Jump to content

Talk:Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.106.255.204 (talk) at 16:08, 18 April 2010 (→‎Russia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit conflict notice tag

Is there a tag for "This page is edited frequently. To avoid edit conflicts, please try to edit only the section you want to modify" ? --Miikka Raninen (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timezones

There is way too many different timezones in this article. Why can't we just use one? KzKrann (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu time, also known as Greenwich mean time, is the standard used in aviation, so that would be the one that would make sense to standardise on... - The Bushranger (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is UTC. Use of the term GMT is deprecated outside the UK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

Lets keep dates on all times noted, I quote;
"The Eyjafjallajökull eruption grounded most air traffic in northern Europe from 15 April 2010, and there was no sign of significant improvement as of the forecast for 17 April at 06:00 GMT."
What date is this forecast made? --Rilmallion (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, disregard my above question, it was the format of the time mentioned that threw me, it is as of the forecasted situation for april 17th at 6 am GMT (not forecasted at 6 am GMT for the 17th of april) --Rilmallion (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affected countries

I've reverted a couple of countries which were just cancelling flights to countries where airspace were closed (eygpt and malta). I think we should just have this section refer to countries where airspace was closed rather than just flight cancellations (otherwise we'll be listing just about every country in the world) ChrisUK (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new and can't figure out my way around the HTML, however Italy has recently been afflicted and I think it should be added to the list. DanWilliamLake —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanWilliamsLake (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Welcome aboard! If you can find a reference saying that, then please feel free to add it. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think other countries should get a genral mention, especially with the current title of the page page--sss333 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US - Cyprus

Hey! Stop write about Cyprus, Malta and unaffected countries. Of cource flights to the area covered with ash is delayed. But its the same for flights from US and Japan for example. Just countries directly affected by ashclouds thanks. KzKrann (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eutocontrol image used in swedish Aftonbladet.se

On http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article6964456.ab there is an rather intresting image, I wonder what license the image in question actually has and if it cen be used here; Couldn't find any information at eurocontrol.int →AzaToth 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Eurocontrol's copyright page they do not use a license which is compatible with ours. So we cannot use this image, unfortunately. __meco (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Image Suggestion

I would like to suggest to use this NASA image. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=43670 Thank you. --189.101.227.147 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Russia is clearly afected on any map about the ashclouds, but keeps its airspace open. Saint Petersburg is open, although neibourgh Finland is closed since the beggining, anyone can explain this? Can't find an explanation anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.156.195 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Russia has a different set of rules. That the airspace is open doesn't mean jet aircraft are flying in ash clouds. Also, (speculation!) we're being over cautious in Europe. This situation could continue for months, but we'll not be keeping a/c on the ground for that long! As I remark below it is not correct to say "all airspace is closed". The correct description would be that "controlled airspace is closed to IFR flights". If you're a tourist or a 737 jockey the effect is the same, but not true nevertheless. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russians are not wimps.122.106.255.204 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts as well, but it's strange nobody is covering this. It's specially clear on this map by NYT [1] sorry don't really know how to use wikipedia ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.156.195 (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russia also has a great deal of airspace not touched at all by the ash. Rather a large country, after all. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.6 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only IFR flights in controlled airspace are grounded

The article overstates the situation. Not all airspace is closed for all flights. What NATS has announced is that no IFR clearances will be issued. Jet-engines are affected but piston engines are not (except in the densest of ash). No clearance is required for flights outside controlled airspace and controlled airspace is closed for IFR flights only. All scheduled passenger flights must be flown IFR but chartering a piston-engined aircraft to fly VFR Biggin Hill to Nice, for example, is permitted and possible. I don't know how to best go about fixing the article, but I'll have a shot. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that severity of restriction varies country by country. For example, in Finland the restriction is as follows:
EFHK A0551/10 NOTAMR A0549/10 Q) EFIN/QSTXX/IV/NBO/AE/000/999/6039N02448E025 A) EFHK B) 1004172326 C) 1004191500 E) EFIN FIR/UIR: TO GUARANTEE FLIGHT SAFETY, THE FINNISH TRANSPORT SAFETY AGENCY (TRAFI) CONTINUES TO RESTRICT AVIATION ON THE BASIS OF AVIATION LAW (1194/2009) S.84 DUE TO VOLCANIC ASH IN THE ATHMOSPHERE. THE RESTRICTION APPLIES TO ALL FLIGHTS WITH POWERED AIRCRAFT AT AD. THE RESTRICTIONS MAY NOT AFFECT THE FLIGHTS CONDUCTED OR REQUESTED BY THE BORDER GUARD, CUSTOMS, POLICE, MARITIME OR AVIATION AUTHORITIES OR FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES. DECISIONS CONCERNING MILITARY AVIATION ARE MADE BY THE MILITARY AVIATION AUTHORITY. BEFORE PERFORMING THE FLIGHTS CONDUCTED BY THE BORDER GUARD, CUSTOMS, POLICE, MARITIME OR AVIATION AUTHORITIES OR AUTHORITIES IN CHARGE OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES OR MILITARY AVIATION MUST CONTACT THE SUPERVISOR OF FINLAND ACC TO ENSURE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES TEL +358 3 286 5171. F) SFC G) UNL
(Source: http://ourairports.mobi/airports/EFHK/notams.html)
88.112.210.200 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hopefully, there exist news articles that deal with this particular angle, and they can be used for writing about it in our article. __meco (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about WP:OR and WP:VS but the article makes the mistake of using newspapers as authoritative sources of fact here. It's fine to say that "The Times reported all airspace is closed" but it is not correct to say "all airspace is closed" because that is factually wrong. I flew Newnham - Stapleford - White Waltham while Heathrow, Stansted etc were closed. I was far from alone in being in the air and I was in contact with Farnborough Radar (i.e. Air Traffic Control) for the latter part of the trip. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's specifically WP:SYN that is at issue. Everything we write must be sourced appropriately or else it can be removed. If you know for a fact that what the newspapers write is inaccurate, try and go to their sources, i.e. aviation agency websites, to see if the more correct representation of the facts can be found there. __meco (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research but at least one jet aircraft (HS125) has just left Biggin Hill heading south, it was flying low but within controlled aerospace and presumably a VFR flight. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it *can* be removed. I suggest that we do not, in this case, where it is known that what the BBC and the newspapers are saying is rubbish. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked. Unfortunately you need a log in to see the actual ASHTAM (notification of volcanic ash and restrictions imposed as a consequence). But here it is (I quote, but my emphasis):
 Q) EGXX/QWWLW/IV/NBO/W/000/195/5441N00219W999
 B) FROM: 10/04/17 08:34C) TO: 10/04/17 23:59 EST 
 E) A VOLCANIC ASH VA CLOUD, ORIGINATING IN ICELAND IS HAVING A MAJOR 
 IMPACT AFFECTING UK AIRSPACE. SCOTTISH AND LONDON FIR/UIR AREAS 
 AFFECTED, BASED ON A PROJECTION FROM THE VOLCANIC ASH ADVISORY 
 MESSAGE IS AS FOLLOWS:
 171200 LINE NORTH OF 5943N 10000W, 5929N 00056E AND A LINE SOUTH OF 
 5752N 00340E, 5348N 00530W 171800 LINE NORTH OF 5905N 01000W, 5926N 
 00101E AND A LINE SOUTH OF 5533N 00500E, 5358N 00033W, 5420N 00305W, 
 5344N 00530W 180000 LINE NORTH OF 5947N 01000W, 5952N 00341E AND A 
 LINE SOUTH OF 5527N 00500E, 5423N 00432W, 5359N 00549W OPR SHOULD 
 REFER TO LATEST VA ADVISORY FOR FURTHER INFO SEE MET OFFICE VAAC 
 LONDON WEBSITE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ICAO VOLCANIC ASH CONTINGENCY 
 PLAN, NO IFR CLEARANCE WILL BE ISSUED FOR PENETRATION OF THE 
 FORECAST CONTAMINATED AREA WI UK AIRSPACE.
 LONDON FIR/UIR REMAINS ZERO RATE UNTIL 2359 APR 17. SCOTTISH FIR/UIR 
 IS NOW ALSO ZERO RATE UNTIL 2359 APR 17. SCOTTISH DOMESTIC FLIGHTS 
 INCLUDING NORTHERN IRELAND MAY BE AVBL SUBJ INDIVIDUAL COORDINATION 
 WITH UKFMP. CAUTION CURRENT FORECASTS INDICATE THAT THE SITUATION IS 
 CHANGING THROUGH THE DAY AND DIVERSION AIRFIELDS MAY BE A 
 SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM THE ORIGINAL DESTINATION.
 VFR OPERATORS SHOULD OPERATE EXTREME CAUTION AND MUST ASSURE
 THEMSELVES THAT THEIR FLIGHT CAN BE CONDUCTED IN A SAFE MANNER BEFORE
 FLYING. NOTE THAT ATSOCAS CAPACITY MAY BE SEVERELY LIMITED DURING THE
 PERIOD. AUS 10-04-0218/AS6.
 LOWER: SFC
 UPPER: FL195

Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all airports are closed

E.g. Stansted is only closed to IFR traffic. VFR traffic is still accepted there. Practically all aerodromes remain open to VFR traffic. Refer to today's (and yesterday's and the day before's) NOTAMs. E.g. the currrent Stansted NOTAM(I quote in part only): 

 E) DUE TO ICELANDIC VOLCANIC ASH PLUME, AD REMAINS OPEN TO VFR FLIGHTS ONLY

If anyone has a source of these NOTAMs for which a login is not required then please post a link, then we can provide that as a reference in the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt have to be linkable to be a reliable reference just a proper citation. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass edit required then. For what I say is true and verifiable. Most airports remain open. Controlled Airspace is not closed except to IFR flights. Effect: Class A airspace is closed to all flights as VFR traffic is not allowed in class A. All other controlled airspace (B, C, D) remains open to VFR flights. All scheduled flights are IFR - therefore no scheduled flights. But I have to go out NOW (I am not in charge, it seems) so, won't be done be me, now. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small change to correct the oversimplification of "closed" that the press makes. Unless better expert sources are available maybe we should write "media reported ..." instead? -84user (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plume progress animation?

I'm interested if we can have an animation showing how the plume progressed day per day. Thanks, --DAI (Δ) 11:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the exceptional long-range impact of *this* volcano?

An issue that's rather obvious but which I haven't really seen addressed in any news coverage during the past week, and not in this article either: how come this eruption is the only one in living memory to have this sort of long-range impact on air traffic? The eruption in itself isn't extremely powerful, and there are lots of volcanoes situated closer to crowded airspace, many of which have had powerful eruptiuons in the last fifty years. Mount St. Helens should have triggered something like this in 1980- it has a glacier too, covering the caldera (the fissured crater). Surtsey should certainly have had this sort of impact in 1963-64: it was a submarine outbreak creating an island, so it must have triggered lots of rapidly chilled lava and tephra in much the same way as this outbreak. Volcanoes in Kamchatka and Japan would be expected to disrupt air traffic in and out of Japan, Russia and South Korea. And Pinatubo, even if it doesn't have a glacier, threw out huge amounts of ashes which would have travelled far and´been able to disrupt air traffic. Is it partially a matter of European airports and national air control boards being more conscious of security when something like this happens than e.g. the Indonesian air agency? Or have airplanes become more vulnerable to engine failure induced by tiny particles in some sense since the sixties? Strausszek (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget anything that happened before 1982. The dangers were not appreciated until British Airways Flight 9's incident. Rules were changed as a direct consequence of that incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, there were some air traffic disruptions from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens; over 1000 flights were canceled according to the article. But I believe that there was relatively less air traffic to disrupt in the affected area and in that time. --AJim (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also much, much more air travel now than ever before, leading in turn to much more reliance on air travel. Much of what is being disrupted now would have been done differently 10, 20, or especially 30 years ago. On the other hand, maybe teleconferencing will finally get its real boost from these disruptions. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.6 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking there was so much more air travel now than in let's say the seventies - and then Europe is probably a region where it's harder for pilots and airlines to set up an alternate cruising route on the fly than in let's say Australia or SE Asia. And the fall of the iron curtain has led to a major increase in air traffic all over Europe, for sure - before 1990 you simply didn't go from Madrid to Warsaw iunless you had some very spoecific mission - diplomacy or appearing at a sports event or something. Thanks for the heads up on the BA incident~and more! Strausszek (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this affects jet engines more than other types of engines... so a WWII inline piston or radial piston would not be so greatly affected, since they are like a car's engine, and will still function in ash, and do not run so hot as to melt the ash onto the engine's surfaces... (jet - ie. turbojet (ie. 707), turbofan (eg. most jetliners), turboprop (ie. most commuter propliners), turboshaft (most helicopter) )70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth a mention?

A Russian aircraft tried to fly to Italy below the ash cloud, but had to divert to Vienna as it ran low on fuel. Obviously this doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, but maybe worth a mention here? Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. KzKrann (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cant see what running out of fuel has anything to do with the eruption/disruption so why mention it? MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess, maybe they had to fly lower (or lower for longer) then expected to avoid the ashcloud so used more fuel then expected? (Would seem unlikely but who knows, maybe they just miscalculated how much fuel they'd need to fly so low) Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only English refs I could find are [2] and [3] which don't really explain much but do suggests this is relevant to the disruption (e.g. plans to examine the plane carefully even though it was flying below the ash cloud) and it sounds like it could be because they were flying lower then expected (the articles do seem to suggest it wasn't really a planned thing) that they ran out of fuel Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forced to stay home

Why does the article say Merkel was "forced to stay at home" instead of attending the funeral? Last time I checked, Berlin was about 500 kms from Krakow, which is not that far by car or train. The only one whose absence can be explained with the volcano eruption is Obama. – Alensha talk 22:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merkel is not in Berlin. See was in the US and is trying to come home. She landed in Lisbon then flew to Rome today morning and now is traveling bu train to Bolzano in Italy's far north Sud-Tirol region. She will overnight there and tomorrow (sunday morning) go on by bus. It is not possible to travel by ground from Bolzano to Krakow in time for the funeral. It takes about 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.123.205 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article did seem to imply she stayed home which would be Germany not the US, but I've modified it now. In any case, it's unclear to me why Alensha feels Stephen Harper's absence (who I presume was in Canada) and the Governor General of NZ's (who ended up in the US because he was already on his way but is going to head home) or plenty of people in other countries are any less explained then Obama. Perhaps the OP is confused because it gives some examples (and I appreciate Stephen Harper wasn't mentioned at the time), but there are plenty of other people other then the examples listed as the article made clear Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on airlines

Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption#Effect_on_airlines

What is it with this section? Could someone please define what is meant to go in there as listing all airlines and how it has effected them isn't going to work. {60.226.113.111 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Yes you are right - I have removed individual airlines and just left the general IATA statement. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both these comments - even better why not just put the general statement in the summary at the top (it is a pretty important sentence after all). We can then lose this section and perhaps people won't then feel the need to fill it up with trivia.ChrisUK (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK good point. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Effect on Mail Service?

There has been a lot of reports on stranded passengers, but I saw nothing reported on postal or mail service being affected. I sent off a package from the US to the UK on April, 18th, and USPS said that has been no alerts regarding the volcano event. Is there a backlog building up as we speak, or is there another venue in the works? Can anyone get some documentation as to why? Dinkytown (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption&oldid=356805340"