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.

 

Europe's airlines and airports question flight bans

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
You have absolutely no evidence that it is not safe to fly in extremely dilute ash cloud, unless you can provide some then judging airlines for apparently putting profits before passengers is simply invalid.


Now if I was flying tomorrow I'd turn that around and say:

"You have absolutely no evidence that it IS safe to fly in extremely dilute ash cloud" - a couple of low-level European flights.. that's all you need for proof?




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Aviation safety authorities in Europe have lifted bans on flying as fears of the effects of volcanic ash clouds dissipate.

An urgent meeting of Eurocontrol, the European air safety body, has just agreed to lift restrictions in areas where the ash cloud is having no effects.

The decision comes after EU presidency country Spain pushed for a rapid re-opening of air routes where there is no danger.

EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas said after the Eurocontrol meeting he hoped that 50% of European airspace would be risk free on Monday.

Dutch airline KLM received permission from aviation authorities to fly seven of its planes stuck in Duesseldorf, Germany, back to Amsterdam, with no affects from the ash blown up by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland.

Other airlines, such as Lufthansa and British Airways, made similar flights without passengers.

KLM said that the Boeing 737-800 airliner reached an altitude of 41,000ft, the maximum allowed for that type of jet, and that an inspection afterward "revealed that no problems had been encountered and that the quality of the atmosphere is in order."

www.usatoday.com...


If you check Flightradar24, you'll occasionally see test aircraft going up. They are not shooting from the hip.

Also, I never said it WAS the right thing to do (that would be a baseless claim) just like yours).

[edit on 19/4/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   


The problem, according to aviation safety experts, is that too little is known about what levels of ash are safe. A jet engineer and the head of a non-profit safety foundation called for extensive new research to minimize the damage in the next big eruption. "It would have been pretty smart to spend $100 million on research to determine a safe level a few years ago," said Bill Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. Al Weaver, former head of safety at engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, said that regulators and the industry first grappled with what to do about volcanic ash two decades ago. They never anticipated that it could blanket a densely traveled region. Meteorologists warn that the situation over Europe is constantly changing because of winds and continuing eruptions from the volcano. That uncertainty is bumping up against Europe's need to resume flights.


www.usatoday.com...

My bold/underline - that is precisely why I refuse to fly until it's clear.

And, after they've flown through "safe" dispersements of ash are they going to steam clean each aircraft before resuming the next flight?

I stole this comment from another site because it sums up by sentiments better than I could write them:




It will be an interesting experiment. They may only lose 1 out of 100 aircraft. With any luck the eruption will go on for months and they'll get some really useful data, you know, 737s crash lots, A380s not so much and so on and thereby figure out how to make the equipment better able to tolerate the ash. I mean, there are billions of people, right? What's a few thousand dead? Onwards and upwards!




[edit on 19-4-2010 by MoorfNZ]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
You have absolutely no evidence that it is not safe to fly in extremely dilute ash cloud, unless you can provide some then judging airlines for apparently putting profits before passengers is simply invalid.




Is that enough for you ? Straight from the horses mouth so to speak, yeah it's in a simulator but if it does that it's not exactly safe to put a plane up with the risk of it crashing just to appease people like yourself. Add to what MoorfNZ has provided and you can see why it's better to play safe than sorry in this instance.

Of course if you're willing to go up in an airliner on your own and pilot the thing putting your own life at risk then don't let us stop you



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   


Air traffic at Germany's 16 international will remain suspended ‘at least’ until 8 p.m. local time Mon., officials tell NBC News

Look like it's not over yet



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
1982, plane flying through ash cloud lost all 4 engines. You guys still want planes to take off before it is safe?


aviation-safety.net...



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
As I said on another thread, I was once flew from London to the US when a volcano erupted in Iceland in early 2000. We just took an alternative route. (I didn't even realize at the time the regular path went so close to Iceland but it has to do with the curvature of the earth)

I do wonder why the flights can not maintain a low altitude until they are out of the range of the cloud.

If airlines are going to have to stay away from Iceland for a significant amount of time, be prepared to have ticket prices rise - the flight will be longer and use a lot more fuel which will equal increased costs.

Which makes me wonder if the airlines might actually lose less money by not flying at all as opposed to flying a longer more expensive route?




[edit on 19-4-2010 by Daughter2]

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Daughter2]

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Daughter2]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


Planes fly at varying altitudes depending on destination etc - they can't all fly at one level - it would be disastrous.

Again, you mention cost of flying... cost of lives is, imho, far more important. I couldn't give a monkey's if it costs more to fly as a result, can't put a price on safety and the lives of loved ones.



[edit on 19-4-2010 by MoorfNZ]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
1982, plane flying through ash cloud lost all 4 engines. You guys still want planes to take off before it is safe?


aviation-safety.net...


Stop Scare Mongering .... The Plane flew Directly through a concentrated Ash cloud not a dispersed one. There is no proof that flying through a dispersed ash cloud and let's not forget we dont have the numbers or test results to do the math will do any damage to aircraft hence the test flights!



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   


There is no proof that flying through a dispersed ash cloud and let's not forget we dont have the numbers or test results to do the math will do any damage to aircraft hence the test flights!


Again - what proof do you want? 1 plane falling out of the sky? 2? Would three convince you?

Plus, think long-term damage to flying through dispersed clouds - think build-up of ash and, if you're transfixed with costs, the cost of a steam-cleaning every aircraft going through it each time it lands somewhere.. and the amount of time that will take.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoorfNZ



There is no proof that flying through a dispersed ash cloud and let's not forget we dont have the numbers or test results to do the math will do any damage to aircraft hence the test flights!


Again - what proof do you want? 1 plane falling out of the sky? 2? Would three convince you?

Plus, think long-term damage to flying through dispersed clouds - think build-up of ash and, if you're transfixed with costs, the cost of a steam-cleaning every aircraft going through it each time it lands somewhere.. and the amount of time that will take.


I belive my right honarable friend is a stranger to the truth. 2 Planes hit the world Trade centre towers does that mean we should not build tall buildings?

In other words the planes that crashed flew directly into concentraded ash clouds. still hot still reeling from the volcano. Tell me has your motor in your vacuum ever melted through picking up cold dust and glass????

Scare mongering and Niave.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by IanC99000310
 





Tell me has your motor in your vacuum ever melted through picking up cold dust and glass????


Actually, I've knackered two vacuum cleaners from hoovering out our coal stove - the motors got so bunged up they burnt out.

I can't quite believe your 9/11 analogy. However, all I can say is that if you intentionally fly into something you shouldn't (building/ash cloud) you'll probably have consequences.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by IanC99000310
 


Yeah because MoorfNZ has a volcano in his/her living room and always has to hoover up that pesky volcanic ash.


Seriously you're just looking naive with uneducated comments like that, we've given you links to show why planes are grounded, perhaps you could provide links to show why the planes won't get damaged ?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech
reply to post by IanC99000310
 


Yeah because MoorfNZ has a volcano in his/her living room and always has to hoover up that pesky volcanic ash.




Oh dear... coffee meet screen! Made me laugh out loud...



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


yes we do - the experience of a BA jet over the indian ocean - flew through volcanic dus clouds - and all 4 engines failed



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Your planes flew directly into erupting volcanos.!!!

in the atmosphere there is always dust and glass and other particles... Show numbers not old news. How many PPM are we talking (No report yet) so again although you may say I look uneducated I think you'll find that it isn't miseducation that is the problem here it is the lack of facts. Niether you nor I have the facts on particle size, make up, and PPM. So I say to you sir why don't we agree to let those more EDUCATED do there jobs and when and if they decide to fly in the ash we trust that the EDUCATED have done there job.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
everyone who says that they cannot see ash - look again at dawn dusk - its there



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by IanC99000310
So I say to you sir why don't we agree to let those more EDUCATED do there jobs and when and if they decide to fly in the ash we trust that the EDUCATED have done there job.


We are and they say it's not safe to fly

Yet you are arguing that they should fly

Why are you contradicting yourself or are you just trolling ?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by IanC99000310
 


Oh and


“The images show that short-term flying can cause substantial damage to an aircraft engine,” the air force says. Continued operation could lead to overheating and potentially pose a threat to the aircraft and its pilot, it adds.


See


Five of the air force’s Hornets were involved in a training exercise on the morning of 15 April, just hours before the imposition of airspace restrictions due to the ash cloud spreading from a major volcanic eruption in Iceland.


They weren't flying directly into the ash plume and their engines got screwed

www.flightglobal.com...

How much more proof do you want ?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
One thing that came to my mind , isn't ash cloud also dangerous to humans ? I mean I remember hearing/reading somewhere that inhaling ash leads to very serious lung problems
So why no warning to humans to try and not go out of houses while they have ash above their heads ?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join