Volcano air crisis: Safety first or overkill?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am disgusted with Virgin Air Lines for (1) not answering their phones, (2) not getting in touch with their passengers to help them (3) not putting their passengers up in hotels nor offering to feed us (4) no help hot line nor any information on their web site to help us what do we do? Please I need to get home to my kids, I am begging the news to get word to Virgin and find out what are they doing to help their passengers, get cruse ships to help do something this is crazyness!!
Virgin Air Line Passenger Allison Devaux

Elf and Safty gorn mad, innit?

Interesting question mark though? Whose self interest is weaving itself about a natural phenomena? and in which direction? Another Dunkirk scenario for the Royal Navy, taking stranded tourists off the beaches in long lines with their suitcases on their heads, whilst overhead German aircraft wheel and turn in a clear blue sky.

I'm an American stranded in the UK right now (I actually visited WHYS at the start of my trip), and I have to say that I wouldn't really be too excited to be one of the first flights to go through. But, obviously, once a flight or two made it to its destination I'd take my chances.

I don't think we can say yet if it's safety first or overkill...hindsight, as always, will be 20-20, but as a stranded passenger it's hard to get too upset with the ban when it's imposed for what people consider to be my best interest.

I am staggered by the airlines’ whingeing approach to this thing, particularly ironic so shortly after the tragic crash in Russia that killed all those Polish officials and that we gather may well (allegedly) have been due to scant attention to safety issues.
It would only have taken one passenger aircraft to fall out the sky for the European authorities to have been cursed to kingdom come for failure to protect the public – never mind potential knicker-bombers, this is a real hazard.
Better safe than sorry is the only sane response to this natural phenomenon that no amount of hi-tech gadgetry could have a) foreseen or b) done anything about, we are, it seems still at the mercy of the way the wind is blowing .
I think the fault for much of the misery suffered by the stranded passengers lies fairly and squarely with the airlines themselves. These people were only stranded in their departure country/city, it was obvious this would take some days to clear up so why didn’t the airlines (I know there were some exceptions) actually indulge in a bit of that customer care they are always pushing in their advertising and find them somewhere comfortable to sleep and make sure they were fed and watered – surely they must have insurance against this sort of thing?

Safety is always top priority in aviation. It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

I feel that, yes, maybe the EU is being too much too cautious about safety, but, you know, that's one of the reasons why I live here.

Yes, airlines are losing an unprecedented amount of money. Yes, we're having a lot of issues to travel, but, even so, I feel that this is the right approach to take.

Why?

Well, we can recover the money they're losing, we can recover time, but, if only one dies from allowing flights to proceed without being 100% secure there's nor risk, we cannot recover that life.

So, yes, they could have been faster. Yes, the could have made more tests. Yes, yes, yes to all, but, at the end of the day, a life's worth more than all the other things.

I do think that it should be possible to perform some sort of monitoring though, for example where is the dust at its highest concentration ? if above 30000 ft could we fly the planes at 20000 ft with a higher margin of safety and lose some fuel efficiency perhaps.

I dont see any proper measurement and anlysis going on, just afew airlines running their planes at normal cruising altitude.

Unless I saw a more technical analysis of the dust (vertical distribution) as well as chemical content and flight plans geared towards minimizing the risk with regard to that analysis I wont be stepping onto any aircraft.

I dont trust the cash strapped airlines to do such analysis.

As far as I understand the ash sits at a specific height. Why not fly lower or higher than normal for the duration of the effect? I think this is being blown out of proportion.

Sand-blasted windscreens and volcanic glass fused to turbine innards both urge caution; but profit and convenience will likely win out. It seems the great ocean Atmosphere really doesn’t suffer any fool gently; even those on the ground attempting to make it safer for everyone.
g

While I'm sorry for all those who are stranded, the other concern is a potential bailout. If it continues, the airlines will scream to be bailed out.

Considering the massive U.K. national debt, how can the govt. do this? Raise taxes? An IMF emergency loan?

If they don't bail them out, the effects will be global. If they do bail them out, they open themselves to a firestorm of protest.

How come they get bailed out, but my business doesn't? Why are they "more vital to the national economy" than we are? How much do you wanna bet that the govt. would use the old line "they're too big to fail" again?

And of this what, 3 weeks before an election.

Aside from all the shock, horror crisis reaction, maybe there are lessons to be learned.
Aside from the man-made climate change denyers, most people agree that flying dumps a lot of nasty CO2 into the atmosphere.
Interesting that the European big wigs have had to hold their pow-wow by video link, because they can’t all jump on planes to get up close and personal. While the techies are having orgasms over the Internet in all its most trivial forms, like Twitter and Facebook, the biggest ever wastes of cyber-space in creation, maybe it’s time most of those business trips were rendered unnecessary by this technology.
I fail to see the problem for anyone in Europe – have we forgotten about trains? And once upon a time it was quite simple to cross the Channel by ferry. The problem with trains is that they are too expensive, despite being a far more civilised way to travel, but if the airlines had to put up prices because of carbon taxes, demand for rail would go up and hey presto, prices would come down.
If this debacle forces a few more airlines out of business – so be it.
I feel sorry for the veg and flower growers in Africa, but surely this should make us think twice about the wisdom of this trade in inedible cash crops? Particularly given the latest study on water resources.
Maybe this ash cloud does have a silver lining. in that it may persuade people to think twice before they fly.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Get Real! These things take time to organise, this is an unpresidented situation so of course people won't know what to do! Sometimes I think people have mud for brains and just moan for moanings sake... Plus there is a Big difference between a 'test-pilot' and a whole plane load of cargo and 300 to 700 passengers! It would be just everyones luck that the 'tests' are good but the reality would be us seeing planes falling out of the sky... ???
This is an 'Act-of-God' (and dare I say) 'for Heavens Sake! and not the Airports fault, so why should They end up paying for everyone's comfort? - Sure, refund the tickets if they don't travel and comply with the things they have agreed to, but to pay endless hotel-bills and to keep paying for every conceivable thing that passengers can think of sounds a bit like an 'expenses scandal' with passengers taking on the role of dodgy MPs! - This is silly - people want stuff for nothing, and who is going to pay back the Airports? People moan about airport delays, about terrorism, safety and noise all the time but when it comes to their comfort they don't care - so now they Want to travel when it's dangerous? ?? ... If thats the case - make those passengers pay another fare for putting the pilot at risk?
The solution? - (1) The public should open their doors and help travellers, give them a bed for a night or two... (2) Travel insurance companies don't usually have an 'act-of-God' clause which means they have all made loads of money on something they don't have to pay out on.. so they should all get together and fund ferries and trains to bring people home.

It's not just "safety first," it's also trying to avoid damage that goes easily into the millions of dollars, for engine overhauls. I just finished reading a report written by NASA, on one of their DC-8 laboratory airplanes. Flew through a fairly diffused ash cloud in 2000, on a flight to Sweden. No flameouts, nothing dramatic like that, and no immediately apparent engine damage. However after tearing down one of the four engines, they did find blocked cooling passages and eroded turbine blades. The four engines needed a complete overhaul, to the tune of several million dollars. The overheating would have led to premature engine failure, according to the report.

I can't begin to imagine the frustration of air travelers trapped at airports for days and days. And really no one to get irate at.

No they are not over-reacting. There is a genuine risk from the ash cloud as seen in a BA flight over indonesia in the 80's. Yes planes could fly under the ash cloud but that would then mean an even more congested airspace, so there would be huge arguments about which airlines, and how slots were allocated.

What is incredibly wrong is the profiteering being undertaken by alternate travel companies, bus, rail and ferry, as well as hotels. Perhaps some lawyers should get together and launch a class action against profiteering companies on the basis of equity law and and an unequal bargain.

9. At 2:32pm on 19 Apr 2010, Dola chi-Trei wrote:
As far as I understand the ash sits at a specific height. Why not fly lower or higher than normal for the duration of the effect? I think this is being blown out of proportion.

Because the airspace above our heads is three dimensional, a plane can pass over other planes by thousands of feet, but not if they are all restricted to narrower, and shallower air corridors. Avoiding the plane cloud may cause unsafe congestion.

I understand that the airlines are concerned about their profits they are after all businesses. However,where lives are concerned how can we put a monetary value to them? Who is going to explain to a victims family member(s) that their loved one is not coming back because their profits were at risk?

It seems very human that on the heels of the Polish tragedy, an excess of caution would be exercised.

Carbon emmission has reduce in away the enviroment has improve

No worry about the consequences on the economical or political side due to this volcano sneeze. The humanitarian side is very important, especially the organ transplant and medical treatment. There were news reports of organs having been delivered regionally by surface transportation available. And some of the poor patients who had a time frame of appointments to reach the operation table were held up. Here every single penny or every single second is lost is a loss which cannot be easily retrievable. However, nature more often teaches lessons to prepare for the future. Many who had been enjoying a bird's view since very long had gotten the opportunity to realize the ground reality, at least for a few hours. Many approached surface transportation to reach their destinations. Journey through the surface travel is more creative and thought provoking, because it always reminds us how to safe guard environs and nature. If the natural calamities do not make any human losses, it seems to be necessary to sit and think with equanimity about the situations of the common man in the world.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Safety first for sure. Then it is up to the Insurance companies to play their part and help people who are loosing money on this problem... are they helping? Not ours, they say that as we made our own way back to the UK we are not entitled to any insurance money. We were in Switzerland and we pay the full wack insurance with SAGA.
We should have stayed in geneva until there was a flight apparently

Claudia:

I think at the beginning it was full-pledged safety and, later (currently) is now becoming overkill....

(dennis junior)

I am a retired pilot from a major airline and flew the Atlantic hundreds of times. Not every air route between Europe and the US goes over Iceland, or even necessarily close to Iceland. As soon as the eruption occurred, everyone seemed to go into panic mode and cancel everything crossing the Atlantic. Nowadays, we have the ability to pinpoint the location of the suspended particles from the volcano, and make alternative plans to avoid them. There is no reason why flights from Spain/Portugal could not have continued until their routes were actually threatened, AND, there is no reason why all of the scheduled flights from northern Europe could not have taken off for the Canaris, or the Azores, and refueled and then went on to the US. Flights eastbound could have done the same thing, routing pax around the problem. They could have even terminated air travel at Rota and allowed pax to use ground transportation to all other points in Europe. It seems to me that passenger service took a back seat to the extra cost of flying around the problem.

People simply cannot have it both ways! Should deaths have happened we would all rightly blast all in authority for not protecting us. On this occasion we were protected, but it cost money. Lives were protected and injuries avoided! I know what I would choose! Money would definately lose.

I think its only overkill when the realisation that money is involved.

hence the 'aftermath' is pure overkill