This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Will air travel to/from the UK be severely restricted for weeks/months to come?

Apparantly they are expecting UK airspace to open tomorrow.
Then again the volcano is reported to be intensifying again so who knows?

Reply 101

Media student

1

Its funny how a volcanic ash can make all this mess,

power of nature

Reply 102

Mask Of Sanity

14

This entire little episode of history is very amusing - at least, to me.

Rucklo

Last time I checked passengers being on board did not change damage done to an engine.

Eugh. It's in-case the plane crashes. Losing the flight crew is better than losing the flight crew and hundreds of passengers. And none of that refutes the point that you can't fly commercial planes full of passengers at low altitudes very far.

A Ukrainian airline has been flying passengers for days against advise and I have seen no reports of a crashed aircraft?

Have you personally inspected the aircraft?

And the test flights done by numerous airlines have been across different altitudes in different parts of Europe, all are fine.

I've already refuted this point.

And as of now:

Good luck to the passengers.

Yes, do you understand you don't use commercial engines on fighter jets, and therefore there are differences?

lol

You don't actually understand anything about jet engines, do you? Just admit it. No one knows everything.

Well thats extremely vague, there is ash in the air all the time, what is the recommended level it has to be under please?

It's not vague at all. The manufacturers of the aircraft, like Boeing, have clear guidelines that you do not fly in volcanic ash.

Yes risking $80million against the gain is not worth it.

Your numbers are utter ********.

And here is some more for you:

lol

You keep cutting and pasting random bits off of random news articles, totally failing to realise that a) the tests were done for only an hour or two, b) it's in the airline's financial interests to start flying again, c) the engines don't have to be totally mangled in order for there to be problems of some sort, at some time down the line, and in this case, d) we don't generally fly at 26,000ft.

Reply 104

Rucklo

14

Smack

Eugh. It's in-case the plane crashes. Losing the flight crew is better than losing the flight crew and hundreds of passengers. And none of that refutes the point that you can't fly commercial planes full of passengers at low altitudes very far.

It makes no difference to performance if passengers are on or not.

Smack

Have you personally inspected the aircraft?

No, but thats a good thing because i'm not trained too like they?

Smack

I've already refuted this point.

Not very well..

Smack

Good luck to the passengers.

All those planes would have landed by now, so I doubt they will need your luck.

Smack

lol

You don't actually understand anything about jet engines, do you? Just admit it. No one knows everything.

It uses the same principles but military engines are designed to do different things too commerical one's, this could be the difference frankly and you have no evidence to say its not.

Smack

It's not vague at all. The manufacturers of the aircraft, like Boeing, have clear guidelines that you do not fly in volcanic ash.

It is in all fairness, there is ash in small parts in the air all the time, are we not allowed to fly at all?

Smack

Your numbers are utter ********.

If there losing £25mil a day.. I don't see it going on for much longer.

Smack

lol

You keep cutting and pasting random bits off of random news articles, totally failing to realise that a) the tests were done for only an hour or two, b) it's in the airline's financial interests to start flying again, c) the engines don't have to be totally mangled in order for there to be problems of some sort, at some time down the line, and in this case, d) we don't generally fly at 26,000ft.

You call my numbers utter ****?

Your 4 points are utter ****.

1) The BA jet flew for 4 hours, not an hour or two, I don't know about the rest.

2) Ok?

3) So? Engineers have looked at the engines, if there was even small signs of damage they would say.

4) Considering the ash cloud is lower than 20,000ft does it matter if there at 26 or 30+? It doesn't.

Rucklo

It makes no difference to performance if passengers are on or not.

Yes it does. The extra weight of the passengers plus luggage plus on-board hospitality supplies makes a noticeable difference in the performance. Remember, commercial aircraft are designed with a safety factor of around 1.05. They're already skating on thin ice as it is.

No, but thats a good thing because i'm not trained too like they?

That explains some of your posts.

Not very well..

That's because you simply lack the understanding of aviation required to fully understand.

All those planes would have landed by now, so I doubt they will need your luck.

My wish extends to all future passengers as well.

It uses the same principles but military engines are designed to do different things too commerical one's, this could be the difference frankly and you have no evidence to say its not.

notsureifsrs.gif

But nonetheless, if ash damages military aircraft's engines, like it did to some F-16s just the other day, do you honestly not think it will damage passenger aircraft's engines? Really?

Here's a good link for you to educate yourself.

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/volcanicash/03_NASADC8AshDamage.pdf

It is in all fairness, there is ash in small parts in the air all the time, are we not allowed to fly at all?

Because of the nature of things like wind, jet streams, currents etc. it is difficult to predict where there is and isn't too much ash. Remember, the stuff is practically invisible to the naked eye.

If there losing £25mil a day.. I don't see it going on for much longer.

Don't see what going on for much longer? If you mean the airline, then you're bang on, which is why this is such a large catastrophe and why the airlines are so desperate to fly again.

You call my numbers utter ****?

Your 4 points are utter ****.

1) The BA jet flew for 4 hours, not an hour or two, I don't know about the rest.

Oh waow.

3) So? Engineers have looked at the engines, if there was even small signs of damage they would say.

From the pdf I linked to earlier;

Although the ash plume was not visible to the flight crew, sensitive research experiments and instruments detected it. In-flight performance checks and postflight visual inspections revealed no damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; subsequent detailed examination of the engines revealed clogged turbine cooling air passages."

...

"There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr."

It's too soon to say. As I've said time and time again to you, the danger is not that they all suddenly fall out of the sky, but that subsequent damage caused by flying through the ash remains undetected and causes catastrophe at a slightly later date. Although the threat of falling out of the sky is quite real too.

4) Considering the ash cloud is lower than 20,000ft does it matter if there at 26 or 30+? It doesn't.

Dude, it still affects aircraft. Not least because to get to 30000ft+ you have to fly higher than 20000ft. But I suppose you know much more than all the experts, right?

Will air travel to/from the UK be severely restricted for weeks/months to come?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you