Share
Stuart Nathan
Features Editor
The Engineer
Ash confusion highlights importance of research
We can only see a small slice of the sky from The Engineer’s offices, but nonetheless it’s usually criss-crossed with contrails. Not for the past week, though. At 11am, we’ve just seen the very first distant white streak across our little patch of blue since UK airspace was closed owing to the ash plume from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.
The surprise reopening of the airspace last night was down to a number of factors, it seems; the brinksmanship of BA chairman Willie Walsh in allowing a number of London-bound flights to take off while airports were still closed has received some press coverage this morning. But the overriding factor was the test-flights and analysis of results by airlines and the Met Office, which appear to have established safe corridors through which airliners can fly under guidance of air traffic control.
But some things haven’t changed. It’s still not possible for airliners to detect ash with their radars, which are designed to detect moist clouds, not dry particulates. It’s still certain that if a jet engine flies through volcanic ash, the minerals will melt inside the engine, coating the turbines with glassy material, which can choke them off. And there’s still a lot of guesswork associated with the safe levels of ash. Nobody knew what a safe level of ash was before Eyjafjallajokull started to erupt, and it’s unlikely that knowledge has advanced that much in the intervening days. The reason for that is fairly simple. Nobody had done the research.
It seems that extensive studies on the effect of volcanic ash on jet engines have been put off for years, because aircraft-affecting volcanic eruptions are rare events and other research was given higher priorities. But rare events can have catastrophic effects, as we’ve seen over the past few days. It’s almost certain that research will now start. The activity of Iceland’s volcanoes, we’re told, is periodic; they become active every 50-80 years. That means that the last time they were spewing ash, there were no jet airliners.
Now, the area potentially affected by ash is swarming with aircraft, each one carrying hundreds of people, and there isn’t the airspace to divert all those flights away from the area affected by volcanic plumes. Think of the consequences of just one of those planes falling out of the sky. Anyone berating the decision by Air Traffic Control to close airspace as ‘over-cautious’ might do well to consider what might have happened if planes had been allowed to fly. If we want to keep flying above Europe and across the Atlantic — especially if Icelandic eruptions might be more frequent in coming decades — then we obviously have to know how we can do it safely, and when it’s not safe to fly at all.
This isn’t the first rare but devastating natural phenomenon we’ve seen this year; the Haiti earthquake saw massive destruction, partly because there was a dearth of information on how buildings in Port-au-Prince would react to vibration. That event caused catastrophic loss of life. We need to consider the funding of research into the effects of natural phenomena on technology and construction, no matter how rare these phenomena are. Human life is at stake, and we need a better understanding of the risks.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (13)
Julia Williams | 21 Apr 2010 12:18 pm
Thank you for that very clear explanation to dozy non scientist of what is happening. I totally agree with you that one plane falling out of sky one too many and think they were right to shut down. Hope the messenger (ie those poor bods at the Met Office who warned of the danger) doesn't get shot in the political wranglings which will follow this. The situation as far as I can tell was so unprecedented, no one could have called this one totally correctly. People are too willing to blame someone!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 Apr 2010 1:56 pm
The whole thing looked very like "Health & Safety" gone completely mad.
There have been volcanoes errupting ash somewhere in the world most years & this is the first time a country has had a complete flying ban as a result.
Can anyone imagine that could have happened in the US ?
There have been instances of planes flying through volcanic ash plumes & suffering engine shut downs as a result, but in extreme cases.
With sky as clear as they have been around Heathrow for the last week it is very hard to imagine that there were ash levels high enough to be hazardous for planes flying to southern Europe.
It makes the UK look pretty stupid
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter James | 21 Apr 2010 1:58 pm
I think that your comment re the lack of research into the effects of volcanic ash on jet engines is right on the mark - why did no-one think of this?
But your comment re Haiti is misleading - there's lots of seismic research - and there's nothing surprising about the collapse of unreinforced masonry buildings in a 7.0 earthquake. This is a construction issue, not a research issue.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael loftus | 21 Apr 2010 2:10 pm
i have worked in heavy engineering for the last 44 years , the last 20 with turbine compressors and turbine expanders, some spin at over 27000 rpm. To get these machines clean we use co2 or dry ice blasted into the impellors or blades because anything coarser would damage them and would put them out of balance and destroy them, i would have thought flying a turbo jet through a cloud of glass dust would have the same affect as grit blasting the impellors, all compresors have fine filters to stop this happening ,but thats not possible with a jet, hope i am wrong.
mick
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 Apr 2010 2:26 pm
The whole incidient is systematic of the current trend towards complete lack of responsibility. It mirrors the policy for shutting mototrways to clear even the most minor of incidents. To say its safer to push 1000s of cars through a town as opposed to slowly passed an incident on the motorway is representative of the attitude 'It's someone elses problem and responsibility now'. From day 1, air sampling and monitoring should have occurred. Decisions could then be made on data and not mathematical models from the the Met Office of all places. Zero tolerance is only safe in the event of alternatives existing. If no alternatives exist, decisions are made not out of care, but out of fear of civil action.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
D_Right_One | 21 Apr 2010 2:26 pm
Just because there is volcano erupting somewhere in the world doesn't mean it is the same condition as the one in Iceland. Plus the Icelandic volcano was very close to the flight patterns of Europe. I think "Anonymous" should test fly through the ash cloud to see about the danger.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Martin | 21 Apr 2010 3:37 pm
My opinion is that the "no fly" in affected areas was the correct decision as nobody appears to know the results of the potential damage to aircraft engines. In addition there is the airframe to consider, would it stand up to such abrasion from the resulting ash.
Two things emerge, one being the need to know the results of ash in aircraft engines, the other being able to detect, in real time, the movement across airspace.
While nobody wants the catastrophe of an aircraft crash, everyone is reliant upon air travel, from business, to the copious quantities of perishable food we import.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
RAVI P MALHOTRA | 21 Apr 2010 4:17 pm
In my opinion it is better to play safe and measure ash concentration levels in the skies of Europe. The aircraft height can be maximised and lean areas used for flying selectively. Priority and emergency flights should be allowed to take off with lot of caution. Hope there is no accident due to flying ash. Research may take time but concrete opinions of some expert committee to oversee the scientific implications can be considered. It is not a commercial decision to fly aircrafts or stranded passengers it should be cautious consisered scientific thought which should govern.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tony smee | 21 Apr 2010 5:13 pm
We need more skilled engineers with real practical knowledge, skills and experience to make judgements and find solutions quickly and effectively.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 Apr 2010 6:04 pm
I agree with your call for more research but having worked on jet engine overhaul for many years I was unconvinced that this ban was necessary. More like a kneejerk, backside covering politically correct move. Jet engines are incredibly robust and reliable. More frequent inspections for ash damage would make sense, but a blanket ban - definitely not. If people I know are typical, then many thousands will have driven for vast distances in a very tired state to overcome the problems of cancelled flights. Look for a big rise in european road accidents over these past few days!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment