Airline passenger news and views
07 February 2012 | Sign In
Permitted ash levels are doubled
Sound science or an uncomfortable compromise?
|
Eugene Gold Monday 17 May 2010 |
There has been so much debate about the ‘safe’ levels of ash that one does wonder whether the CAA have been pushed into an uncomfortable compromise.
Before the initial volcanic eruption, there were justified complaints that the industry had missed opportunities to research and set acceptable standards for airborne pollutants. Following the eruption, the authorities moved swiftly, imposing strict safety rules resulting in airspace closures and massive disruption. Criticism and support was finely balanced but dying in an ash-related air crash is so much more final than being stranded for a week.
This week, the Meteorological Office got it ‘wrong’ when it advised closure of Heathrow and Gatwick when the ash cloud actually only came as far south as Manchester and Birmingham. Tough call, that one.
So, the CAA have relaxed the rules to allow double the ash intake if the aircraft and engine manufacturers certify it to be safe – which they are only going to be doing under heavy commercial pressure from their airline customers.
I really wish I knew the answer here and I have to accept that we cannot go on for the next few years having random cancelations and airspace closures. But, despite all of the problems, I still respect decisions that err on the side of safety.
| Comments | Post a comment |
|
Clinton Byles 20 May 2010, 03:03PM | |
The normal procedure is that aircraft would aim to fly around bad weather and ash clouds. This is ok if the ash is en-route but a bit difficult if it is in the airspace above the destination or takeoff airport | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Hilda Hutchinson, Sutton 20 May 2010, 05:13PM | |
Just seeing TV pictures of the ash is scary. Would I want to fly through it? Do I really need to go somewhere that desperately? | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Ken Heart, Rotherham 21 May 2010, 06:16AM | |
There seems to be so much confusion amongst the so called experts and that scares me more than the ash itself. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Mrs Waverley, Bedford 21 May 2010, 07:58AM | |
It must be very hard to anticipate exactly where and with what density these ash clouds are going to appear. I am sure that the authorities can tell exactly how thick it is once it is over the airport but that is to late for most of us. If we drive all the way to the airport and then get told we cannot fly then we are going to be upset. The weather people are trying to anticipate to save us the journey and they sometime get it wrong. I still think they are going a good job looking after our safety in difficult circumstances. | |
| Rating (0) | |
I am pleased if the result of this change is a reduction in delays and disruption but only if safety standards are maintained. The public cannot help here; we grumble loudly about delays but have nothing useful to contribute on the technical safety issues. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Phil Marks, Sutton 24 May 2010, 11:51AM | |
I can't believe the CAA have relaxed the rules and let engine and aircraft manufacturers decide. With the economy in pieces they might buckle under commercial pressure and let planes fly in these obviously dangerous conditions. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Sarah J, Kingston 26 May 2010, 10:59AM | |
I still stand by the CAA, it's their job to ensure the public is kept safe by ensuring safety decisions are based on scientific and engineering evidence. They continue to handle the situation amicably. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Jackie Penn, Essex 27 May 2010, 06:48PM | |
Do we know if this volcano has finished yet? Someone at work said that last time it erupted it went on for two years? Can that be for real? I am due to go on holiday in July and do not want there to be a problem then. | |
| Rating (0) | |
