tech_guy Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Well, perhaps some people now flying might. I think a lot of pressure has been placed on the airlines to fly again. I think passengers are being exposed to some danger here. A close neighbour is a retired airlines pilot and he was saying yesterday he wouldn't fly as long as there was volcanic ash in the atmosphere.
webman Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 (edited) Airspace is now re-opened to UFOs as well. http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/89238063.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1271800701&Signature=BngPjd%2BW6NmQ1ml%2BWr4qjpPoQNE%3D Interesting article at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8629609.stm Edited April 20, 2010 by webman added link to BBC article
mattx Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 You can imagine the outrage if a plane falls out the sky within the next week or so. I have a friend who is an Air Crash Investigator who holds a full pilot license, he said to me last week he wouldn't go up - even if the risk was only 10% That says it all to me.
FN-GM Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 even if the risk was only 10% That says it all to me. I think 10% is allot. So 1 in 10 aircraft could get problems. Hundreds come in and out of the UK every day.
mattx Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Well I would rather listen to someone like him who investigates crashes for a living !! His job takes him all over the world as even light aircraft incidents have to be investigated.
FN-GM Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Im not disagreeing with you. I think its a big risk. I think that if there is any risk at all that it shouldn't be done.
mattx Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Im not disagreeing with you. I think its a big risk. I think that if there is any risk at all that it shouldn't be done. But the Air Companies have applied pressure on the powers that be. It boils down to money money money, pure and simple - but hey, that's capitalism for you....
FN-GM Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 I agree I think its wrong. In the early Boeing 737 aircraft they had a rudder problem, it caused the aircraft to bank for no reason. They didn't bother investigating the problem. It took 2 planes to crash and one near crash to fix it.
tech_guy Posted April 20, 2010 Author Posted April 20, 2010 Can't confirm anything yet but an Air France flight to Paris reportedly had major damage to the engines, with stories also coming from Germany and Italy. Germany has reportedly closed its airspace again.
mattx Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Can't confirm anything yet but an Air France flight to Paris reportedly had major damage to the engines, with stories also coming from Germany and Italy. Germany has reportedly closed its airspace again. Got a link or source for this ? My mate says if they engines fail you can drop in altitude very quickly and the crud that builds up on the jet blades start's to come off and you can then re-start the engines. Sounds all brown trousers stuff to me......
tech_guy Posted April 20, 2010 Author Posted April 20, 2010 It's all comments on Twitter at the moment - nothing concrete.
mattx Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 It's all comments on Twitter at the moment - nothing concrete. Ta muchly - will keep an eye on that.
mattx Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 All 4 ba flights that have landed at lhr so far have all reported "strong acrid burning" smells as decending through 6000ft 3 approached from the north and 1via biggin! Sod that. Do I spend the rest of my evening listening to my scanner like a real nerd ? Errrrr no.
webman Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Sod that. Do I spend the rest of my evening listening to my scanner like a real nerd ? Errrrr no. *turns the radio off*
mjs_mjs Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 "we're all going to die" - yes - that inevitable seeing as we were born.
CHR1S Posted April 20, 2010 Posted April 20, 2010 Hmm its a tough call, do we risk 1000s of lives or millions of pounds and several thousand jobs? Or worse both! I suppose we will see this play out over the next few days!
srochford Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 Im not disagreeing with you. I think its a big risk. I think that if there is any risk at all that it shouldn't be done. Sorry, but that's utter b*ll*cks!!! There is *always* risk - I'm about to go outside; I could trip on the step, get knocked down by the bus, get stuck in the lift (it won't let me out on level 6 any longer!!) and so on. I'm afraid people saying "if there is any risk at all" either don't speak English (and apologies if English isn't your first language!) or simply have no clue about what "risk" means!!!
Jawloms Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 I think they should let all those passengers who are complaining about not being able to fly and the airlines not doing enough, fly first - 1, it gets the whingers off the telly who don't seem to comprehend that an airline can't stop a volcano going off, and 2, if anyone is going to die in a plane crash (and I wouldn't actually wish it on anyone!!) I'd rather it wasn't people who have been understanding and patiently waiting!
localzuk Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 The thing is, flying through the ash is a proven danger - 1982, a BA plane had its engines fail at 36k feet due to ash, 1989, a KLM plane had $80m of damage done to it due to ash, and this time around the Finnish air force had several F-18s damaged by it and all the engines have now had to be sent to be repaired, a NATO F-16 has also been damaged. Add in the fact that not only does the ash damage engines, but can 'sandblast' the windscreens, interfere with RF signals due to it being heavily charged, and can clog sensors on the outside of the plane. It seems a little irresponsible to be flying through it. How long until the airlines start demanding compensation for damaged planes?
Tyiell Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 The thing is, flying through the ash is a proven danger - 1982, a BA plane had its engines fail at 36k feet due to ash, 1989, a KLM plane had $80m of damage done to it due to ash, and this time around the Finnish air force had several F-18s damaged by it and all the engines have now had to be sent to be repaired, a NATO F-16 has also been damaged. Add in the fact that not only does the ash damage engines, but can 'sandblast' the windscreens, interfere with RF signals due to it being heavily charged, and can clog sensors on the outside of the plane. It seems a little irresponsible to be flying through it. How long until the airlines start demanding compensation for damaged planes? Agreed. And you can't win either way since the airlines are already lobbying for compensation for being grounded in the first place. I'd rather they got that than planes start falling out of the sky to appease irate passengers who don't know what they're talking about and company directors that want the cash...
ICT_GUY Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 I have two boys that are waiting to fly back, I think I will wait on the booking. The reason the ash is so bad for the engines is that it melts in the combustion chamber and sticks to everything past where the fuel burns. As for if the crud breaks off at a lower altitude, the forces involved in an unbalanced turbine spinning at 10,000 RPM are pretty extreme, even if them are in the latter smaller radius blades at the back of the engine. Also trying to run anything at 10K through the ash is going to have the same effect as sandblasting it.
Hightower Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 There is *always* risk - I'm about to go outside; I could trip on the step, get knocked down by the bus, get stuck in the lift (it won't let me out on level 6 any longer!!) and so on. I'm afraid people saying "if there is any risk at all" either don't speak English (and apologies if English isn't your first language!) or simply have no clue about what "risk" means!!! FAIL! Erm - perhaps you should also check up the meaning of risk, because what you listed are 'hazards'! Risk is the LIKLIHOOD of a hazard occurring. i.e. Because I'm a clumsy sod there is more chance (risk) of me slipping on that step (hazard). 3
FN-GM Posted April 21, 2010 Posted April 21, 2010 (edited) Sorry, but that's utter b*ll*cks!!! There is *always* risk - I'm about to go outside; I could trip on the step, get knocked down by the bus, get stuck in the lift (it won't let me out on level 6 any longer!!) and so on. I'm afraid people saying "if there is any risk at all" either don't speak English (and apologies if English isn't your first language!) or simply have no clue about what "risk" means!!! 10% risk of something going wrong with the aircraft is a big risk. There is always a risk but why would you make the risk even bigger. So 1 in every 10 planes is at risk of something going wrong becuase of the ash? Would you be ok with that? If the ash was not there, there wouldn't be this 10% risk Read this - BA Flight 9 & KLM 867 - Luckly the plane landed safe that time. Its peoples lives at stake! Edited April 21, 2010 by FN-GM
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now