EasyJet claims it has a miraculous new volcanic ash detector

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.