ash cloud

[Hugh Spencer]

So have the scientists got it wrong again, basing their findings on inexact details? So are they doing the same thing as scientists did concerning manmade global warming, not using all the details necessary to make predictions?

[jake-the-peg]

What?

[Davethedog]

Never mind at least they have got the right people now.

Two weeks ago it would of all been the Governments fault.

[bobjugs12]

TBH I realy would rather they erred on the side of caution with this.
If your engine stops working on your car then you have to pull over and wait for AA.
If the engine on the ferry stops working then you float around aimlessly until someone picks you up.
If the jet engines on a Boeing 767 decide to go quiet then you've got a rather long fall followed by a rather loud splat. There isn't a rescue service in the world thats gonna be able to help you then.

[jake-the-peg]

You might consider that the risk of a crash flying through a cloud might be hundreds to one against.

You might then do well to consider that over a thousand flights land at Heathrow alone every day.

In 1982 a BA jet flew through Volcanic ash - all engines stopped

http://aviationknowle...com/asi:volcanic-dust

[beso]

The caution about flying through ash clouds is wise counsel from engineers who design jet engines. Ash known to extinguish combustion in jets. However it is very hard to predict the exact concentrations that an aircraft will encounter.

Personally I would rather that they took the conservative approach. The one in ten thousand change of dying is little consolation for those poor souls who "win" the lottery.

Your inference that scientists have it wrong on AWG is incorrect. Climatologists continue to stand by their work on global warming occuring through a rise in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

[LazyGun]

@Hugh - So which scientists are basing their findings on what inexact details regarding the volcano?

And which scientists "forgot" or "overlooked" which necessary details to make predictions?

Please enlighten us Hugh.....

[Hugh Spencer]

I am not a scientist but this 'ash cloud' problem is not new. The same thing happened years ago, although in another part of the world. Wouldn't this problem be already be accurately detailed and the genuine findings be available to every country. Surely it would just entail an investigative flight now and again to ascertain the level of risk ? Also, engine manufactures must surely know what level of risk there is with a certain degree of volcanic ash.

[BBBE99]

It's not much of a problem now, apparently, laws are being put into place to let planes fly through areas of ash for periods of time...

[ludwig]

No planes have come down, so you're saying 'bl00dy scientists - all this disruption for nothing'.

If there'd been no cancellations and planes had come down, you'd probably be on here going 'bl00dy scientists, how could they let this happen?'.

They can't really win can they? I don't think it's an exact science. The only thing we know is that flying through ash clouds is dangerous.

[bobjugs12]

Hugh, the realisation that Ash was dangerous came about because of a British Airways 747 over Jakarta en route to Sydney.
They started seeing unknown disturbances around the aircraft then lost power. Four engines offline, no electrical power, falling out of the sky and heading towards the Pacific ocean. It was only by a combinantion of crew skill and Lady Luck that they didn't end up spreading themselves over an area of a couple of square miles
The people onboard that aircraft are some of the luckiest people alive, and the crew of it are genuine British heroes.

[237SJ]

The only way to see if the scientists have got it wrong is to let people still fly and see if a plane drops out of the sky. Not very sensible. In the mean time err on the side of caution and listen to the experts. I`ve met some of the crew on the Jakarta 747 and you wouldn`t want to experience it I can tell you

[Hugh Spencer]

I quite agree. The crew and any passengers on that flight over Jakarta were extremely lucky but what I am getting at is, that since then adequate research does not seem to have been carried out by the scientists in that field and the research engineers involved in aircraft engine development. All information from research should, since Jakarta, be available worldwide.

[237SJ]

It is available worldwide. It`s made available to airlines via their engine manufacturers who advise accordingly.

[jake-the-peg]

It's not "scientists" but rather the engineers responsible for the design and manufacture of jet engines.

They will have specified the tolerances underwhich their engines will work reliably.

I think what will have happened is that withthe current situation they will have come under pressure to reassess those tolerances a bit of a case of "Now chaps are you sure you weren't being a bit too conservative?"

Sounds like they've decided to back down a bit.

Let's hope they weren't put under too much pressure eh?

Here's a picture to concentrate the mind

http://dvice.com/asse...umb-550x513-37221.jpg