[snow hope]

Chris - see these links confirming refunds for cancelled flights I just found using Google,

http://www.irishtime...4268629713.html
http://airtravel.abo...-for-europe.htm
http://news.suite101...-travel-a227330

[Dave K]

Quote

Rochdale Cowboy - 19/4/2010 10:10 Lots of theory and taking of the moral high ground here. Running any business is about risk management. EVERY airline knows more about managing the risk to crew, passengers, aircraft etc than EVERY poster on here. For us to be telling airlines they are irresponsible calling for a reassessment is pompous in the extreme. If the pilot is happy to take it up....I'm happy to get on it on the basis that neither of us wants to die!!! More realism less theory, please.

Well good old Ryanair have a couple of times gone out on a limb and cancelled flights beyond the timespan what has been deemed necessary from NATS, so presumably they are being realistic? I don't think it's unreasonable for airlines to call for continual reassessment, just unreasonable for those not in a position of actual personal responsibility for safety to deem this as unnecessary over-reaction.

 AND FINALLY...

Did the the aircraft owner and the passengers and pilot of the Polish aircraft, which crashed in Russia recently acceptably "manage risk" when they were told not to try to land in Smolensk and divert to another airport by the Russian Ground Control?  Whilst, of course,  no commercial airline wants their operation to flout acceptable safety parameters, The 90+ deaths that resulted in Smolensk may be viewed as evidence more eloquent and damning than words could ever be about who is in the best position to "manage risk".

[John Robert Mellor]

Quote

Rochdale Cowboy - 19/4/2010 10:10 Lots of theory and taking of the moral high ground here. Running any business is about risk management. EVERY airline knows more about managing the risk to crew, passengers, aircraft etc than EVERY poster on here. For us to be telling airlines they are irresponsible calling for a reassessment is pompous in the extreme. If the pilot is happy to take it up....I'm happy to get on it on the basis that neither of us wants to die!!! More realism less theory, please.

I'm far from being pompous.  Its my opinion and it is one I will maintain.  That I have seen folks from the industry banging on about money rather than safety leads my thoughts. And when you have many seasoned pilots also maintaining it isn't safe and they would not fly I am obviously not alone. 

 

 

[PK2]

Two more reports of planes with trouble :(
http://www.bt.dk/udl...-under-mistanke

Quote

NATO: F-16 fighters damaged by volcanic ash

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.

[summer '85]

How many test flights have there been and what are the results? I would be interested in the figures.

I can't help but feel that although there is a risk, the risk is being greatly magnified. e.g a 1 in 5,000 risk being magnified to as though its a 1 in  5 risk

[Dave K]

Quote

summer '85 - 19/4/2010 13:15

How many test flights have there been and what are the results? I would be interested in the figures.

I can't help but feel that although there is a risk, the risk is being greatly magnified. e.g a 1 in 5,000 risk being magnified to as though its a 1 in  5 risk

Possibly true, but when there are 24 000 flights in European airspace in a day and a 1:5 000 risk, do the math...

Is there any precedent at all in the busy skies of Europe for this type of volcanic ash scenario, such as the Icelandic eruptions of the 1960s? If not then we are essentially in a "never been there" situation and the skies are pretty much a test lab, having a plane in trouble even if it doesn't crash or have to make an emergency landing would be a helluva way to learn...

[Dave W]

Reading responses to the BBC websites question 'would you fly' on its website and about 95% say no.. most say they feel companies are putting profit before safety..

[summer '85]

Quote

Big Dave's Gusset - 19/4/2010 13:22 Is there any precedent at all in the busy skies of Europe for this type of volcanic ash scenario, such as the Icelandic eruptions of the 1960s?

Why just Europe? Any part of the world for that matter.

What was North American airspace like after the Mount St Helen's eruption of 1980?

[PK2]

Quote

summer '85 - 19/4/2010 13:27

Quote

Big Dave's Gusset - 19/4/2010 13:22 Is there any precedent at all in the busy skies of Europe for this type of volcanic ash scenario, such as the Icelandic eruptions of the 1960s?

Why just Europe? Any part of the world for that matter.

What was North American airspace like after the Mount St Helen's eruption of 1980?

I'd imagine a large area was closed but since there's a lot less traffic then a lot less planes were cancelled. What is it like in Newfoundland now?

[skanky]

In the US pilots apparently have ash avoidance training - though how effective that is, I don't know. They have some experience in Alaska, but that traffic is not especially high. There is some difference to over-flights of ash cloud areas, and take-off/landing as well. However, I did read (forgot the reference, couldn't find with a *quick* google), that a number of aircraft were scrapped after the Pinatubo eruption. Take that last one with a pinch of salt though.

http://en.wikipedia..../KLM_Flight_867
http://en.wikipedia....irways_Flight_9

[anvilhead]

This may have been allready mentioned, but I hope these test flights were carried out over sea, otherwise they put the public at risk in any case from ground based injury if these tests 'fail'..

[Dave K]

Quote

summer '85 - 19/4/2010 13:27

Quote

Big Dave's Gusset - 19/4/2010 13:22 Is there any precedent at all in the busy skies of Europe for this type of volcanic ash scenario, such as the Icelandic eruptions of the 1960s?

Why just Europe? Any part of the world for that matter.

What was North American airspace like after the Mount St Helen's eruption of 1980?

Because Europe is the affected area, it is densely populated with a large concentration of some of the world's busiest airports and the volume of flights is probably higher than any other area of the world apart from the NE United States . The NW where the volcanoes are is far more sparsely populated and the skies probably far less busy, and therefore may not provide a good comparison.  If you look at the ash spread of the 1980 eruption it affect only states such as Washington State,  Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, some of Idaho:

"Air travel was disrupted for a few days to 2 weeks as several airports in eastern Washington shut down because of ash accumulation and poor visibility. Over a thousand commercial flights were cancelled following airport closures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

See also http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/Maps/map_may18_ash_path.html

But what goes for the USA doesn't always apply to other parts of the world despite what Hollywood tells us, that's why I asked specifically about Europe.

[PK2]

Quote

Big Dave's Gusset - 19/4/2010 14:45

If you look at the ash spread of the 1980 eruption it affect only states such as Washington State,  Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, some of Idaho:

any idea of the size of those states compared to, say, Europe or Britain?
And I wonder how the amount of ash released compares? For sure in terms of VEI St Helens was bigger but although I can't find the figures again I'm pretty sure this current erruption is close in terms of qty of ash.

[Dave K]

Quote

PK2 - 19/4/2010 14:53

Quote

Big Dave's Gusset - 19/4/2010 14:45 If you look at the ash spread of the 1980 eruption it affect only states such as Washington State,  Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, some of Idaho:

any idea of the size of those states compared to, say, Europe or Britain? And I wonder how the amount of ash released compares? For sure in terms of VEI St Helens was bigger but although I can't find the figures again I'm pretty sure this current erruption is close in terms of qty of ash.

Well Montana for example is one and a half times the size of the UK yet with fewer than 1 million inhabitants. Mount St Helens resulted in most of the ash falling within 300 miles of the mountain, finer ash circled the earth in 15 days. We haven't seen anything like the thick ash deposits on the ground around Iceland as there was in Washington state as far as I am aware.   MSH sent a cloud to 80 000 ft altitude unlike this one, therefore the ash cloud may not have affected flying altitudes. It may not be helpful to treat volcanoes as a "one size fits all" as they behave eruptively in different ways but many people don't seem to be aware of that .

[Ian Williams]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8625556.stm

Iceland volcano: Airlines face 'logistical nightmare'

By Richard Anderson Business reporter, BBC News

Analysts say it may be a week after the ash has cleared before flights return to normal

The fallout from the Icelandic volcano will be felt for a long time after the ash has settled.

For while the majority of flights may be back in the air by the beginning of next week, it will be many more days before the airlines have got their schedules back on track.

And that means more delayed flights for thousands of passengers, many of whom may be under the false impression that, once the ash clears, planes will be free to fly as normal.

"Airlines face a logistical nightmare," explains Barry Turner-Woods, contributing editor of Airlines World.

Not only will there be a backlog of flights to clear, but planes are stranded across the world in destinations thousands of miles from where they need to be.

[Andy Mayhew]

Probably more appropriate here than in the general weather chat thread, taken from the BBC 'live' update page:

Quote

We have been stranded in Florida since Friday. We have spoken to Virgin and they have booked us on a flight on 1st May back to the UK.

We are having to pay accommodation expenses, car hire expenses and general living expenses. I have spoken with our holiday insurance and they tell me the best they can offer is £100 each for the whole period we are delayed.

I also have travel insurance with another company via my bank account. They say there is nothing they can offer as they will be treating this as a natural disaster.

Just goes to show what travel insurance is really worth... nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/8630145.stm


I would have thought covering yourself against financial loss and inconvenience arising from natural disaster was one of the main reasons for taking out travel insurance? :s

[Bluebreezer54]

Quote

Chris Lloyd - 19/4/2010 09:38

I don't know why the airlines are complaining so much - most people have paid in advance and probably won't get their money back. They must be making huge profits with not having to fill their planes with fuel or pay their staff!

Blimey Chris, reading your posts you really do have a downer with the airlines dont you ? Its been widely reported throughout the media that the airlines will refund passengers, and thanks to EU regs, they also have to cough up for the cost of meals and accomodation. All that for something which is way outside of their control.

In many cases the fuel has already been purchased, or hedged, and I can assure you they are still ( thankfully ) paying staff in most cases. Perhaps you missed the huge losses many airlines have been posting in the last two years or so ? I fail to see where the profits are coming from with entire fleets grounded, no income, and massive costs still having to be met.

[Paul Corfield]

I heard on the radio just now that planes will be flying again soon because the volcano is no longer making the type of ash that will damage engines.

Paul.

[Dave K]

Here is a Q & A response from  a well known Buidling Society specifically re volcanic ash related delays:

All passengers should contact their airlines before travelling.

If flights are delayed XXX travel insurance provider  will look to deal with the claim under the delayed departure section of the policy.

In the event that the flight is cancelled airlines should give a full refund or offer an alternative flight. If this is not the case, the policyholder can make a claim on their XX travel insurance policy.

If the policyholder accepts an alternative flight at a later date, XX travel insurance provider  is prepared for their existing policy to be transferred to cover the new dates.

---

Maybe it's a case of you get what you pay for? As I mentioned ad nauseum the universal "force majeure" clause kicks in. After all, most of us take Travel Insurance mainly because it's a condition of booking, often with the standard offering of the travel package without shopping around. The main considerations are usually emergency medical care and loss of personal belongings, and being stranded due to effects or consequences of natural disaster probably enters few of us heads at the time of booking.

[Lightning Hunter]

Am I right in thinking they plan to re-commence flights in the UK tomorrow, despite the country potentially being under some of the worst ash so far (depending on activity)?

I'm glad I'm not on an aircraft, or plan to be in the next few months.