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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
This article is a Q and A on the situation:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Couple of samples:


Why don't planes simply fly under the cloud or reroute around it?

Inevitably, some are starting to mutter that this is all health-and-safety overkill, and yesterday a group of European airlines called for an urgent reassessment of the danger following test flights that apparently experienced no problems.
But volcanic ash has an abrasive effect on turbine blades and other moving parts, with possibly catastrophic results. Worst of all, the ash is not all at one height. Eyjafjallokull seems to be 'pulsating', injecting bursts of ash into the air at different levels - 35,000ft, 25,000ft and, lately, 13,000ft. This makes avoiding the ash hard, if not impossible. Caution will prevail until the skies really are clear.



Are they the only ones in trouble?

Around all Britain's airports, firms employ tens of thousands of people to clean, refuel and service the planes, to cook the in-flight meals, man the car parks, drive the taxis, staff the hotels and serve coffee and meals.
A week or two will result in manageable losses; if Britain is still grounded in a month, expect lay-offs and closures. If Eyjafjallokull is still erupting in six months then the effect on one of our most successful industries will be catastrophic. African farmers who rely on air-freighted exports to Europe will be hit hardest of all; in Kenya this weekend 400 tons of flowers had to be destroyed.




[edit on 19-4-2010 by berenike]




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Well I for one wouldn't be getting on a plane today even if they said it's safe now.

Airlines obviously want to fly ASAP, for financial reasons, BUT surely they wouldn't risk a single plane coming down because that will cost them even more dearly in terms of reputation and they'd probably go bust for not putting safety first. What about the airline's having insurance if a plane is damaged or comes down?

I'm not an expert so can only give my personal opinion and that is that I wouldn't be flying at the moment.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I know safety is a pain in the back end. But what's the use of having a focus on safety if it is to expensive.

I have learned one thing in my carrier. And that is. When or if you break a safety procedure. The next time. That safety procedure wont be worth the paper it's written on. Because your contractor will say. Hey you broke the safety procedure last time, Than you can make an exception this time too.

There is one thing we humans tend to forget. And that is when everything is going fine,there is no problems. But when the shiiit hits the fan and people get injured or killed. You would have wished that you paid attention and respected the safety procedures. Or in this case if your a passenger, you would take it for granted that the pilots would respect your safety.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I cant understand the whole situation here. It doesnt add up at all. Yeah flights halted due to safety but wheres the actual risk to safety now?

I would like to point out the fact that the automotive industry is already on its knees right now with closures and recalls, is it possible that this may lead to the ultimate collapse of the aviation industry too. Ive said it many times before, in order for us to move forward then there will be some major obstacles that need to be crossed.
Could this be the begining or steps towards a new way of life? Just a thought but thats only one explaination, the other is that theres something big going on that we are yet to see.
whats your views?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Aren't there any independent bodies that can test?


Dr Guy Gratton, head of the Facility of Airborne Atmospheric Measurement, a joint body belonging to the Met Office and the Natural Environment Research Council, said that "it's still quite a complex mixture of clear air and very worrying - but invisible -volcanic ash at all sorts of heights".


BUT


On Sunday, a British Airways Boeing 747 completed a two-and-three-quarter hour test flight at 40,000ft from Heathrow to Cardiff, via the Atlantic, the airline said.

Chief executive Willie Walsh, who is a trained pilot, and four crew were on board. "The conditions were perfect and the aircraft encountered no difficulties.

It will now undergo a full technical analysis at British Airways' engineering base at Cardiff," the airline said in a statement.



British commercial pilots' union Balpa said the industry will need the same of kind of government rescue following the eruption as some banks have had, with a number of airlines "staring bankruptcy in the face".


BBC News

BA aren't exactly independent and very obviously need to fly for financial reasons but as a passenger I would prefer flight test results from an independent source. What do the MET/NATS/Government gain from keeping flights grounded? Nothing from what I can tell.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
OFF topic but why the hell would there be a flock of birds flying in a V be over the volcano? Just seen it now on sky news. They zoomed in then straight back out, whats strange other than the obvious danger is that they didnt look like they were moving. Anyone?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Sky News - Breaking -

NATO planes show damage to their engines but BA have found no evidence of damage to theirs?!
The thing is that BA aren't unbiased in their decision making.

Edit to add


Apr 19, 6:57 AM EDT

NATO: F-16 fighters damaged by volcanic ash By SLOBODAN LEKIC Associated Press Writer Advertisement Buy AP Photo Reprints Your Questions Answered Ask AP:

Depression-era unemployment, El Nino BRUSSELS (AP) --

A senior Western diplomat says several NATO F-16 fighters suffered engine damage after flying through the volcanic ash cloud covering large parts of Europe.

The official declined to provide more details on the military flights, except to say that glasslike deposits were found inside the planes' engines after they patroled over European airspace.

Last week, two Finnish Air Force F-18 fighter-bombers suffered similar damage while flying through the ash plume that has paralyzed air traffic over much of Europe. Both landed safely, but their jet engines will require expensive overhauls.

Volcanic ash tends to stick to a jet engine's interior parts, such as the turbines, where it melts to form a glassy coating. This restricts air flow and heats up the engine, leading to engine failure.


Edit again to add the source link

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Maya00a]

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Maya00a]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 06:54 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.


Would you like to hear this?


"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are all doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."


'Gliding a B747 Out of Volcanic Ash'
findarticles.com...

The volcano was 180km away, that's quite a long time for the ash to cool and disperse. We had a massive no fly zone for a while last time a mountain went pop here in New Zealand.
In the BA 747 flight, 247 people nearly died and to resume flights is a direct mockery of the luck that those people had in that situation. And to not learn from past experience - those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
I also note you have said a dispersed cloud, flying through almost any ash for long enough can cause issues. As a trainee commercial pilot I think they have made the right decision. I wouldn't fly a plane with 300 people behind me, knowing that there is ash that could possibly bring the plane down. It's what pilots are trained to do - evaluate risks and respond accordingly. Ash is a known and unacceptable risk, end of story. Those advocating flying around in it, should all save up for an old 707 and go joy riding around together for the next week or two to prove it.


Originally posted by berenike
This article is a Q and A on the situation:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Couple of samples:


Why don't planes simply fly under the cloud or reroute around it?

Eyjafjallokull seems to be 'pulsating', injecting bursts of ash into the air at different levels - 35,000ft, 25,000ft and, lately, 13,000ft. This makes avoiding the ash hard, if not impossible.



Then you see BA going on about a 40,000ft test flight... funny that



Originally posted by Maya00a
Aren't there any independent bodies that can test?



On Sunday, a British Airways Boeing 747 completed a two-and-three-quarter hour test flight at 40,000ft from Heathrow to Cardiff, via the Atlantic, the airline said.


BBC News

BA aren't exactly independent and very obviously need to fly for financial reasons but as a passenger I would prefer flight test results from an independent source. What do the MET/NATS/Government gain from keeping flights grounded? Nothing from what I can tell.


Only thing I can think of if this was a scalar EM engineered blast then it's possibly to test food shortages and public reaction in UK.

reply to post by Thill
 


No warning because there's not much you can do to help a large portion of the EU currently. Last time a volcano blew here, we had thick ash all over cars and streets for ages, it snowed ash chunks and many people were wearing respirators and warned to avoid exposure. Sillica particles (amongst other things) are not very good for your lungs at all. Broken glass and grit in your lungs pretty much.

I guess if we didn't run our vehicles on dinosaur technology then this wouldn't be a problem...



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I was doing some research on closed airspace after the Mt. St. Helens eruption in the US. I did not recall closure of airspace like this we are seeing today. But, I was just a kid. Turns out I was wrong. It looks like less and less of a conspiracy to hide something and more like a concern for safety. Pretty much the same thing back then when St. Helens blew. US airspace north of a line roughly from San Francisco to Denver to Raleigh, NC was closed (shorter period because it was a shorter duration eruption) and flights across the Atlantic had to shift to southern routes.
We didn't see any aliens or NWO take-over after that closure, so I'd think we're OK now - at least from some conspiracy related to this eruption and the closure of airspace in most of Europe.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Just thinking here again,
What would the impact of grounded aircraft have on the oil industry? Where they buy it from? Could this event have beneficial gains in order to manipulate those that sell the oil?
Just a thought?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Well here it is people, is this the reason why the aircraft were grounded for days? Please read the full article. Then and only then reply. My my my, talk about pawns

edition.cnn.com...

Interesting parts.

By the end of the day on Sunday, a total of 63,000 flights had been canceled in the four days

The air travel and freight disruptions are costing airlines at least $200 million a day and perhaps billions more to the affected economies,

The Greek Finance Ministry issued a statement that talks with European officials and the International Monetary Fund over details of a $40 billion bailout for Greece is delayed at least until Wednesday, Dow Jones Newswires reported.

heres something of interest given the grounding of many aircraft
edition.cnn.com...

Notice the location and the avoidance of weather? Yeah right.



[edit on 19-4-2010 by jazz10]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This isn't any sort of conspiracy. It is health and safety gone wild. I have noticed that companies, organisations and local councils are over cautious. For instance, not allowing birthday candles to be lit inside public buildings, fairs banning bouncy castles for fear of some kid hurting themselves and having their shirts sued right off their backs.... there is no fun in life now. The council took down many playgrounds in my area due to some wee guy falling and breaking his arm.

I believe they should let the planes fly. The airlines are insured, airports are too and most passengers will be insured. If anything happens...f*** it. EVERYONE involved knows the risks. Sure, the airlines are losing money and they are worried. At the end of the day they are a business and businesses are there to make money. If they don't make money then they have to cut costs which means that people lose jobs and prices go up. Let them fly so we can hear the end of this. It's creating panic amongst people who are not even bloody flying



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
@ Tuesday 20/April a.m Australia:

Fresh eruptions from Eyjafjallajokull close London airports





STRANDED passengers have had their hopes dashed after eruptions from the Iceland volcano sent a new ash cloud towards Britain. "Latest information from the Met Office shows the situation is worsening in some areas," the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) said in a statement. The cloud from volcano Eyjafjallajokull has forced all London Airports to stay shut – highlighting the uncertainty of the situation and keeping Qantas flights cancelled until midday


www.theaustralian.com.au...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Strange title on Yahoo this morning - "Volcano costs more than 9/11, who stands to make a profit or loss from the disaster".

A very good question indeed.....anyone notice share rises/falls in any air companies before the eruptions???



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
When then first planes go down with glass in their engines they'll get the message. The problem with this ash is that it isn't ash. It's extremely fine silicates which, if you heat them in an engine, will form a glassy substance known as obsidian.



[edit on 20-4-2010 by projectvxn]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Could the answers that we all want be in the following article?
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I really think that the answers are obvious.Heres one example?

At first the planes heading towards Heathrow and Gatwick were turned away but last night Britain's Civil Aviation Authority and air traffic control body NATS caved in and finally ended the flying ban
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
And another?
Last night there were suspicions that Transport Secretary Lord Adonis had been 'bounced' into action by Mr Walsh in an effort to avoid an embarrassing showdown in the run up to the General Election.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Labour was left bruised after being drawn into the BA cabin crew strike row and it is thought the party was desperate to avoid a repeat at such a crucial time.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Aircraft were turned away? Why?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
well at 10:50 this morning - i spotted the first hi altitude jet i have seen since the " ash crisis " - a 4 engine craft , heading NNW over lancashire



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by yellow.sapphirine
 


Volcanic ash is a bit finer then talcum powder. I can't recall the particle size in microns, but I know it's close to that. The ash particle is so small, unless it's in moderate to high concentrations, as when it comes out of a volcano, your not likely to see it. I have heard it reported people in the UK also had clear blue skies when that was the norm for the weather conditions at the time. But numerous people who had parked out side found a very fine powder on their cars when they went to drive them. The ash is there alright. In the U.S. it was reported the skies in the U.K. looked clear to the eye, as in Sweden. If they were not, please let us know.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Look into British Airways Flight 9. Seems a reasonable justification to be cautious. The arilines, however, have a financial interest rather than a humanitarian interest in starting up flights ASAP.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
April 21 - BBC

Hmm, luckily this was a MINOR incident - an incident nonetheless... I find this very disconcerting...


Offshore helicopters report volcano ash flight problems






Helicopter flights over the North Sea were recalled after two aircraft reported being covered with volcanic ash. The two Bond-operated aircraft were flying about 70 miles off Aberdeen. The pilots reported ash on the windscreens after flying through a rain cloud on Tuesday night. There was no damage and no ash was found in engines. The later decision to close airspace over parts of the North Sea led to the cancellation of helicopter flights. Bond said it had cancelled all offshore flights, while Bristow cancelled all services from Scatsta in Shetland. CHC has also stopped some flights. Hundreds of offshore workers were left stranded in the wake of the Iceland volcano ash flights disruption.


news.bbc.co.uk...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join