http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/04/volcanic.ash.easyjet.detector/index.html

On Jun 4, 11:38*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/04/volcanic.ash.easyjet.detector/ind...

Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
acronym?

The new system -- dubbed the Airborne Volcanic Object Identifier and
Detector (AVOID) - was developed by Dr Fred Prata of the Norwegian
Institute for Air Research and has the backing of the British Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA).

People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
Pertinence like that.

In rec.aviation.piloting a > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:38Â*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/04/volcanic.ash.easyjet.detector/ind...
>
> Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
> acronym?
>
> The new system -- dubbed the Airborne Volcanic Object Identifier and
> Detector (AVOID) - was developed by Dr Fred Prata of the Norwegian
> Institute for Air Research and has the backing of the British Civil
> Aviation Authority (CAA).
>
> People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
> Pertinence like that.

There's that and that the technology is about 40 years old at least.

Back in the early 70's I was paying my tutition by (among other things)
bolting sensors on airplanes to measure tiny particulates at altitude.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 04/06/10 20:03, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 11:38 am, > wrote:
>>> http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/04/volcanic.ash.easyjet.detector/ind...
>>
>> Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
>> acronym?
>>
>> The new system -- dubbed the Airborne Volcanic Object Identifier and
>> Detector (AVOID) - was developed by Dr Fred Prata of the Norwegian
>> Institute for Air Research and has the backing of the British Civil
>> Aviation Authority (CAA).
>>
>> People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
>> Pertinence like that.
>
> There's that and that the technology is about 40 years old at least.
>
> Back in the early 70's I was paying my tutition by (among other things)
> bolting sensors on airplanes to measure tiny particulates at altitude.
>

There was an interview with one of the scientists on TV in the UK today.

It seems the technology has existed for years, it just wasn't cost
effective to fit before this year.



--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

William Black > wrote:
> On 04/06/10 20:03, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 11:38 am, > wrote:
>>>> http://us.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/06/04/volcanic.ash.easyjet.detector/ind...
>>>
>>> Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
>>> acronym?
>>>
>>> The new system -- dubbed the Airborne Volcanic Object Identifier and
>>> Detector (AVOID) - was developed by Dr Fred Prata of the Norwegian
>>> Institute for Air Research and has the backing of the British Civil
>>> Aviation Authority (CAA).
>>>
>>> People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
>>> Pertinence like that.
>>
>> There's that and that the technology is about 40 years old at least.
>>
>> Back in the early 70's I was paying my tutition by (among other things)
>> bolting sensors on airplanes to measure tiny particulates at altitude.
>>
>
> There was an interview with one of the scientists on TV in the UK today.
>
> It seems the technology has existed for years, it just wasn't cost
> effective to fit before this year.

Or more to the point, there was no incentive to have such a system before
this year as a volcano disrupting air traffic is historically a rare event.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article
>,
says...
>

>
>Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
>acronym?

>
>People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
>Pertinence like that.

How about PIF trauma?
Western governments are now completely regimented by Pie In the Face stress
disorder.
While a small majority of people still recognize they cannot blame their
governments for natural disasters (notwithstanding attempts at same by
inventing global warming), it has become routine and automatic to blame
them for not reacting adequately and not practicing enough prevention.

In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a year
has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There have
been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly worth
practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship for
millions for no justifiable cause. Geez - What’s a government to do?

In article >,
says...
>
> In article
> >,
> says...
> >
>
> >
> >Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
> >acronym?
>
> >
> >People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
> >Pertinence like that.
>
> How about PIF trauma?
> Western governments are now completely regimented by Pie In the Face stress
> disorder.
> While a small majority of people still recognize they cannot blame their
> governments for natural disasters (notwithstanding attempts at same by
> inventing global warming), it has become routine and automatic to blame
> them for not reacting adequately and not practicing enough prevention.
>
> In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a year
> has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There have
> been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly worth
> practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
> European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
> criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
> their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship for
> millions for no justifiable cause. Geez - What?s a government to do?

Short memory? - check this incident out (I think it's one of the major
incidents that's led to the closure of airways - they don't want a
repeat!) ...

A 747, all four engines stopped, for about 12 minutes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

--
Duncan.

In article
>,
writes:

> In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a year
> has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There have
> been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly worth
> practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
> European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
> criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
> their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship for
> millions for no justifiable cause.

Safety is a pretty justifiable cause. Nobody dies from accidents until the
accidents occur. The fact that nobody has died from a particular type of
accident does not mean that no precautions to prevent it should be taken.

Flights encountering volcanic ash have been few in number thus far, and
they've all been lucky. Assuming that aircraft flying over the ocean will
always be able to glide to land after an ash encounter is irresponsible.

The current known safe threshold for ash in jet engines is zero.

On Jun 8, 5:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Nobody dies from accidents until the
> accidents occur.

In article <b726c02b-536d-42b8-acc7-eabb63fed678
@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Jun 8, 5:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Nobody dies from accidents until the
> > accidents occur.

Please don't point out the troll. :)

--
Duncan.

On Jun 8, 5:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> The current known safe threshold for ash in jet engines is zero.

In that there is volcanic ash at non-zero concentrations throughout
the entire troposphere and often well higher, to avoid risk of
failure we had all better stay on the surface.

On Jun 8, 4:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Assuming that aircraft flying over the ocean will
> always be able to glide to land after an ash encounter is irresponsible.

Airplanes never fall out of the skies short of catostraphic
damage...

Even over the Atlantic, they can glide. Mighty expensive glider, but
they can glide and it may be a splashdown but they can land.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:30:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> Airplanes never fall out of the skies short of catostraphic
> damage...

No ****ing ****. Thanks for that useless piece of data.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

a writes:

> In that there is volcanic ash at non-zero concentrations throughout
> the entire troposphere and often well higher ...

You're free to take the risk if you wish. I don't want to be on the plane.
There are too many memorials to people who underestimated risks.

No memory problem here - that was one of the anecdotal encounters I referred
to. Do you want me to point out the other one, or should I leave you the
satisfaction of "informing" a group of already informed contributors? My point
was that these encounters do not, in fact, in any way justify the summary,
knee-jerk reaction of the Eurpoean authorities in the latest case.

The good side of this is that the authorities' response was so egregiously
inappropriate and disproportioned, that it shed light on the limitations of a
"Precautions Without Borders" policy and most people understood that we are at
the threshold where our precautions are going to start costing lives, possibly
in greater number than the risk they're meant to thwart.



In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> In article
>> >,
>> says...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
>> >acronym?
>>
>> >
>> >People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
>> >Pertinence like that.
>>
>> How about PIF trauma?
>> Western governments are now completely regimented by Pie In the Face stress
>> disorder.
>> While a small majority of people still recognize they cannot blame their
>> governments for natural disasters (notwithstanding attempts at same by
>> inventing global warming), it has become routine and automatic to blame
>> them for not reacting adequately and not practicing enough prevention.
>>
>> In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a year
>> has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There have
>> been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly worth
>> practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
>> European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
>> criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
>> their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship for
>> millions for no justifiable cause. Geez - What?s a government to do?
>
>Short memory? - check this incident out (I think it's one of the major
>incidents that's led to the closure of airways - they don't want a
>repeat!) ...
>
>A 747, all four engines stopped, for about 12 minutes.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>
>--
>Duncan.

But the "zero" threshold for risk in aviation does not exist.
My advice would be to simply stay away from airplanes and aviation
altogether. The sum of your posts proves without contest that you are
terrified of airplanes and flying. That's OK. Take boats, and leave the flying
to pilots.



In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article
>,
writes:
>
>> In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a year
>> has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There have
>> been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly worth
>> practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
>> European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
>> criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
>> their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship for
>> millions for no justifiable cause.
>
>Safety is a pretty justifiable cause. Nobody dies from accidents until the
>accidents occur. The fact that nobody has died from a particular type of
>accident does not mean that no precautions to prevent it should be taken.
>
>Flights encountering volcanic ash have been few in number thus far, and
>they've all been lucky. Assuming that aircraft flying over the ocean will
>always be able to glide to land after an ash encounter is irresponsible.
>
>The current known safe threshold for ash in jet engines is zero.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>a writes:
>
>> In that there is volcanic ash at non-zero concentrations throughout
>> the entire troposphere and often well higher ...
>
>You're free to take the risk if you wish. I don't want to be on the plane.
>There are too many memorials to people who underestimated risks.


It's OK. Your panic reaction to flying is something you share with many
others. No one can judge you for the fact that you are terrified to tears
as soon as you see an airplane. Just do us a favor and do not try to
confuse this irrational panic respone with any form of reason, particularly
in the presence of others who fly planes and who know how dissociated you
are. You can get help for your phobia, but please stop trying to make us
think that your fear of flying is in any way pilots' fault. that's a cheap
out and will not help you overcome your problem.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
>
>> In that there is volcanic ash at non-zero concentrations throughout
>> the entire troposphere and often well higher ...
>
> You're free to take the risk if you wish.

What risk?

There is in fact volcanic ash at non-zero concentrations throughout the
entire troposphere and often well higher most of the time.

> I don't want to be on the plane.

We are all well aware you don't want to be on any real airplane as you
have already said this many times.

> There are too many memorials to people who underestimated risks.

Another irrelevent red herring.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 8, 2:49*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > In that there is volcanic ash at non-zero concentrations throughout
> > the entire troposphere and often well higher ...
>
> You're free to take the risk if you wish. I don't want to be on the plane..
> There are too many memorials to people who underestimated risks.

That would be any jet driven airplane flown anywhere in the world,
given that is how widely dispersed volcanic is. There are many who
also overestimate risks. The more rational approach is to weigh risk
and benefits without one's thumb or ego on the scale.

I did feed the troll, sorry guys.

a writes:

> That would be any jet driven airplane flown anywhere in the world,
> given that is how widely dispersed volcanic is. There are many who
> also overestimate risks. The more rational approach is to weigh risk
> and benefits without one's thumb or ego on the scale.

So how would you weigh the risks with significant amounts of ash in the air
from a nearby volcano? The airlines cared only about money, not safety, so
their "evaluation" of risk was straightforward, and again thanks to money,
they twisted the arms of aviation authorities.

Alaska Airlines does have a policy for volcanic ash, but nobody asked them
about it, apparently.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> So how would you weigh the risks with significant amounts of ash in the air
> from a nearby volcano?

Through testing, which up until recently was a non-issue because of the
paucity of ash for any significant period of time in anyplace that anyone
cared much about.

That has changed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Not sure why you refer to said encounter as anecdotal. To suggest that
implies the evidence is just heresay, or a) it wasn't volcanic ash, or
b) volcanic ash does not cause problems in jet engines.

Nor do I agree with you that the authorities action is a knee-jerk one.
They go by the data they have - and their recommended closure spaces are
not excessive IMO.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/vaacuk_vag.html

Do you think the authorities *want* to close airspace? Do you think
they do not realise how much revenue is lost to the airline industry and
to countries? (I'm sure they don't take that into account in their
scientifiy analysis - I sure hope they don't - that's not their job.)

--
Duncan.

In article >,
says...
>
> No memory problem here - that was one of the anecdotal encounters I referred
> to. Do you want me to point out the other one, or should I leave you the
> satisfaction of "informing" a group of already informed contributors? My point
> was that these encounters do not, in fact, in any way justify the summary,
> knee-jerk reaction of the Eurpoean authorities in the latest case.
>
> The good side of this is that the authorities' response was so egregiously
> inappropriate and disproportioned, that it shed light on the limitations of a
> "Precautions Without Borders" policy and most people understood that we are at
> the threshold where our precautions are going to start costing lives, possibly
> in greater number than the risk they're meant to thwart.
>
>
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >In article >,
> >says...
> >>
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> says...
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
> >> >acronym?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
> >> >Pertinence like that.
> >>
> >> How about PIF trauma?
> >> Western governments are now completely regimented by Pie In the Face stress
> >> disorder.
> >> While a small majority of people still recognize they cannot blame their
> >> governments for natural disasters (notwithstanding attempts at same by
> >> inventing global warming), it has become routine and automatic to blame
> >> them for not reacting adequately and not practicing enough prevention.
> >>
> >> In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a year
> >> has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There have
> >> been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly worth
> >> practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
> >> European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
> >> criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
> >> their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship for
> >> millions for no justifiable cause. Geez - What?s a government to do?
> >
> >Short memory? - check this incident out (I think it's one of the major
> >incidents that's led to the closure of airways - they don't want a
> >repeat!) ...
> >
> >A 747, all four engines stopped, for about 12 minutes.
> >
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
> >
> >--
> >Duncan.



--
Duncan.

On Jun 8, 7:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> and again thanks to money,
> they twisted the arms of aviation authorities.

And you know this how???????????????????????????

SOURCES please or are you talking out of your imaginary head?

By *anecdotal* I didn’t mean to discredit the information, which we know is
factual, only to indicate the one-off (OK, two-off) nature of the event and
the need to avoid exaggerating its importance in overall risk management. If
we were to count up all of the things that have happened once or twice and
make rules for each case we wouldn’t be flying a lot. A couple of years back a
jet developed a fuel leak and just barely made an emergency landing before all
engines quit. They had correctly planned their fuel reserves and had no way of
knowing there was a leak until it became an emergency. We could, based on this
one incident, modify ETOPS procedures to indicate all aircraft must remain
within gliding distance of an airport at all times. That would be an excess of
precaution based on an anecdotal incident, but the incident, and the risk were
real.

Do government officials *want* to close the airspace? What they want is to
hold onto their posh jobs, and to do so they want to avoid being blamed for
responding poorly to crises, natural and otherwise. This time it backfired to
a degree, as most people do not share your opinion that the cancellations were
reasonable. However, your opinion is the more understandable in that you
appear to be in the UK, which was the zone most at risk during the incident (I
was going to say *affected* but that would probably be overstating the case).
In other countries, France for example, cancelled all flights in and out of
Paris, while for most of the time all flights operating to and from southerly
and easterly directions could have operated normally, with no risk increase.
Most people there felt (from published polls) that the measures were
disproportionate and created unnecessary hardships for thousands.

I find it amusing that Obama is caught in turmoil over the BP accident.
Certainly he could not have predicted the accident, and certainly one it has
occurred it is a real technical challenge to stop it. He cannot slam his fist
on the table and make the oil stop flowing. The funny part is trying to
imagine the reaction had he issued a precautionary moratorium on all oil
exploitation and exploration in the Gulf BEFORE the accident!!




In article >,
says...
>
>
>Not sure why you refer to said encounter as anecdotal. To suggest that
>implies the evidence is just heresay, or a) it wasn't volcanic ash, or
>b) volcanic ash does not cause problems in jet engines.
>
>Nor do I agree with you that the authorities action is a knee-jerk one.
>They go by the data they have - and their recommended closure spaces are
>not excessive IMO.
>
>http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/vaacuk_vag.html
>
>Do you think the authorities *want* to close airspace? Do you think
>they do not realise how much revenue is lost to the airline industry and
>to countries? (I'm sure they don't take that into account in their
>scientifiy analysis - I sure hope they don't - that's not their job.)
>
>--
>Duncan.
>
>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> No memory problem here - that was one of the anecdotal encounters I
referred
>> to. Do you want me to point out the other one, or should I leave you the
>> satisfaction of "informing" a group of already informed contributors? My
point
>> was that these encounters do not, in fact, in any way justify the summary,
>> knee-jerk reaction of the Eurpoean authorities in the latest case.
>>
>> The good side of this is that the authorities' response was so egregiously
>> inappropriate and disproportioned, that it shed light on the limitations of
a
>> "Precautions Without Borders" policy and most people understood that we are
at
>> the threshold where our precautions are going to start costing lives,
possibly
>> in greater number than the risk they're meant to thwart.
>>
>>
>>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> In article
>> >> >,
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Can we make it a crime to twist words so as to create a clever
>> >> >acronym?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >People get paid money to come up with Characters Rearranged Avoiding
>> >> >Pertinence like that.
>> >>
>> >> How about PIF trauma?
>> >> Western governments are now completely regimented by Pie In the Face
stress
>> >> disorder.
>> >> While a small majority of people still recognize they cannot blame their
>> >> governments for natural disasters (notwithstanding attempts at same by
>> >> inventing global warming), it has become routine and automatic to blame
>> >> them for not reacting adequately and not practicing enough prevention.
>> >>
>> >> In the hundred something years that airplanes have been flying, not a
year
>> >> has gone by without volcanoes erupting somewhere on the planet. There
have
>> >> been a couple of anecdotal run-ins at very high altitude - certainly
worth
>> >> practicing some avoidance, but the death toll still remains at zero. The
>> >> European governments must feel a great sense of injustice at being
>> >> criticized for pulling the main circuit breaker on the entire society in
>> >> their latest _prevention_ efforts, causing untold damage and hardship
for
>> >> millions for no justifiable cause. Geez - What?s a government to do?
>> >
>> >Short memory? - check this incident out (I think it's one of the major
>> >incidents that's led to the closure of airways - they don't want a
>> >repeat!) ...
>> >
>> >A 747, all four engines stopped, for about 12 minutes.
>> >
>> >
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
>> >
>> >--
>> >Duncan.
>
>
>
>--
>Duncan.