The ash cloud that never was: Inaccurate Met Office forecast causes airport chaos for 50,000

The Daily Mail (U.K.) ^ | May 18, 2010 | Ray Massey

[Hulka]

“Like to see the maintenance certifications on the people who did the examinations of the engines.”

Goodness. The engine manufactures have field reps and these guys know the engines, know them better than anyone and they do the inspection. No engine company wants to give a ‘thumbs-up’ when there may be damage/risk. . .too much risk, especially for the guy that signs it off. How about this, why not ask to see the certifications of the Met Office dolts that made the wild claims to begin with, and based on models and not hard, observable science.

“Alas, we are not talking about the capability of the engines but instead the ability of a cloud of volcanic ash to damage them.”

That's what they and I are talking about. No damage if you fly around visible portions of the cloud.

Goodness, we do this all the time in Alaska and other places in the world. I've done it myself.

“For all anyone knows the Germans actually took their aircraft AROUND the clouds and not through them.”

Exactly. . .they avoided flying through the visible portion because we know that is not right. They flew in areas where the model predicted there would be ash and there maybe was, but it was not visible and did not cause damage. The Beljeeks flew into the visible portion, something the engine manufacturers (and Lockheed Martin) say to avoid. . .for obvious reasons.

“The Belgians probably imagined they were giant sausages in the sky and barged on through the clouds”

Yeah. . .probably did. . .

[1010RD]

Hi Hulka,

I know the FAA exists and what it is supposed to do, but follow the thread up. We were pretending there wasn’t any agency and I was trying to demonstrate that it would make little difference to commercial airline safety.

Thanks.

[muawiyah]

BTW, traffic conditions in Alaska are far different from those in Europe. Plus, the volcanos on Iceland (135 of them, right?) are of a different sort than the ones you have to worry about in Alaska. For one thing, these guys pump stuff up from the Mantle ~ Iceland is a hotspot astride the Midatlantic ridge. What that means is they EXUDE FLUORINE and FLUORINE COMPOUNDS which are freuently invisible and corrosive.

Do you have evidence that the highly corrosive but transparent gases near and in those clouds can be detected through simple visual observation?

[Hulka]

There has been much research on this, too include all sorts of conditions and the aircraft and engine manufactures all agree, no danger unless it is visible.

Besides, there are detectors ( http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/process_engineering/report-23167.html), as well as satillite info.

Intake, cook it, exhaust.

Visible condition, particulate matter that is not incinerated becomes glass and might cause problems. Fly through the deepest part of the plume and you have real problems.

Again, like I said in my earlier post on ATC in Europe, not a factor.

European authorities admit they over-reacted and badly. Met office is clear—they screwed up and acted absent any real data.

I spoke with a representative in London just last week. He was embarrassed over their actions and is making the rounds quietly to professional aviators forums and doing damage control, basically saying, yup, Big Mistake.

But what do we professional aviators know. We just live in that medium.

Face it, a lot of people (sheeple) are just plain simple when it comes to the subject of flying. Any and ALL actions taken in the name of “safety” are embraced uncritically and kool-aid is passed around. New TSA procedures as a chaser, anyone? Embrace the nanny-state and have fun.

I’ll just say, reply (as I know you will) if it makes you feel better (as I know it will). I think enough has been said to define the issue and I’ll not be back.

[Hulka]

No worries. My mistake.