[B][URL="http://edition.cnn.com/"][IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/global/header/intl/hdr-globe-central.gif[/IMG][/URL][/B]
[URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/21/aviation.safety.airlines/index.html?hpt=C1"]View full article [/URL]
By [B]Simon Hooper[/B], CNN
[release]STORY HIGHLIGHTS
[LIST]
[*]Aviation officials raise ash density threshold deemed dangerous to flights
[*]Airlines facing heavy losses say shutdown of airspace was unnecessary
[*]Aviation officials say they acted according to existing ash cloud guidelines
[*]Officials deny they were "bullied" by airlines into changing the rules
[/LIST][/release]
[quote=CNN]
[B]London, England (CNN)[/B] -- Aviation safety officials in Europe have defended the decision to close parts of the continent's airspace for six days in the face of claims by the airline industry that the shutdown was unnecessary.
The UK, home to the world's busiest international airport at London Heathrow, was among the last European countries to reopen its airspace Tuesday as safety concerns over the ash cloud caused by an Icelandic volcano eased.
That followed the issue of new guidelines by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) raising the threshold of ash density in the atmosphere at which flying is deemed safe from zero to 0.002 grams per meter cubed per hour.
It said new data collected from test flights and additional analysis from manufacturers over the past few days had "helped to validate a new standard that is now being adopted across Europe."
But the CAA move prompted criticism on the one hand that safety officials had been overcautious and on the other that they had been "bullied" by an industry facing massive losses.
British Airways CEO Willie Walsh said earlier in the week that test flights carried out by airlines including BA had demonstrated that the ash cloud posed little risk to air travel.
"The analysis we have done so far, alongside that from other airlines' trial flights, provides fresh evidence that the current blanket restrictions on airspace are unnecessary," Walsh said.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) also questioned the closure of European skies on Wednesday, claiming that the disruption, which it said had "eclipsed 9/11," had cost airlines $1.7 billion in lost revenue.
[URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/21/iceland.volcano.developments/index.html/"]Air travel disruption: latest developments[/URL]
"Airspace was being closed based on theoretical models not on facts," said IATA Director General and CEO Giovanni Bisignani. "Test flights by our members showed that the models were wrong. Our top priority is safety. Without compromising on safety, Europe needed to find a way to make decisions based on facts and risk assessment, not theories."
But Alex Bristol, a spokesman for the UK's national air traffic controller NATS, told CNN that safety officials had acted in accordance with existing safety regulations.
"The decisions made were the right ones and we absolutely stand by those," said Bristol.
"The primary concern for all involved... has been to ensure flight safety. Until we got some scientific proof that it was safe to fly under different regulations -- which the CAA published yesterday evening -- we had to restrict the air space and we did the right thing."
He warned that air space restrictions remained in place over northwest Scotland and the Western Isles and said that British airspace could be affected again if ash in the atmosphere reached dangerous densities.
[URL="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/21/volcano.ash/index.html"]Battle to clear backlog as Europe reopens for flights[/URL]
"However, at this moment of time, with the longer term Met Office weather forecasts and the conditions that we're seeing from the volcano, at this stage that looks less likely," he said.
A spokesman for the CAA conceded that if the 0.002 grams per meter cubed per hour threshold had been in place earlier the total closure of airspace over the UK and elsewhere would not have been necessary.
"Certain areas certainly would have been able to remain open but areas of higher concentration would have remained closed," he said.
He said that it had been necessary to keep airspace over the UK closed for longer than airspace over mainland Europe because it was nearer to the volcano and experiencing higher concentrations of ash.
But he said the ash cloud situation had provided an "unprecedented" opportunity to test the effects of volcanic ash on jet engines.
"We're now at a situation where (engine manufacturers) know what their engines can cope with," he said. "It's something that shouldn't happen again because now we know what we're dealing with."
The head of the CAA, Andrew Haines, denied Wednesday that the organization had been bullied by the airlines into revising its safety standards.
"The airlines know that their safety record is a fundamental lynchpin of their operation. The UK has one of the finest safety records in the world and there was no way they were going to compromise that and there was no way we would have allowed it," Haines told GMTV.
"What we've done over the last few days is work with international experts to establish whether or not a better guideline could be put into place, and that is what we've been able to do."
British transport minister Andrew Adonis also denied that the government and the CAA had been pressured by the airlines.
"They have not been based on pressure from airlines, and that is what the public would expect," Adonis told GMTV.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a United Nations body regulating aviation safety, said the ash cloud disruption had highlighted the need for a new safety framework.
"In light of the unprecedented disruptions to air traffic, it is clear that more effort needs to be undertaken to establish a global safety risk framework for routinely determining safe levels of operation in airspace contaminated by volcanic ash," it said in a statement.
"ICAO invites states, the scientific community, aviation safety professionals, manufacturers, airports and airlines to provide valuable input to the development of such a framework."
[/quote]
[B] EDIT:[/B]
:siren:I did NOT make the title.
This was the articles title, and since it was question, I created a poll.
A lot of you seem to think that I coined the title myself.:siren:
Who cares? I loved the sky without to fugly trails.
yes it was necessary, unless you want to risk the lives of a thousand people and a few planes.
NATO even tried flying some army fighters (F16) through some of it. They almost crashed and the engines are fucked up.
Not to mention that military grade engines are probably much more tolerant against the ash.
Yeah it probably was. I mean, people getting stuck in Majorca is one thing, a plane crash is another.
[QUOTE=Baldr;21485958]Who cares?[/QUOTE]
People who were stuck in other countries for four days?
I do hope your kidding OP, lets see you fly an airplane through a batch of thick dust
Then lets see the repair bill for that engine you just sandblasted.
Probably not, but imagine the if they hadn't, and hundreds of passengers had been [I]killed.[/I]
It may have been unnecessary but nobody really had experience with ashclouds, so they had to take every precaution. Now they know how much is dangerous and perhaps next time they won't have to shut everything down.
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;21486018]I do hope your kidding OP, lets see you fly an airplane through a batch of thick dust
Then lets see the repair bill for that engine you just sandblasted.[/QUOTE]
Please note that, that was CNNs external title for the article.
"Was air shutdown really necessary?"
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/[/url]
I think the initial closure of airspace was important, but they should have acted quicker on this. If they'd done the safety tests earlier there'd be a smaller backlog and less problems, my girlfriend may be stuck in Florida until next week/month due to the massive backlog of missed flights.
I had to vote yes, my science teacher is still stuck somewhere.
You ever seen what happen to airplane engines that get hit with volcanic ash? The ash gets sucked in, turns into molten [I]glass[/I], then solidifies all over everything inside the engine, eventually destroying the airplane engine and by extension [I]the airplane it's attached to[/I].
There's a flash pic on the link that explains it well enough.
[editline]12:34PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;21486072][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9[/URL][/QUOTE]
I was looking for that link, thanks. [I]Perfect example of why you don't try to fly through volcanic ash.[/I]
The ash cloud is very low density apart from a small area around Iceland, they should have carried out these safety tests earlier. Two volcanic eruptions are not the same.
Better safe than sorry. Voted yes.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21486124]
I was looking for that link, thanks. [I]Perfect example of why you don't try to fly through volcanic ash.[/I][/QUOTE]
No problem, air accidents interest me.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;21486072][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control. I trust you are not in too much distress.[/quote]
I laughed so hard.
Why are people moaning? They would've been moaning more had the planes been allowed to fly and one had crashed.
[QUOTE=mole3700;21486296]Why are people moaning? They would've been moaning more had the planes been allowed to fly and one had crashed.[/QUOTE]
Most people today would probably sue.
Well the shutdown was obviously necessary otherwise they wouldn't of done it.
if a plane DID go down, there would be uproar
the risk was to high
plus, dover got a huge boom
It was a smart move. Plane crashes are terrible.
Seriously, it's a bitch losing ait travel, but it is better than plane crashes.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;21486027]Probably not, but imagine the if they hadn't, and hundreds of passengers[U] had been died.[/U][/QUOTE]
I would be truly sorry for their lots.
[editline]07:00PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PC-is-bacon;21486491]if a plane DID go down, there would be uproar
the risk was to high
plus, dover got a huge boom[/QUOTE]
Eurostar have filled every train until saturday. Every train is full.
Yes this did rather hurt the air travel industry, but it's nice that the less appreciated forms of travel got a boom out of it.
People would have complained if they issued a warning, people would have complained if they didn't.
Air Industry lost money, but the safety of people is more important. Of course for some of the air industry men, each passenger is merely profit. I don't think the air industry would have wanted to deal with plane crashes having to cough up compensation.
[QUOTE=smurfy;21486007]People who were stuck in other countries for four days?[/QUOTE]
Boehoe four days.
[QUOTE=Baldr;21486822]Boehoe four days.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm sure they were having the time of their lives when their hotel booking ran out and they had no idea when they were going to be able to go home.
[QUOTE=smurfy;21486880]Yeah I'm sure they were having the time of their lives when their hotel booking ran out and they had no idea when they were going to be able to go home.[/QUOTE]
Except they wouldn't be having any more customers because the airports were all closed?
It was nice to see the sky clear for a while.
How would we know? The poll is stupid. Even the experts are not sure.
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;21486018]I do hope your kidding OP, lets see you fly an airplane through a batch of thick dust
Then lets see the repair bill for that engine you just sandblasted.[/QUOTE]
Assuming he even makes it to the ground instead of crashing into it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.