Test flights in the ash, would you fly?

[mama2moo]

Test flights Would you fly if they told you if was safe even though ash was still in the air??

Not sure I would but am curious what everyone else thinks.

Willie Walsh and a crew of four are going on a test flight yes. Let's hope he hasn't got the Unite leader onboard. One of them may decide it's one way out of the argument!

Also the reason they don't fly low (apart from noise regulations, the likelihood of turbulence at lower levels, poor visibility due to clouds, birds collisions and fuel usage, is that it doesn't solve the problem. You fly through ash, it converts to glass in the engines. The engines stall and can't restart till it cools enough to drop out the engines. If you are only 10,000 feet up, you will hit the ground before they restart.

When it happened before they only just managed it because they were so high and had time for the engines to restart before they landed. And the engines then failed again on landing.

So no, I wouldn't risk it.

couldn't they have persuaded michael o'leary to go as well?

What were the circumstances of the planes that stalled previously? How close were they to the actual volcano etc I wonder?

also things have moved on since the 80s haven't they? so potentially technology/engine design etc.

I wouldn't be keen to fly tbh, and would much rather be stranded somewhere on the ground than in the sky on a stalling aircraft but I suppose the pilot doesn't want to die any more than we do.

2 days running our car has had dust on it and it must be from the volcano (no work site near us etc) But, we cant see it IYSWIM.

It is worrying that they are risking their lives to do these test runs.

It is also worrying that this is going to have a massive effect on air lines etc. If this lasts another week loads will go into administration surely.

wannaBe - the nature of jet engines hasn't changed. Besides that - the friction damage of the superheated ash hitting the plane can crack the windshield, bash the plane etc.

I think they should have stapled Michael O'Leary to the front as some sort of 'good luck' icon

They could have sold it to him as a free flight with a facial treatment thrown in!

I was on one of the very few (2??) planes that came into Manchester on Friday, at about 12.30 lunchtime.

I am here to tell the tale.

But, when we boarded in Vancouver, I felt sick with nerves.

Blimey - they told you pheasantplucker. Normally they just hope you don't notice the glassy fixed smiles of the flight attendants!

Well, we didn't take off till almost 8pm, and we had all been on the internet so knew the score! The flight was 4 hours late taking off, the pilot arrived, assured us he wouldn't fly unless he felt it was safe, and told us to head over to the boarding gate, no messing about!!

I was in two minds; I wanted to get home to my family, but I was TERRIFIED of what might happen midair......!

I nearly posted this too OP - right now I don't think I'd fly. The regulations were put in place with safety concerns in mind, this just seems to have money in mind.

What if they go through a denser region of ash than the test flight? The eruption can't be uniform. They
must be panicing because it looks to be continuing, and may get worse if the other one blows too. I think I read they are losing £200mill a day, in a recession. They must be desperate. Hopefully sense prevails.

It says now that airlines want a review and that its probably safe to fly.

No way would I get on a plane until this has all blown over

I wonder how long the test flights were for IYSWIM. Maybe if they were only 30 mins it wouldnt have any effect. It doesnt bare to think about might happen if it wasnt safe and everything went back to normal.

The difference with this volcano is that it is erupting through a glacier - not a common phenomenon. That is why the ash is so fine and (apparently) so dangerous.

I'd go on a test flight if I was asked, out of curiosity and because I'd trust the pilot not to take any stupid risks. Wouldn't fly on a normal plane though. There are enough reasons to believe it is dangerous. And I don't trust BA or Ryanair to put safety before money - maybe for a couple of days, but if this carries on for much longer, they are going to be desperate to get back in the air...

yes I would

Are they going to thoroughly clean out the engines of every plane after every journey then?? Doubt that

taking risks with passengers,crew and us lot all on the ground! Not on is it really??

there are different classes of volcano - some spew out ash, others gases etc, this one hasn't erupted since plane travel began, so it isn't REALLY known exactly how dangerous it is. Based on other incidents with plane meets volcanic ash, it is not safe to fly. however, this one could be different, and it's not like 'they' cold make it erupt, just a little bit, to test some theories, is it?

smaller planes can still fly cos they're internal combustion, not jet engine, and they fly lower.

if there had been flights going on for days/weeks etc, i would. if it was the first flight after a few tests - erm, no!

how 'funny' would it be, if it turns out it wasn't so dangerous after all? the whole thing's a nightmare.

Have just seen on sky the engine damage on a small fighter jet!! A small aircraft but so damaged now.... It landed ok tho

Was that the Finnish F18?

Belgian airspace closed effectively until 2000 tonight - only those who fly VFR (gliders and small aircraft) can fly up to 4500 feet, and that's a change from yesterday when all VFR flights were cancelled.

I don't understand how the Met Office test plane detected dangerous levels of ash, but the BA test plane found perfect conditions. I can't believe that it's money over safety as it's good business to ensure passengers arrive safely!

The BA plane wasn't equipped with the same instruments as the test flights.

The main issue isn't just about planes stalling and falling out of the sky. If a jet engine has (for example) 10,000 hours of flying time in it, prolonged flight through this ash will reduce that. And no one knows what that reduction will be.

Also, if planes continued to operate as normal there would have to be increased engine checks etc - which would be costly.

A pretty empty plane doing a 2 hour flight is different to a full craft doing longhaul.

Engineers and engine manufacturers just do not know what the potential effects are.

And if air traffic control aren't willing to provide a service during ash cloud conditions there is nowt that the air firms can do about it.

air traffic control....theres a whole new problem then!

On "PM" (Radio 4) someone in air traffic control was asked what they were doing... mostly getting bored from the sound of it.

They have to be there in case bans are called off, they're "monitoring" the situation (read: watching internet / TV, perhaps) but the chap said the radar screens were mostly empty and was very different to normal.

Some European pilot (/ air traffic spokesman) was complaining about the number of days lost before there was a conference call between transport ministers of several EU countries, while the airlines were losing 200m a day.

"I don't believe any pilot would put himself, his crew or his passengers in danger."

Given the possibility of job cuts (while the next 12 months sees lower passenger numbers) I bet any pilot told it is "safe" by his airline is going to question it too closely, lest s/he lose employment for not flying.

Boss of Ryanair was complaining about the costs involved, since EU airlines have to pay out for delayed customers, and his argument was that someone paying only a tenner was entitled to similar facilities as someone paying full fare on another airline.

I can see his point, but glad his airline is forced to accept the same regulations as others.

One thing I was surprised about was the BBC News at 18:00 on R4 as they didn't mention people claiming against their credit card company (if airline and insurance refused) as the service was "not as advertised" (there were a few insurance companies named on R4 Moneybox over the weekend, along with the wording one may need to make such a claim from Credit Card firms).

Hmm, I wonder if RyanAir would pay out for customers' claims including toilet trips at £1 a shot?