It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is the Volcanic Ash no real threat to Western Europe

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
There are a number of reasons why I don't buy the official story.
First of all, the distances.

Iceland-Northern England: 600 Miles
Iceland-London: 1000 Miles
Iceland-Berlin, Germany: 1350 Miles
Iceland-Paris, France: 1250 Miles
Iceland-Warsaw, Poland 1500 Miles
Iceland-Bucharest, Romania: 2150 Miles

I don't doubt that the ash can damage Jet engines but like the airline company Flyinggroup I seriously doubt that at such distances there is any threat.
This is what they say:


According to CEO Bernard Van Milders the decision is pure panic football. "In a volcanic eruption, all harmful particles already after a few 100 km from the ash cloud disappeared." "Then there remain only harmless tiny particles and water vapor on the traffic just will interfere. On the surface, there is no trace of any precipitation of harmful dust to be found. We suspect that this decision was taken by a European officer without relying on scientific evidence and we find this unacceptable, "says another.


And why are ALL planes grounded? Even gliders without engines don't get permission to take off and propeller driven planes like Cessna's are also grounded.
Planes like these have a (modified) combustion engine similar to the one under the hood of your car and is just like any other engine equipped with an Air Filter:

(Cessna Engine, the Filter is the black thing at the bottom)

What is also worth mentioning is that most members that live in the area where this is happening are reporting blue skies and little or no dust or ash. And of course, no planes and no Chemtrails for a change.
You can read some of those eyewitness accounts here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here in the Netherlands there is a lot to do about fine dust particles in general. But at the moment they are saying that there is no thread at all. I also haven't read anything about the measurements and how they are being conducted. Weather Satellites don't show a plume or ash cloud in our region. You can check it here:
www.sat24.nl...

So what is the real reason?




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   


In the past 30 years, more than 90 jet-powered commercial airplanes have encountered clouds of volcanic ash and suffered damage as a result. The increased availability of satellites and the technology to transform satellite data into useful information for operators have reduced the number of volcanic ash encounters


Seems like they do take this very seriously and for good reason.

1. RESULTS OF PAST EVENTS INVOLVING VOLCANIC ASH

Significant ash encounters from the past include those involving such well-known volcanoes as Mt. Pinatubo, Mt. Redoubt, and Mt. St. Helens. The airplanes that encountered volcanic ash during these events and in the other events listed chronologically experienced varying degrees of damage

Mt. St. Helens, United States, 1980.

A 727 and a DC-8 encountered separate ash clouds during this major eruption. Both airplanes experienced damage to their windshields and to several systems, but both landed safely despite the windshield damage.


Galunggung volcano, Indonesia, 1982.

Several 747s encountered ash from this eruption. One airplane lost thrust from all four engines and descended from 36,000 ft to 12,500 ft before all four engines were restarted. The airplane, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Perth, Australia, diverted to Jakarta and landed safely despite major engine damage. This airplane subsequently had all four engines replaced before returning to service. A few days after the initial encounters, another 747 flew into the ash cloud and suffered significant engine damage. This airplane also diverted to Jakarta and subsequently performed a successful two-engine landing.


Mt. Redoubt, United States, 1989.

On a flight from Amsterdam to Anchorage, Alaska, a new 747-400 (only three months old with approximately 900 hr total flying time) encountered an ash cloud from the erupting Mt. Redoubt near Anchorage.
All four engines ingested ash and flamed out. The crew successfully restarted the engines and landed safely at Anchorage. All four engines were replaced and many airplane systems also had to be repaired or replaced. F
or example, the airplane environmental control system was replaced, the fuel tanks were cleaned, and the hydraulic systems were repaired.

Several other airplanes encountered ash from this eruption, but most damage was minor because operators had been notified of the eruption. Some operators, such as Alaska Airlines, continued scheduled flights once they developed processes to safely identify where ash might be encountered.
Although information was available about the Mt. Redoubt eruption, the channels for sharing this information were not well developed at the time



Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines, 1991.

More than 20 volcanic ash encounters occurred after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, which was the largest volcanic eruption of the past 50 years. The ability to predict where ash was to be found was challenging because of the enormous extent of the ash cloud. Commercial flights and various military operations were affected; one U.S. operator grounded its airplanes in Manila for several days


Mt. Popocatepetl, Mexico, 1997.

This volcano affected several flights in 1997 and 1998. Although damage was minor in most cases, one flight crew experienced significantly reduced visibility for landing and had to look through the flight deck side windows to taxi after landing. In addition, the airport in Mexico City was closed for up to 24 hr on several occasions during subsequent intermittent eruptions



As you can see, there have been several documented cases, and this is just from Boeing. there is probably many more.

I guess no-one wants to take any risks. Getting ash in plane engines cannot be good at all. I guess it would cause abrasion and even seizure of certain components within the engines. This in turn can cause fire, and that can be fatal.


www.boeing.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I have to admit that I find it interesting.. and tho part of me buys the high altitude damage this dust can do, was there similar groundings after Mt Etna or Mt Helena etc blows?

I can imagine flying within 100 to 200miles of such a monster would not be good for planes.. but this far away I am not so sure..

I wouldn't be suprised if this was not an insurance decisions i.e if a crash happens they won't cover the incident.. which does rather put airlines on a back foot..

Aside from the insurance aspect.. At least no one can attempt to hijack Western jets
CIA/AQ or anyone else

Another reason could be that they are keeping an eye on the airspace so that they can spot some aliens


or spot incoming missles/jets etc if the ME kicks off



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Here's a perfect example from 1982.

www.newscientist.com...

I find this quote to be crucial in understanding the danger of the ash -




Volcanic ash is composed of particles of glassy pulverised rock less than 2 millimetres in diameter. When an aircraft flies into it at its high cruising speed, the cockpit windows get a sandblasting, obscuring the pilots' view.

Crucially, though, the engines suck the dust in, where it melts in the hot combustion chamber and fuses to form globs on the turbine vanes that block the engine airflow. Only when it cools and solidifies - as the aircraft plummets engineless - can enough of the muck flake off to allow an engine restart


Any kind of grit getting into any kind of moving machinery is not good in any industry. The aviation industry certainly cannot afford this to happen.




[edit on 17-4-2010 by grantbeed]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 
As GrantBeed's pointed out, the risk is there. Not only that, that risk is public knowledge. The airline companies can't take the small risk of an accident. The perception would be one of reckless endangerment, negligence...potential manslaughter charges? Add to that our old favourites 'insurance' and 'liability' and we're back on comfortable ground again.

It's a great shame for the people spending thousands due to loss of return flights. Knock-on effects are massive. Deep down, my inner bas**** loves seeing a multinational corp taking a kick right between the profit margin. Ouch!



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I think your just trying to convince yourself there is a conspiracy when there obviously is not.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
You may think that specks of dust and ash don't seem to hurt when they hit you skin.

I doubt you would think the same thing when the specks and ash are hitting you at some of the subsonci speeds these planes fly.

Happy flying!

Timbo



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I'm with the OP on this one. The satellite image they are showing on the news, shows the cloud out in the ocean.

I can understand shutting down that route, but the whole continent?

If you look at the infrared pics of the ash cloud, you can see them adding to it.


Here is an RGB image
www.examiner.com...
Notice the black is dust from volcano, and the red is from something else

Here is satellite
www.examiner.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonny2410
I think your just trying to convince yourself there is a conspiracy when there obviously is not.


Respectfully, I beg to differ.

One expert claims ash is invisible while it is clearly visible on the ground in Iceland, skies are clear in U.K., NASA claims the plume was steam, ash is made of shards of rock and glass therefore gravity applies that it will fall, there is no seismic activity in the area from USGS, the webcam shows little activity....

More conspiracy thoughts on the ash cloud from yesterday's rant at ahrcanum.wordpress.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Why in the world would airlines risk flying through ash, when there is any chance of it causing damage to their planes, and possibly to the extent that the plane would crash.. killing all aboard?

I swear.. some conspiracies make me lol..



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
So what is the real reason?

Occam's Razor.
Because the cost and liability far outweigh any potential profit.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


You are correct, it is all a big scam! Because the world is flat we should just be able to get a big fan and push it all over the edge!

FYI when st Helens blew up the ash fell in as far as Yellowstone. Do yourself a favor and read about this thing called wind and the jet stream.

Check this link out and you can get a better understanding.

geology.com...

I'm sorry if I'm a little rude but it seems like ATS has been filled with really dumb posts lately.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
You know for the past year - every natural disaster I am aware of has been attributed to HAARP. why would this be different?

*If Haarp did this - (I dont believe it did), look at the economic
benefit, Europes Planes are grounded - this volcano has really
mucked up things in Europe - and what about the health problems that
go along with these Ash Events ? no warnings to wear a mask or anything
to protect your lungs from the stuff.

has anyone did their homework to see if someone shorted them before the eruption/ejaculation

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Yes i think the goverment is up to something since they know where and at what height the dust is in the air and could fly around it.

Airlines are making a profit due to this being an act of god so save on fuel and don't have to pay out insurance but profit will turn to loss within a few weeks so they will be back in the air by then.

maybe the goverment wants to do some air quality tests or something and are using this as an excuse and sure plans have been brought down in the past by flying too close to dust clouds but when you look at the number of flights more are brought down due to lightning bolts.

i'm new here and don't know if i can start new threads yets but keep an eye out on rape case against 'Hollie Greig' because i can see people taking to the streets over the goverment cover-up and internet pages about this case are being pulled faster than you can say jack frost.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


I agree with you. I thought it strange that the president of Iceland would be stranded in NYC which is west of the eruption. The eruption is clearly travelling in the direction of the wind stream which is toward the south east. I cannot image why the president of the country could not make it to the north eastern border of Iceland.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Could it be that the world leaders don't want to be at the funeral in Poland? I just read that most of them canceled their trip to Poland.

KLM/Air France, Lufthansa and Air Berlin are questioning the authority.



Airlines complain that the authorities have not measured the ash concentration in the air

Bild Zeitung reporting about this via Google Translate


[edit on 17-4-2010 by Regenstorm]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


"Galunggung volcano, Indonesia, 1982."

Yes, I heard that the 747 you mention here which lost all 4 engines but managed to re-light them to reduced power and limp to an emergency/divert landing had it's windscreens and landing lights blasted from clear to 'opaque' within the incident, so that they had to do an automated 'blind' landing - not good - especially with reduced power - and also were concerned about the reduced visibility from their lights...

So OP - perhaps this 'combination of hazards' factor IS indeed a good enough genuine reason for civil authorities - who are just as open to potentially very expensive/career ending litigation should they wittingly contribute to a cessna hitting say an oil refinery, nuclear facility, busy motorway or railway - to simply ban all air traffic, until they get ordered to relax it by a higher authority?

i.e. Ash plume encounter: Engine failure: probably none - Lost visibility: potentially total + human error under stress = crash = too great a risk pending further analysis?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


The plume isn't visible and originated 1000/3000 Miles away...

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Regenstorm]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 

My reference to visibility there was in regards to the known and suspected results of lost visibility to pilots when flying through ash at high speeds, which in effect sand-blasts their windscreen - as I said - in the case of that 747 until it was opaque and useless - I have not mentioned whether the ash cloud is visible to ground observers. Having thought about it though, would a piston/prop travel fast enough to suffer such glass abrasion damages?

Re: Ash cloud visibility to observers, there are plenty of accounts now of ground observers noticing alterations in the atmosphere, e.g. sunsets, astronomers, and I noticed a distinctive haze yesterday evening only to the East/North of my location (UK midlands) - which would be in line with what we're being told, it is very dispersed, and when you look straight up in normal day light you see nothing, but if you look across to the horizon/sunset you may notice, or if you look up through a telescope at stars...

Going back to the prop plane ban, one crashed today in Hampshire, but there was no mention of the pilot ignoring a ban, or it's crash being related to ash, and some low altitude turbo-prop flights were shown/kept going yesterday from Truro to Scilly Isles - so are you sure ALL flights are banned - or are there in reality criteria being metered out?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Don't get me wrong, yesterday I too started off posting somewhere else that I thought this was a bit fishy/linked into other timelines/contexts (Middle East/Rogue WMDs/Poland, etc...) however, as I began to see a haze, and I discussed it with a highly experienced ex-civil jet pilot, and looked at the unique rock/glacial ice background to the ash composition,I became more convinced this is real. Highly odd though, and unprecedented, and remember, if it is real, given they don't know how long this could last it could still:

Go on for months/years - they've previously lasted 2 years I think in Iceland...
Create a global double dip recession/grind European economic recovery into the ground/tip Euro-zone under-performers over the edge...
Create unpredicted knock-on military, strategic or terrorism issues/opportunists
Encircle the entire northern hemisphere including USA airspace
Trigger climate change potentially including a (mini?) ice-age...
Exacerbate recent low yields in crop harvests (Russia cereals/USA cereals?) on a global scale, pushing up food prices and increasing competition and conflict over resources.

But then, like I said yesterday, with a super-computer or two and satellite data feed control/access perhaps...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join