Subscribe by E-mail

Archives

Recent Assets

  • Bristol boxkite in hangar.JPG
  • Peugeot horseless carriage.JPG
  • To start, spin flywheel.JPG
  • BSA dispatch bike.JPG
  • Hillman Minx at Shuttleworth.JPG
  • Hawkers Hart and Demon.JPG
  • Westland Lysander take-off run.JPG
  • Bleriot in hangar.JPG
  • yourfile.jpg
  • G-PLAL in LR.jpg

June 2010 Archives

Can Europe beat the ash next time?

| | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Eyjafjallajokull is still there, temporarily dormant. So is its more powerful neighbour Katla. So the ash will be back.

Surely, Europe has a plan this time? Well yes and no. Mainly no.

A plan exists, but individual states have not signed up to it, so nobody really knows what will happen. There may be up to 27 different reactions, with each state looking shiftily at what its neighbour is doing before deciding whether to do the same or break ranks. Meanwhile the ash will drift with the wind, contemptuous of borders and politics.

A bit like the last time, then?

CANSO (the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation) held an open discussion about Europe's ash performance last time (late April/early May) at its recent Oslo AGM. I was moderating it, so let's look first at what aviation leaders said about what happened then, and finally we'll look at what may happen next time.

 

Panel 2-3.JPG The Panel L to R: Learmount, McMillan, Johnson, Poole, Smiley, Deakin 

First, Doug Johnson of the London Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) set the scene by summarising the centre's capabilities for ash cloud monitoring and modelling.  

Johnson 2.JPG

Doug Johnson, London VAAC

He revealed that the London VAAC's ash cloud detection, tracking and modelling system had proved accurate when compared with all other global capabilities. In a future event the VAAC would be able to provide daily actual and predictive charts based on the new ash concentration zoning system thrashed out during the recent crisis.

Eurocontrol director general David McMillan was tasked with assessing whether the decisions to close much of Europe's airspace were justified.

 

McMillan.JPG

David McMillan, Eurocontrol DG

 He began by attacking those who said that the grounding was a fuss about nothing, and suggested the picture behind him of ash powering into the upper atmosphere indicates it had millions of tonnes of substance. 

McMillan argued that the lack of ash-tolerance data for engines and airframes available to ATM providers and airlines gave the aviation authorities no choice but to recommend grounding until the ash dispersed or safe levels were scientifically identified. 

From the floor, the Irish Aviation Authority's chief executive Eamonn Brennan also noted the total lack of response from EASA, suggesting the agency's leadership would be a key factor in a future coordinated response. Ireland, the UK and Iceland suffered more ash contamination than any of Europe's other flight information regions.

Brennan.3.JPGBrennan, CEO Irish Aviation Authority 

IATA's Jeff Poole accused European agencies and governments of "staggering complacency" when the ash cloud arrived, with no response available during the first weekend of the event.

 

Poole 2.jpg

Jeff Poole, IATA

He voiced the hope that the huge losses to the European economy caused by the grounding may wake politicians up to the importance of aviation and and the need to provide its essential infrastructure.

Ásgeir Pálsson, head of Icelandic ATM provider Isavia called for validation of the parameters for ash-damage tolerance to airframes and engines.

 

Palsson 2.jpg

Ásgeir Pálsson, Isavia

Pálsson also fired a shot at airline claims by suggesting that "random test flights achieve nothing".

Dieter Kaden of German ATM provider DFS pointed out that engine manufacturers were still not providing the support and data that might be expected, and that warranties and insurance for engines were still being removed by manufacturers from aircraft flying close to ash.

UK NATS CEO Richard Deakin suggested that the ash cloud modelling had proven to be pretty accurate, although he would have liked to have seen more data derived from sampling. He also wants to see a European regulatory approach agreed, to avoid the 27 totally uncoordinated national responses.

 

Smiley and Deakin 2.jpgSmiley and Deakin 

 

Finally, Dan Smiley (FAA and CANSO) summarised the Alaska VAAC's contingency plan.

 

This sets out a detailed, coordinated response to a volcanic event. His presentation made it clear that the difference from Europe is that there is a single plan, while neither Europe as a whole nor any of its 27 member states had any plans at the time that Eyjafjallajokull erupted. The Alaska VAAC disseminates the ash data rapidly to all parties, the FAA follows up with advice to avoid ash at all times, but airlines are allowed to make their own decisions in the end.

 

What Smiley didn't add is that the airlines usually take the advice to avoid the ash, and the amount of affected traffic is minuscule compared with Europe.

 

So what has Europe agreed to do next time?

 

It has set up an Aviation Crisis Coordination Centre co-chaired by the European Commission and Eurocontrol. The only trouble is that the ACCC has been given no executive power, so none of the states or air navigation service providers has to take any notice of what it says. They might choose to do so, but who knows until it happens? 

The lonely airline pilot

| | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0)

How many pilots does it take to fly a commercial airliner?

At the moment the regulators say two, but any aircraft could be flown by a single pilot.

The most basic safety argument for requiring two is pilot incapacitation, but flightdecks are designed so that the one remaining fit pilot can bring the aircraft home safely, even if it were the captain who had become incapacitated. So, regulation accepts that a single pilot can operate an airliner, but only allows it in an emergency.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority comments that any change to safety-related regulation has to meet the principle of "equivalent safety". In other words, one pilot plus high technology must be demonstrated to be at least as good as, but preferably better than, two pilots are in existing flightdecks. It's actually going to be quite difficult to argue that case! 

When debating the single-pilot airliner, the practical considerations and cultural reactions are much more interesting than the regulatory issues.

Here's one such practical consideration: all airline pilots would have to be rated as aircraft commanders, but how would they achieve that competency without a co-piloting apprenticeship?

Here's another: if security regulations remain as they are, all types except short-hop regionals would require an en-suite flightdeck. And to allow even brief pilot absences from the controls, the autopilot must have a mode that does not allow it to trip out, which raises lots of technical questions.

Some 60 years ago, airliners with about 30 passenger seats on board needed a pair of pilots, a flight engineer, a navigator and radio operator because the workload was so high in each of those roles. The reasons such a crew is no longer necessary are too obvious to need rehearsing here. An aeroplane today may be extremely complex, but automation and massive advances in system reliability has reduced the human operator's workload dramatically.

Meanwhile Embraer, the first manufacturer to break cover on the issue of single-pilot crews, cites future air traffic management systems as an influential enabling component. The new environment will be one in which the precise four-dimensional navigation of a flight will have become a largely automated, centrally co-ordinated exercise.

A single human operative in a completely automated environment who hardly ever had to do anything would risk being psychologically out of the loop when the automation failed, and therefore highly likely to be ineffective. So why put one on the aeroplane? 

The questions that really arise are not whether the crew could be reduced to one, but the more subjective issues of whether it should be done, whether it is practical, and finally whether the pilot would best be on the aircraft, or controlling it remotely.

The airline ops room of the future could have a sophisticated fleet tracking and real-time aircraft health monitoring system, and be staffed by a pool of duty pilots with cockpit-like workstations, ready to take control of any aircraft that alerts the base of even the most minor problem.

It will be increasingly rare that things go wrong, so why bother having a remote pilot assigned to each aircraft? The ratio might be one pilot to five aircraft. At least that would keep the pilots busy, maintaining their expertise so they will be effective when they are needed.

Take-off, en-route flight and landing would all be completely automated. The only thing that probably won't be is taxiing, navigating around the airport, and parking on the stand. That will keep the pilots busy.

Brave new world!

Will it happen? You tell me.

Navigating through the ash

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dr Fred Prata is one of the boffins working with EasyJet and Airbus to test the feasibility of deploying passive infra-red sensor systems on aircraft to enable pilots to navigate safely through airspace contaminated with volcanic ash.

In fact this passive IR ash detector system, called AVOID, was developed some years ago by the Climate and Atmosphere Department of the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, where Dr Fred works, but no-one took up the idea until now.

I challenged him to convince me that AVOID could really deliver benefits. He did.

Basically, I asked him whether we really know sufficient about the way in which ash distributes itself in the atmosphere following a volcanic eruption to be pretty sure that giving pilots the ability to "see" the stuff would enable them to thread their way through it with safety. Surely, I suggested, the ash is more or less homogenously distributed through large areas of the sky, so it's either thin enough to fly through, or if it's thick you have to navigate around the contaminated block of airspace?

Actually, he explained, we do know a lot about three-dimensional ash distribution in the atmosphere, but tracking its position and density precisely is difficult. So being able to see it is the key, he says.

I'll let Dr Fred explain:  

"We know quite well how ash distributes itself in the atmosphere.  We know about layering (typically 500-2000 m thick) and we know that it tends to occur in "channels" like plumes. 

"This knowledge has come from extensive satellite (infrared measurements, lidar and UV/VIS data) and from ground-based lidar and some airborne research measurements.

"Armed with this knowledge we believe that the system can be used in a tactical manner to observe ash clouds in the distance (up to 100 km seems very feasible).  At this distance a pilot would be able to make slight adjustments to the aircraft's course and avoid the ash. 

"This does not mean that there would be aircraft making diversions all over the airspace because the plan is to transmit the data back to the ground to be used by air traffic controllers, airlines and the UK Met Office to produce more accurate [real-time] dispersion model and forecasts.

"EasyJet are thinking of fitting a dozen or so "pathfinder" aircraft and the [UK Civil Aviation Authority] seem to be supporting this idea, but of course endorse nothing.  AVOID must first be tested and validated against independent data - this will happen in the next 2-3 months - volcano permitting.

"I think it needs to be stressed that volcanic ash never fills the skies and there are always routes around the hazard - after all this is what happens in most parts of the world now, especially, Alaska, Japan and Indonesia where airlines make quite large costly diversions to avoid ash clouds forecast by models and observed from satellites.  With AVOID fitted these diversions would be much shorter, and more direct routes could be found."