Volcanic Ash flight disruptions June 2011

[Standby]

There is a member on here that has a vast amount of knowledge and expertise in this specific area says that just because other airlines are doing it doesn't make it a good idea.
I guess each airline has their different risk management policies, but I think the communication is the big issue affecting each of the airlines currently.
Is this a reason not to fly QF? I guess that is an individual decision to make is it not

I have also been wondering why QF hasnt been flying so I phoned a friend at QF.
The Chief Pilot has released an internal note today(probobly find its way to the web site at some stage) part of which is attached
and given his comments I think they doing the right thing

"We also have a Bureau of Meteorology expert permanently based in our operations centre, and we work closely with the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) in Darwin.
Unlike the meteorological authorities in Europe, Australia’s VAAC does not have the ability to calculate ash density so we are unable to access definitive measurements. Our policy is not to fly into areas where the concentration of volcanic ash is unknown. Without certainty about the density of the ash, we do not consider it safe to fly. "

 

[mannej]

Well what information do you want?
There is information everywhere;
-QF Website
-QF Facebook
-QF Twitter
-JQ Website
-ALL news websites
-Their phone lines
-The airports
-TV News
-Talk back radio
-FM radio news
-AM radio news

The website on the QF website does provide information, but I think the member believes that the info is not relevant to them. What they want to know is when they will get home, and I guess the frustration is understandable.

 

[dk4]

You are silly if you call it spin.... The cost of leaving planes on the ground isn't worth any perceived "spin".Then if you aren't an expert, dont comment on QF's risk analsys of the ash and potential effects.

Unlike Qantas stooges, I don't need to be an "ash" expert to call "spin" when I see it. Qantas' blanket decision not to fly, when other major world airlines, the RAAF (Tas-pollie-express) and VAA continued to fly, is driven almost purely by marketing. They hope to create a sense of security in much the same way pollies do when talking about growing law&order problems, playing on peoples' fears and then claiming they are tough on crime, when they created the mania in the first place.

As for Tiger, at the rate they cancel flights on "normal" days, no wonder they slapped on a blanket ban to save some more money.

You think I'm silly, I think you are... we are going to have to agree to disagree at this point.

You'd become quiet very quickly if Virgin or Air NZ found engine damage caused by ash down the track...

If something happens down the track, due to operational wear and tear, I expect the team at Virgin will find it and fix it, before it becomes an issue and any of their engines start falling off any of their aircraft.

 

[medhead]

I don't know what is best to airport or not. But my experience yesterday was that the ADL QP staff flat out refused to rebook me when I turned up for my (already rebooked) 16:55 flight, which had been cancelled. Now I knew it was cancelled but went to the airport anyway, as I wanted see what the service would be like and I had 2 hours to kill. (also the airport and QP were very quiet so I didn't stuff anyone around)

By comparison the telephone staff were very quick and helpful about changing flights. The longest I waited online was 1.5 minutes as a platinum. My first call was also at about 11:30 pm.

Ended up flying with virgin and they left 12 minutes late for "ATC reasons". The QF flight I was offered departed about 2 hours late. Training at 10 am, thank you virgin. There were also many QFFers on the virgin flight including an unhappy looking gold next to me in 3B. I had to tell him the L2A was free, due to the 12 minute delay, when he swiped his CC.

 

[markis10]

Ended up flying with virgin and the left 12 minutes late for ATC reasons. The QF flight I was offered departed about 2 hours late. Training at 10 am, thank you virgin. There were also many QFFers on the virgin flight including an unhappy looking gold next to me in 3B. I had to tell him the L2A was free, due to the 12 minute delay, when he swiped his CC.

L2A is free on all two hour or less flights now AFAIK, saves the crew spending time swiping the screens of all the flexi passengers perhaps?

 

[docjames]

Correct, do NOT head to the airport for rebooking, there are limited staff that are trained in ticketing/sales and the general wait yesterday was probably over 2 hours.

Not wanting to sound flippant (because that's not my intention), but that would approximately be the wait on the end of a telephone.......

 

[markis10]

Not wanting to sound flippant (because that's not my intention), but that would approximately be the wait on the end of a telephone.......

So you would rather stand in a queue for two hours then sit on a phone, not to mention the time taken to get to the airport or waiting around after you found out your new flight???? If it was Sydney the car park would cost you more than a hotel room in the first place .

 

[medhead]

L2A is free on all two hour or less flights now AFAIK, saves the crew spending time swiping the screens of all the flexi passengers perhaps?

Yeah, probably. I'm not sure. But the CSM did say it was in free mode due to the delay before take off. Maybe a bit of poetic licence to allay any concerns? The flight did end up being 2 hours due to the lower operating altitude....

 

[Danger]

Sadly, QF's website inconsistency has spread. While the major disruptions page says flights to and from JNB are confirmed, the flight status page for QF303 (PER-JNB), as well as the Perth Airport website, indicate the flight has ben cancelled. No doubt they've confirmed QF63/64 and forgotten about their codeshare. It's a bit hard to get accurate information when even the source doesn't know what's happening.

 

[medhead]

I have also been wondering why QF hasnt been flying so I phoned a friend at QF.
The Chief Pilot has released an internal note today(probobly find its way to the web site at some stage) part of which is attached
and given his comments I think they doing the right thing

"We also have a Bureau of Meteorology expert permanently based in our operations centre, and we work closely with the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) in Darwin.
Unlike the meteorological authorities in Europe, Australia’s VAAC does not have the ability to calculate ash density so we are unable to access definitive measurements. Our policy is not to fly into areas where the concentration of volcanic ash is unknown. Without certainty about the density of the ash, we do not consider it safe to fly. "

You know I've restrained myself from commenting on this, until now. Big caveat to say I'm not making any judgements about the decisions of any airline.

I'm confused by this suggestion that flying at lower altitude is not safe. Information released suggests the ash cloud is in the stratosphere. Records and measurements of radioactive fallout from the atmosphere suggest that there is very, very little mixing between the troposphere and stratosphere. With at least a 5 year and maybe 10 to 15 year lag between major atomic bomb tests and appearance of that fallout in surface sediments. So it seems to me that in the very short term (2 to 3 days) there would be negligible ash moving from the stratosphere to the troposphere and hence flying below the tropopause should be an effective control to prevent flying into the ash cloud.

Obviously this is a very general view. One issue is that the ash may behave differently to the radioactive fallout. Hence I have limited my comments to very short term situation. Finally, to repeat, I'm not judging, just outlining something that I have been pondering.

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas flight disruptions 12 June (affects some trans tasman flights)

Unlike Qantas stooges, I don't need to be an "ash" expert to call "spin" when I see it. Qantas' blanket decision not to fly, when other major world airlines, the RAAF (Tas-pollie-express) and VAA continued to fly, is driven almost purely by marketing. They hope to create a sense of security in much the same way pollies do when talking about growing law&order problems, playing on peoples' fears and then claiming they are tough on crime, when they created the mania in the first place.

As for Tiger, at the rate they cancel flights on "normal" days, no wonder they slapped on a blanket ban to save some more money.

You think I'm silly, I think you are... we are going to have to agree to disagree at this point.

If something happens down the track, due to operational wear and tear, I expect the team at Virgin will find it and fix it, before it becomes an issue and any of their engines start falling off any of their aircraft.

So you think grounding flights costing millions of dollars per day is a marketing ploy?? I don't know which business school you went to! And I didn't know marketing people were employed by Flight Ops! wow that is something new! If Qantas determine that it isn't safe based on the information at hand, that is their call. If Virgin decide it is an acceptable risk to continue to fly, it is also their call.

I wasn't referring to wear and tear.. I was referring to damage caused by ash. Specifically from flying under the ash cloud.

oh and I am not a Qantas stooge as you so kindly put it..

 

[docjames]

Re: Volcano flight disruptions June 2011

So you would rather stand in a queue for two hours then sit on a phone, not to mention the time taken to get to the airport or waiting around after you found out your new flight???? If it was Sydney the car park would cost you more than a hotel room in the first place .

I was thinking more as flights begin running again, I'd rather wait at the airport as I can go on any flight (and not have to factor in transport to airport time).

Waiting on hold isnt cheap if you're on a mobile or Overseas (NZ on an Aus mobile).

 

[markis10]

Re: Qantas flight disruptions 12 June (affects some trans tasman flights)

I wasn't referring to wear and tear.. I was referring to damage caused by ash. Specifically from flying under the ash cloud.
..

If there was a risk to flying under the ash cloud then there would be no lower level for the VAAC warnings, ICAO’s guidelines for safe flight call for the avoidance of all encounters with ash and this advice has been incorporated into safety management systems operated by leading air traffic services and airspace management organisations, so if there is any possibility of ash under the levels indicated by the VAAC warnings, it would be part of the warning!

As you can see from this aersol lidar shot taken from Zurich last year during the icelandic eruption, the ash is often only in the upper flight levels:

It is safe to assume that the level of risk with flying under the ash cloud is exactly the same as flying in an area with no known ash, at the end of the day the country is not covered with aerosol lidars that can give us a better assessment of the situation so there is always a miniscule risk of an ash encounter that was not forecast not matter where you may fly.

I should point out that I am neither a volcanic ash expert or a meteorologist, however I am a licenced meteorological observer, so I have a small understanding of how weather works! As such I have great faith the in the forecasts put out by Darwin VAAC and the BOM in general!

 

[yohy?!]

NZ's measured release on the Ash question

Ash - Important Information - Air New Zealand - Australia Site

 

[pshepvic]

A lovely ash fueled sunset in Melbourne tonight

 

[nlagalle]

Re: Qantas flight disruptions 12 June (affects some trans tasman flights)

If there was a risk to flying under the ash cloud then there would be no lower level for the VAAC warnings, ICAO’s guidelines for safe flight call for the avoidance of all encounters with ash and this advice has been incorporated into safety management systems operated by leading air traffic services and airspace management organisations, so if there is any possibility of ash under the levels indicated by the VAAC warnings, it would be part of the warning!

As you can see from this aersol lidar shot taken from Zurich last year during the icelandic eruption, the ash is often only in the upper flight levels:

It is safe to assume that the level of risk with flying under the ash cloud is exactly the same as flying in an area with no known ash, at the end of the day the country is not covered with aerosol lidars that can give us a better assessment of the situation so there is always a miniscule risk of an ash encounter that was not forecast not matter where you may fly.

I should point out that I am neither a volcanic ash expert or a meteorologist, however I am a licenced meteorological observer, so I have a small understanding of how weather works! As such I have great faith the in the forecasts put out by Darwin VAAC and the BOM in general!

I agree with what you are saying, and I don't dispute what the BOM and VAAC have put out by any means (heck i use them when I fly too), my point above was that QF didn't suspend services as a marketing ploy as suggested. And that if their risk analysis suggests it isn't safe for whatever reason, that's their call to stop flying.

Looking at the flip side, had they kept flying and ash damage was found in an engine can you imagine the media storm that would have followed?

 

[pshepvic]

Re: Qantas flight disruptions 12 June (affects some trans tasman flights)

Looking at the flip side, had they kept flying and ash damage was found in an engine can you imagine the media storm that would have followed?

Yes, and I think it would definitely be an opportunity for a Qantas bashing, so I think that's why they've taken the most conservative approach.

Many have said VA made a commercial decision to keep flying, rather than a safety decision, but ultimately I think with their reputation playing a big part in QF's decision, their's is therefore just as much a commercial decision not to fly. After all, an incident would have irrepairable damage to their brand and bottom line.

 

[LiamR]

I would hate to think its a marketing ploy. QF would rather use 10% more fuel that ground the entire fleet.

Did somebody earlier say that QF have a clear cut policy. Any Ash. No Fly. I guess they are just following it. Good on them. Maybe they think in the long term it could cause some damage? Who knows?

Yes, and I think it would definitely be an opportunity for a Qantas bashing, so I think that's why they've taken the most conservative approach.

Many have said VA made a commercial decision to keep flying, rather than a safety decision, but ultimately I think with their reputation playing a big part in QF's decision, their's is therefore just as much a commercial decision not to fly. After all, an incident would have irrepairable damage to their brand and bottom line.

It's in the culture at QF to take a safety first approach.

 

[Misha]

It's in the culture at QF to take a safety first approach.

In all fairness, I think that is the formal approach of all Australian (Western?) airlines...

 

[clifford]

Re: Qantas flight disruptions 12 June (affects some trans tasman flights)

After all, an incident would have irrepairable damage to their brand and bottom line.

And, of course, Qantas hasn't had an incident for quite a while.