he would be challenged if he did that. The fuel plan is worked out for each flight, and part of the Captain's job is working out how much fuel is required for each journey, taking into account the prospect of being diverted or busy traffic and going into hold. They usually allow 45 minutes for hold and divert - and must land with at least one hour's flying time of fuel in the tanks: that is why I explained yesterday that a pilot would never give out a MAYDAY if he was running out of fuel - because it just doesn't happen. It also depends on the length of the runway when taking off - if he has too much fuel and the weight is heavy he cannot take off if the runway isn't long enough. And if the aircraft is too heavy he can't turn back and land in an emergency. If for any reason (which would be highly unusual) an aircraft became low on fuel it would be easier and far safer for the aircraft to refuel en route, than to possibly land heavy at its destination.

This is slightly off topic, but I did see that you mentioned further back that if a passenger aircraft was flying over land it would be possible to glide and land in an airfield. I would say that would be miraculous. Airbuses or Boeings cannot glide and land in just any airfield. Even a light plane would have difficulty determining whether an airstrip or field was safe to land in an emergency.

Strawberry