England – Flawed computer models may have exaggerated the effects of an Icelandic volcano eruption that has grounded tens of thousands of flights, stranded hundreds of thousands of passengers and cost businesses hundreds of millions of euros.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The computer models that guided decisions to impose a no-fly zone across most of Europe in recent days are based on incomplete science and limited data, according to European officials. As a result, they may have over-stated the risks to the public, needlessly grounding flights and damaging businesses.
“It is a black box in certain areas,” Matthias Ruete, the EU’s director-general for mobility and transport, said on Monday, noting that many of the assumptions in the computer models were not backed by scientific evidence.
European authorities were not sure about scientific questions, such as what concentration of ash was hazardous for jet engines, or at what rate ash fell from the sky, Mr Ruete said. “It’s one of the elements where, as far as I know, we’re not quite clear about it,” he admitted.
He also noted that early results of the 40-odd test flights conducted over the weekend by European airlines, such as KLM and Air France, suggested that the risk was less than the computer models had indicated.
The acknowledgement that the computer models were flawed is likely to provide ammunition for critics who believe that authorities have shown excessive caution. The closure of much of the airspace over Europe over the past five days is estimated to have cost airlines a total of $200m a day in lost revenue.
Mr Ruete’s comments highlight the lack of technical expertise that has hamstrung European policymakers as they try to manage the consequences from a rare act of nature. Mr Ruete compared the scenario with his work in the 1980s trying to assess health risks after the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
He also urged European officials to consider adopting US aviation standards.
“If you take the situation across the Atlantic, there the advice would probably be: don’t fly over the volcano. Otherwise, it is up to you to take the precautions necessary,” Mr Ruete said.
While the US system leaves air carriers with the responsibility to determine whether or not it is safe to fly “the American model is not a model of less safety”, he said. “You just need to look at the statistics to see that.”
Under European rules, member states have the power to decide whether or not their airspace should be open. But decisions during the past week have been guided by computer models from the Volcanic Ash Centre in London and Eurocontrol, an organisation that co-ordinates air travel.
European safety procedures on volcanic ash were put in place after two incidents involving British Airways and KLM jets in the 1980s, in which aircraft engines lost power after flying through ash above Indonesia and Alaska.
In the wake of those events, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN body that sets flight standards, asked air traffic controllers to develop contingency plans. Under these plans, the presence of ash prompted airspace to be restricted.
Mr Ruete said it would require more study, and backing from all 27 EU member states, to use a US-style system, which gives carriers greater latitude – and potential liability – to make such judgments.
Mr Ruete’s opinion was seconded by airlines, which have argued that the risks have been over-stated. “Our flights have shown that we can fly safely in these environments,” said Aage Duenhaupt, a Lufthansa spokesperson. “The mathematics and the reality in the air have no correlation,” he added, referring to computer models used by the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre.
No one cares about the people. We are all statistics and robots for their experiments of one kind or another. Political or otherwise.
Better SAFE than SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No matter how much money it costs, lives are priceless.
I just knew that somehow there was going to be an angle how someone could be sued for an act of G-D. The airlines will now sue the Govt. of England to get their billions back and so will individuals who were stranded. A Korban (sacrifice) was finally found
The problem here is how EU manages the problem. They are very heavy on regulations and states jump quickly to luck down entire continent without even listening to experts. Many airports could have stayed open and the planes could fly detours to avoid the clouds. Not all airspace was affected by the clouds but still were shut down by E.U. strict regulations. They will learn their lessons and change their contingency plans for future regulations. But for now, E.U.s economy is continuing to be crippled and the aviation industry loses hundreds of millions of dollars every day out of hype.
Still best to err on the side of caution.
Oh yeah! I am waiting to see of any of the big “mohl machers” of the EU is ready to take a flight right now. Hey big shot. Put your money where your mouth is. Don’t worry. Loyds of london will issue you an insurance policy.
They should have used the same modelling group in the UK that so accurately confirmed theories of global warming. The are clearly the smartest guys in modeling these kind of atmospheric phenomena.
The two cases of civil aircraft that flew through visible ash clouds (and were still able to land), were in conditions that were very much more serious than the low density clouds that have been reaching Europe over the past week. Aerospace controllers have been much too cautious and experimental flight observers a lot too shy of doing anything significant in defining how much ash is dangerous, and as a result European airlines are the loosers. Air safety is crucial, but its definition should be carefully defined not beurocratically denied (knee-jerk like) at the moment it appears to threaten.
Airlines know that the cost of doing nothing is often more than the extra expense of taking a risk and reducing maintenance periods for engines and windscreens. The choice for preventative fatigue inspection is a case in point. The choice for operations should have been theirs. I have been in the business of aeronautics for over 50 years and too much nonsense about this subject leads to a great deal of importance being placed on the wrong shoulders. The airlines should sue the beurocrats for their losses.
British Airways Flight 9, sometimes referred to as the Speedbird 9 or Jakarta incident,[1] was a scheduled British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Auckland, with stops in Bombay, Madras, Kuala Lumpur, Perth, and Melbourne.
On 24 June 1982, the route was flown by the City of Edinburgh, a 747-236B. The aircraft flew into a cloud of volcanic ash thrown up by the eruption of Mount Galunggung (circa 180 kilometres (110 mi) south-east of Jakarta, Indonesia), resulting in the failure of all four engines. The reason for the failure was not immediately apparent to the crew or ground control. The aircraft was diverted to Jakarta in the hope that enough engines could be restarted to allow it to land there. The aircraft was able to glide far enough to exit the ash cloud, and all engines were restarted (although one failed again soon after), allowing the aircraft to land safely.
-Wikipedia
(I searched it because I’m in aviation and I remembered the incident)