5 ms·

I hope we don't have a disaster because aviation authorities were pressured into opening the skies too early.

ErrantX 17y ago
That's what's concerning me too. It's partly ironic; I expect if there had been a terror attack grounded planes would be accepted, but people on the news last night seemed actually cross this was affecting them.... One guy even said (and I swear this is a quote): "but it looks clear out there, it's not at ground level is it?" doh.
- gaius 17y ago
  Most laypeople do think it's a problem with visibility and can't understand why if planes can fly at night they can't fly through dust. That it will destroy the engines (and won't show up on radar, so you can't just avoid it) never occurs to them. I suppose it's nice to live in a world in which flight is taken for granted.
  - rmundo 17y ago
    With all the media attention you would think the dangers of flying in this would have been clearly explained to everyone by now.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      BBC One had a fantastic news report the other night that explained it really clearly. I was impressed.
    - jfarmer 17y ago
      NPR also had a segment explaining it.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - FooBarWidget 17y ago
    There's an Air Crash Investigation episode about flying through vulcano dust. Show them and they'll understand.
    - ash 17y ago
      This one? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5620835202130688048 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5620835202130688048
- rue 17y ago
  I have to say that I have not seen much evidence of people not being aware of what is going on in general terms, or challenging the groundings. Upset, sure, but (for once) pretty much upset at the right target: ms. Nature.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    >ms. Nature. Dang, if only God hadn't been running MS Nature we'd have been saved all this kerfuffle!
- angstrom 17y ago
  This reminds me of an old joke: An airplane was flying from LA to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced, "We have lost an engine, but don't worry, there are three left. However, instead of 5 hours it will take 7 hours to get to New York." A little later, the pilot announced, "A second engine failed, but we still have two left. However, it will take 10 hours to get to New York." Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced, "A third engine had died. Never fear, because the plane can fly on a single engine. However, it will now take 18 hours to get to new York." At this point, one passenger said, "Gee, I hope we don't lose that last engine, or we'll be up here forever!"
tomjen3 17y ago
A better solution would be to do what the Soviet Union did when that neuclear plant blew up: drop chemicals from the sky to force it to rain in place nobody cares much about. This time, we could dump that stuff out over the Atlantic.
- mseebach 17y ago
  I'm pretty sure the problem is that the volcano keeps belching this stuff out. Once it stops, it should disperse relatively quickly.
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago
  This won't work -- the ashcloud is currently above any significant amounts of water in the air. You can't make rain from dry air.
m0nty 17y ago
"pressured into opening the skies too early" It's not just their own regulations they'd have to break, it would be the terms of sale of the aircraft (Boeing sayeth "thou shalt not fly the big shiny bird through clouds of volcanic ash") and their insurers, who say much the same thing.
- gaius 17y ago
  There's only one rule that matters, what a man's insured for, and what he's not.
mseebach 17y ago
I read somewhere that our understanding of flying in/near clouds of volcanic ash is quite limited. We know from the BA9 Jakarta incident what an almost worst-case scenario looks like, but little more. The necessity to study it was simply not there - eruptions to far has happened in areas with fairly light traffic, so shutting down affected airspace had low consequences. If this eruption is going to last more than a few days more, keeping some of the worlds most busy hubs offline, there will be serious effort put into making flying under these conditions safe. An obvious part of the solution could be radars or lidars that can reliably see where this stuff is, and how dense, so flights can avoid it. Another could be coating for windows that can withstand the "sandblasting".
- jonknee 17y ago
  > Another could be coating for windows that can withstand the "sandblasting". AFAIK it's not just the windows that are the problem. The volcanic ash can melt in the heat of the engine and essentially turn to glass, taking the engines out. Sounds nasty to fly through in every way.
  - gaius 17y ago
    Indeed, like I say, most people don't realize the problem is the engines. Also aviation radars see clouds by the moisture in them - they can't see ash because it's dry.

That's what's concerning me too. It's partly ironic; I expect if there had been a terror attack grounded planes would be accepted, but people on the news last night seemed actually cross this was affecting them.... One guy even said (and I swear this is a quote): "but it looks clear out there, it's not at ground level is it?" doh.

gaius 17y ago
Most laypeople do think it's a problem with visibility and can't understand why if planes can fly at night they can't fly through dust. That it will destroy the engines (and won't show up on radar, so you can't just avoid it) never occurs to them. I suppose it's nice to live in a world in which flight is taken for granted.
- rmundo 17y ago
  With all the media attention you would think the dangers of flying in this would have been clearly explained to everyone by now.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    BBC One had a fantastic news report the other night that explained it really clearly. I was impressed.
  - jfarmer 17y ago
    NPR also had a segment explaining it.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- FooBarWidget 17y ago
  There's an Air Crash Investigation episode about flying through vulcano dust. Show them and they'll understand.
  - ash 17y ago
    This one? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5620835202130688048 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5620835202130688048
rue 17y ago
I have to say that I have not seen much evidence of people not being aware of what is going on in general terms, or challenging the groundings. Upset, sure, but (for once) pretty much upset at the right target: ms. Nature.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >ms. Nature. Dang, if only God hadn't been running MS Nature we'd have been saved all this kerfuffle!
angstrom 17y ago
This reminds me of an old joke: An airplane was flying from LA to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced, "We have lost an engine, but don't worry, there are three left. However, instead of 5 hours it will take 7 hours to get to New York." A little later, the pilot announced, "A second engine failed, but we still have two left. However, it will take 10 hours to get to New York." Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced, "A third engine had died. Never fear, because the plane can fly on a single engine. However, it will now take 18 hours to get to new York." At this point, one passenger said, "Gee, I hope we don't lose that last engine, or we'll be up here forever!"

tomjen3 17y ago

A better solution would be to do what the Soviet Union did when that neuclear plant blew up: drop chemicals from the sky to force it to rain in place nobody cares much about. This time, we could dump that stuff out over the Atlantic.

mseebach 17y ago
I'm pretty sure the problem is that the volcano keeps belching this stuff out. Once it stops, it should disperse relatively quickly.
Tuna-Fish 17y ago
This won't work -- the ashcloud is currently above any significant amounts of water in the air. You can't make rain from dry air.

m0nty 17y ago

"pressured into opening the skies too early" It's not just their own regulations they'd have to break, it would be the terms of sale of the aircraft (Boeing sayeth "thou shalt not fly the big shiny bird through clouds of volcanic ash") and their insurers, who say much the same thing.

gaius 17y ago
There's only one rule that matters, what a man's insured for, and what he's not.

mseebach 17y ago

I read somewhere that our understanding of flying in/near clouds of volcanic ash is quite limited. We know from the BA9 Jakarta incident what an almost worst-case scenario looks like, but little more. The necessity to study it was simply not there - eruptions to far has happened in areas with fairly light traffic, so shutting down affected airspace had low consequences. If this eruption is going to last more than a few days more, keeping some of the worlds most busy hubs offline, there will be serious effort put into making flying under these conditions safe. An obvious part of the solution could be radars or lidars that can reliably see where this stuff is, and how dense, so flights can avoid it. Another could be coating for windows that can withstand the "sandblasting".

jonknee 17y ago
> Another could be coating for windows that can withstand the "sandblasting". AFAIK it's not just the windows that are the problem. The volcanic ash can melt in the heat of the engine and essentially turn to glass, taking the engines out. Sounds nasty to fly through in every way.
- gaius 17y ago
  Indeed, like I say, most people don't realize the problem is the engines. Also aviation radars see clouds by the moisture in them - they can't see ash because it's dry.