

KLM pushes to resume passenger flights after tests - waterlesscloud
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100418/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_volcano

======
ErrantX
As I understand it the major risk is that because the ash cloud is very dry
radar won't pick it up at all.

So you could fly 1000 planes and miss the cloud by luck; but if you hit it
then potentially game over.

It seems a little silly that an industry with such stringent safety
regulations would take that kind of risk...

~~~
hugh3
Given the worst-case scenario of a failure of all engines and nothing else at
cruising altitude over Europe, and assuming you have a skilled pilot, what's
the probability of gliding in for a safe landing?

I'd think pretty high, since anywhere in Europe should be within safe gliding
distance of a reasonable-sized airport. There are stories of landing safely
under much worse conditions (eg the Gimli Glider which landed with no
hydraulics or electronics and that US Airways flight into the Hudson which
landed despite losing engines at low altitude).

~~~
lutorm
There are at least as many stories of not landing safely, not only killing the
people onboard but also on the ground. Europe is quite densely populated.

And I don't think you're within gliding distance of an airport at all,
especially since they fly lower than normal to avoid the ash, and even if they
are, I'm not sure what the odds of a successful dead-stick landing is. Given
that most pilots have probably never tried it, I'd bet the odds of stalling
out short of the runway or overrunning at high speed are pretty large.

Ultimately, it's a matter of weighting risk, and given that there seems to be
no accurate assessment in combination with the shitstorm that would arise if
they allowed flights to resume and a plane went down, I can't blame the
authorities.

~~~
sanj
Poweroff landings are part of all flight training, even for a simple flight
license. Any commercial pilot can handle it adroitly.

~~~
lutorm
It is for single-engine licenses, I'm not entirely sure that they are for
multi engine jets. Given the likelihood of an all-engine out, I'm not sure
that's practiced much. They also don't practice ditching on water, for
example. (And let me clarify that I'm not saying they couldn't set it down,
I'm sure they can do that. I'm saying that it's not clear to me that you can
easily manage energy so you end up at the end of the runway in a position to
touch down at the right speed.)

------
dll
The longer restrictions are in place, the more airlines will push to be
allowed to fly. I was due to fly from the UK to Qatar today, and I would much
rather delay further than take any chances. Safety should be more important
than profit.

~~~
gaius
You talk about profit as if it's something to be ashamed of. Facts are 1) if
safety really was more important _to you_ you wouldn't fly anywhere, you'd
stay safely at home and 2) if there are fewer airlines operating then _you
personally_ will need to pay more for your ticket.

~~~
dll
Profit is nothing to be ashamed of, but saying the skies are free of ash and
safe to fly in because of a couple of test flights? It seems to me that the
airlines are more scared of losing money than they are of losing planes.

Flying done properly is safer than crossing the street and I'm happy to take
that risk. Flying through an ash cloud is not something that generally turns
out good for aircraft engines; even if an initial inspection shows that all
appears fine with the aircraft and first stage fan blades, a borescope
inspection may reveal clogged turbine cooling air passages (see Grindle, T.,
J., and Burcham, Jr., F. W., 2002, Even Minor Volcanic Ash Encounters Can
Cause Major Damage to Aircraft).

If once all this is done airlines feel the need to charge more for tickets
then so be it - I'm happy to pay more if it's because of safety concerns.

~~~
gaius
_more scared of losing money than they are of losing planes_

They're scared of ceasing to exist, i.e. bankruptcy.

~~~
qq66
Fear of bankruptcy does not make it OK to fly a plane with 200 passengers into
conditions that may be unsafe.

~~~
gaius
No, but it does mean finding out what those conditions actually are (using
satellite images and volunteer pilots) rather than relying computer models
(guesswork at this stage).

------
bemmu
I am currently stranded in Tokyo with a group of passengers from Finland that
I will need to accommodate until the ash stops being an issue. These are the
risks that entrepreneurs take, nobody could expect that some random volcano in
Iceland of all places would cause 300 eur / day of losses, but life goes on.

------
modoc
My wife is currently stranded in Germany. As much as I miss her and want her
home, there's no way I'd want her to fly through a potential ash cloud given
that it doesn't show up on radar and the high risk of engine failure when
you're over the North Atlantic doesn't sound like a good plan. A couple short
range test flights do not mean it's safe to fly trans-Atlantic routes. When
you're 40,000 feet up over freezing waters, you need to play it safe.

------
riffraff
I still don't get the 200M losses per day. They are not paying back tickets
/natural causes), nor taking care of passengers (hei, no out fault!) and I
somehow doubt most people are buying tickets two days before flying.

Can someone explain?

~~~
swombat
Air companies are process-based businesses, like chemical processing plants.
They have an expensive infrastructure that costs money every day simply to
exist, whether or not it is being used.

It costs less money if no planes are flying at all (just like a chemical plant
presumably costs less if you shut it down), but there are still ongoing costs
to meet: salaries, administrative overheads, maintenance costs, regular check-
ups, etc. If you count just these, the loss is already substantial.

Then of course there's the opportunity cost. Every day that they're not flying
planes, they're not earning fees from passengers. As the costs are,
presumably, just a bit lower than the revenues (hopefully), this more than
doubles the previous number.

Also, they are actually paying back tickets (at least EasyJet is).

~~~
gaius
And just like a chemical plant costs more than it's normal operating costs to
start back up after a shutdown, an airline in a situation like this will have
a major repositioning exercise to go through. Planes, people, baggage,
freight, all are in the wrong places.

------
ugh
The two biggest German airlines Lufthansa and Air Berlin are now in a full on
PR war with the public authorities. It’s as if you flipped a switch, they
remained silent about the whole thing until today.

------
thijsterlouw
I'm very glad that KLM is pushing to lift the flight bans! From what I
understand, is there are no strict rules to decide when not to fly due to
volcanic eruptions. The current bans are just based on calculations and now
the KLM (and the two German airlines) have done tests and it shows it's safe
to fly. I want to catch my flight to the Netherlands from Hong Kong this
Saturday and I have full confidence in the integrity of KLM.

~~~
qq66
I'm really surprised at how many people express little to no concern about
being in a metal tube 5 miles up in what might be volcanic ash, given what ash
has done to other planes.

~~~
gaius
The pilot doesn't want to die either, and the airline don't want to lose their
expensive plane!

I'll happily jump on a plane as soon as airspace reopens knowing that.

------
iaskwhy
I wouldn't fly on those planes.

~~~
gaius
You need some Dutch courage :-)

~~~
qq66
In Delft a student offered to take me on the back of his bike, sitting on the
newspaper carrier. I expressed strong skepticism and he said, "Trust me, I'm
Dutch."

Within 50 yards of starting our journey, I had been unceremoniously spilled
onto the pavement, bleeding from my elbow.

~~~
FooBarWidget
I live in the Netherlands. I've sat on the back of bikes more than a hundred
times and I can't remember a single time that I've fallen to point where I'm
bleeding.

~~~
qq66
Ah, but how many times has someone told you "trust me, I'm Dutch"? That should
have been the only warning I needed :)

Also, I assume that there is some skill to being a good backseat rider, and
while I was not wiggling around, I was not actively helping steer either.

