As the cloud thickens, some pilots are asking... Why can't we just fly beneath it?

I have Ash on my car how much lower do you want the planes to fly? what a load of tosh
- Del, Lerwick, 18/4/2010 5:23
Click to rate Rating 389
Report abuse

Ummm...people are scared to fly because of terrorism but they will fly when there is an actual foreseeable risk? wow.
- jen, cymru, 18/4/2010 5:15
Click to rate Rating 336
Report abuse

ok I dont work with passenger aircraft, just with small fast military ones, but believe me when goes through a sand storm the windscreens all need either polishing out or replacing, engine's have to be removed and overhauled, hydraulics purged etc etc. Believe me your better off walking.
- keith, Korrat Thailand, 18/4/2010 6:43
Click to rate Rating 273
Report abuse

"Low-flying to simply avoid the danger of ash being sucked into the jet engines is a temporary solution gaining currency on professional pilot's forum/"

I can best describe this comment in one word: FOOLISH.

This idea makes so many false presumptions that any one with common sense should easily recongnize them. 1) All the ash is in the "cloud". WRONG heavier particles are constantly falling out from the cloud as it moves. It is the density of the particles that may be less - but still not safe for flight at jet speeds. 2) Lower is better. It also means you have less opportunity to recover when not if something goes wrong. 3) New engines can take it. Wrong- they may actually be more vulnerable than the older piston style engines as the ash become heated to glass in the jet combustion chambers. 4) Yes airlines are losing money but is that REALLY cheaper than gamboling with 200+ souls? 5) Don't discount damage from the sandblast effect of ash particles on glass & equipment.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...g--Why-just-fly-beneath-it.html#ixzz0lVsvNgD0








Read the comments, ignorant conservatards.
 
First of all, commercial airliners have a set altitude for their flights. They try and stay around 35k feet. Varying the altitudes could cause major problems.

Second of all, the ash and debris in these clouds is not staying up in the air. Imagine blowing ground glass grit into your car engine.
 
tom prendergast said:
I live directly under this "cloud" and have not seen any spectacular sunsets or dust. I would prefer to listen to professional pilots rather than to you. By the way, Lerwick is in the Shetlands!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100419/tuk-ba-jumbo-completes-atlantic-test-fli-dba1618.html
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you could actually see it from your neck of the woods.

Things could be worse, you could be stranded in Thailand and sleeping on chairs!

Volcano_18.standalone.prod_affiliate.138.JPG


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/04/18/1384722/average-joe-vs-volcano.html
 
tom prendergast said:
I live directly under this "cloud" and have not seen any spectacular sunsets or dust. I would prefer to listen to professional pilots rather than to you. By the way, Lerwick is in the Shetlands!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100419/tuk-ba-jumbo-completes-atlantic-test-fli-dba1618.html
Click to expand...

A pilot isn't qualified to tell you about the mechanical effects of volcano ash on engines at a low altitude. That's for the engineers who designed the engines and, you know, crafted the regulations.

This is like deniers listening to meteorologists instead of climatologists.
 
Ash from a volcano isn't like ash from your campfire. It is full of debris, thick caustic dirt and chemicals. Flying through that and having it sucked into your engines and driven through those important bits of plane that keep you moving and thus in the air isn't smart. Cars will likely start having issues if people aren't constantly changing the air filters, and many people will be shocked at the damage to their paint. While the pilots could see the part they aren't realizing is that their planes would start falling out of the sky.
 
Stephen Colbert suggested a missile strike on Iceland for this travesty. If our pilots can't fly there, then he recommend nuking Greenland, because "its close enough." LOFL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top