Posted on 04/19/2010 2:29:37 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Figure 1. NAME prediction of the visible ash plume resulting from an eruption of Mount Hekla in Iceland on 16 February 2000.
“We sent ten Boeing 747 and Airbus 340 jets on transfer flights from Munich to Frankfurt,” Lufthansa spokesman Klaus Walther told the paper. The planes were moved in order to be in the most useful place once the ban is lifted, he explained.
“Our machines flew to a height of 24,000 feet, or around 8,000 metres. In Frankfurt the machines were examined by our technicians. They didn’t find the slightest scratch on the cockpit windscreens, on the outer skin nor in the engines.”
“The flight ban, which is completely based on computer calculations, is causing economic damage in the billions. This is why, for the future, we demand that dependable measurements must be available before a flight ban is imposed.”
Source: “the Local“
At left: the model from the Met Office used to look at dispersion.
The Nuclear Accident Model (NAME) was originally developed after the nuclear accident in 1986 at Chernobyl, which highlighted the need for a capability to predict the spread and deposition of radioactive material released into the atmosphere. The model has continued to be developed and is now applied to a wide range of atmospheric pollution problems, ranging from emergency responses to daily air-quality forecasts.
Over the years, NAME has been applied to a number of atmospheric releases, including radioactive releases, the Kuwaiti oil fires, major industrial fires and chemical spills, and two major volcanic eruptions that occurred in Iceland. Both of these eruptions resulted in aircraft having to be re-routed to avoid potentially dangerous ash clouds. An example of the volcanic ash guidance provided to the aviation community is shown in Figure 1.
Source: NWP Gazette
Here is what Professor Jerom Ravetz of Oxford has to say about the issue (via email):
Interim contribution to the Post-Normal Science debate.
Considering the effects of the Icelandic volcano on air transport, we seem to have:
Is this analysis an invitation to scientists to cheat? Some of my critics would say so, and perhaps even some of my supporters as well!
h/t to WUWT readers Nigel Brereton and Bernd Felsche
Now we get a discussion of how close to reality the computer model is for this event!
EU moves to ease Europe flight curbs
Video at the link....
And:
***********************EXCERPT*************************************
According to current European regulations, no matter how low the concentration of ash, no commercial aircraft should fly as long as it is in their path.
A spokesperson from from Nats told BBC News that there was "no threshold" for concentrations at which volcanic ash was acceptable.
The dust is simply too dangerous for jet engines to risk commercial flights encountering it, said Nats. If volcanic ash particles are ingested into a jet engine, they accumulate and clog it with molten glass, which can cause the engine to shut down.
I don't have the scientific or engineering background to understand the physical damage such atmospheric condition may (or may not) cause a jet engine. But, I certainly understand economics. And, even if it's dangerous - perhaps even dangerous enough to cause a catastrophic engine(s) failure - that economic uncertainty is FAR outweighed by the economic reality of the ban.
Simply put, those airlines could probably lose a jet a week, and still be ahead (financially) where they are with the ban in place. Given that economic and financial reality, I'm not sure I'd place too much faith in what the airlines say.
What about the Finnish reports of F-16s requiring complete engine overhauls after having flown through these clouds? I’m sure someone can put up the pictures here.
ping
Good point. I was stationed at Subic Bay when Mt Pinatubo blew almost 20 years ago. IIRC, it was weeks before jets were allowed to operate into and out of Subic NAS precisely because of the danger of the ash cloud that lingered at altitude for a long time.
Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, revealed his intentions for the "science" he invented.
My summary:
And we know a lot of the “Scientists” bought into the propaganda....
European airline pilots warn governments about engine failures caused by ash amid pressure to get flights moving again
Pilots warn against ‘rash’ decisions to allow flights through the volcanic ash cloud amid pressure to get flights started again. Photograph: Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters
European airline pilots warned governments and safety regulators today against making "rash" decisions to allow planes to fly through volcanic ash clouds amid growing pressure from airlines across Europe to create "safe flying corridors" to get flights moving again.
The pilots' intervention came as air traffic controllers dashed hopes that flights would resume from London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted this evening by announcing that most UK airspace would remain closed until 1am tomorrow. Airlines said the restrictions, which meant only a few flights took off from airports in Scotland and northern England, were an over-reaction.
BA announced tonight it was cancelling all flights until midday tomorrow.
The UK's air safety watchdog, the Civil Aviation Authority, is holding meetings with national air traffic controllers, airline executives and Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, to discuss flying through zones with small amounts of ash. But the European Cockpit Association, told the Guardian today that any attempts to establish "safe flying corridors" through airspace where ash was present should not be rushed.
[ ... see more at link ...]
If engine failure causes any crashes, I would assume that most people would be very reluctant to fly on planes that would be flying through ash.
Thanks Ernest_at_the_Beach and Avoiding_Sulla.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
