“If airlines and aircraft makers did not understand the economic case for Fred Prata’s invention a week ago, they will now.
Since 1991 the atmospheric physicist has been developing a sensor to warn pilots about volcanic ash clouds up to 100 kilometres ahead of their plane so they can thread a safe path around it. But despite successful ground tests (see image), he has not been able to secure the funding to test it in the air.
With an estimated 6.8 million passengers grounded by airborne ash cloud from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano, and millions of pounds at stake, serious questions are being asked about the technological shortcomings of the current approach to protecting flights.
Ever since a Boeing 747 temporarily lost all four engines in an ash cloud in 1982, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has stipulated that skies must be closed as soon as ash concentration rises above zero. The ICAO’s International Airways Volcano Watch uses weather forecasting to predict ash cloud movements, and if any projections intersect a flight path, the route is closed.
But although it is certain that volcanic ash like that hanging over northern Europe can melt inside a jet engine and block airflow, nobody has the least idea about just how much is too much. After a week of losing millions every day, airlines are starting to ask why we can’t do better.”
Read more at New Scientist
Of course…now THEY are losing money this is suddenly important.
Hm, one plane and that caused this after all these years??? That plane, wasn’t it an older plane. How was maintenance and such (I’ve heard/read stories about this … lack of maintenance …). Was it only due to the ash or was it just one of a few factors that came together that day in that plane ? For an aircompany (and the manufacturers) it’s ofcourse easier to blame it on ash.
Tons of planes went down (really went down I mean .. ) before 1982 and after that which killed many people.
Ofcourse … that wont cost them that much money so whether there is enough stimulation to see into that (they almost always blame it on nature. If they could pull that off with cars Toyota probably would do that too … ).
Twenty eight years. Nah, not lack of funding …
Peter: The plane was a 747 – I think they may *still* use them on some smaller routes
It was a BA plane, so you’d expect maintenance to be ok (it’s not like it’s a Ryanair or an Aeroflot flight)… the thing about BA flight 009 (the one you are on about) was that it flew through ash just 150km away from the volcano (which had only just started erupting) – somewhat closer than, say, London Heathrow for example.
BTW: It definitely WAS the ash – the engines restarted once the plane dived, which was due to the cold air shattering the glassy ash deposits on the engines – the plane then climbed after regaining all 4 engines, and as soon as it hit the ash cloud again one of the engines cut out.
I bet they’ll be bashing down that Fred bloke’s door to get their hands on that invention asap!!!!
Volcanic ash is different from ordinary wooden ash. Flying through a cloud of volcanic ash would be like flying through a sandstorm – or throwing sandbags into the engines. If they decide to fly and risk it, they could be risking thousands of passengers’ lives.