The dust is settling (excuse the pun) on last week's ash cloud story and despite some airspace still being affected by the continuing ash in the air, it is clear that two main issues will stay with the industry for longer. Namely, who should pay compensation to the passengers of these flights and were governments too cautious in waiting so long before letting aircraft back in the air.
David Learmount on his blog explained the difficulties in judging a "safe concentration level" of ash particles in the air but also the dangers to the engine of flying too early:
The Flightglobal poll asks the question that many airline CEOs are thinking, who should pay for compensating passengers? Should airlines be ready to address the unpredictability of this and any situation. Or is a situation like this just too unpredictable and infrequent to contemplate seriously? Join the aviation forum debate on. "Should airlines foot the bill for compensating passengers?"
Additional writing from Georgia Ray
David Learmount on his blog explained the difficulties in judging a "safe concentration level" of ash particles in the air but also the dangers to the engine of flying too early:
The first problem with making decisions about whether - or not - to fly in the volcanic ash cloud over Europe, is the lack of scientific data about the effects on aircraft of this type of very fine atmospheric ash, in this concentration.Issues of safety should always be judged cautiously but were we too cautious? Join the aviation forum debate on whether, in your opinion. "Were governments too cautious in dealing with the ash cloud problem?"
How much, if any, volcanic dust can an aeroplane fly through safely, and without causing progressive degradation that will gradually make its engines inefficient and uneconomic?
The second problem is that, apart from the volcano's core plume, which can be seen by satellite, aviation authorities have no active means of tracking the movement of the dispersing ash, which covers a wide area.
The position of the dispersing ash can only be calculated using mathematical models, which are turning out to be fairly accurate, but not sufficiently accurate to enable aircraft to be tactically directed to safe sky sectors.
The Flightglobal poll asks the question that many airline CEOs are thinking, who should pay for compensating passengers? Should airlines be ready to address the unpredictability of this and any situation. Or is a situation like this just too unpredictable and infrequent to contemplate seriously? Join the aviation forum debate on. "Should airlines foot the bill for compensating passengers?"
Additional writing from Georgia Ray
Recent Comments