Talk:Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Russians are not wimps.122.106.255.204 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Doesnt have to be linkable to be a reliable reference just a proper citation. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, it is. KzKrann (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It's getting into OR territory, but I think that fuel consumption would have been higher at a lower altitude, hence the running low of fuel before the intended destination. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt the fuel consumption would have been higher, the only question why the airline didn't account for this if they were always planning to fly low Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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)}

Yes you are right - I have removed individual airlines and just left the general IATA statement. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

OK good point. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Test flights

What altitudes are these test flights flying at?

I saw a Boeing 747 flying over - low enough that I could make out it was a British Airways jet. If this is supposed to be a 'test flight', it was flying low! There were no vapour trails, just a low flying plane on its own. I don't live near a major airport. TurboForce (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

BBC has them going at 30k ft [4] --86.173.140.91 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed airports in Germany

Here is my source for the closing of german airports, I don't know, how to get it into the article: http://www.dfs.de/dfs/internet_2008/module/presse/deutsch/presse/presseinformation/2010/behinderungen_im_flugverkehr_v_18_4/index.html . It's from Deutsche Flugsicherung. SkySilver (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message on your Talk page, explaining how to show the citation. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Except the routes flights from these countries have to take are probably quite altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.250.221 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the title of the page there is no reason to limit the article to only those countries which have airspace affected by the ashcloud. If there is air travel disruption in other countries due to the knock on effect of the complete shutdown in most of Europe then this should be included in the article. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

Is there any particlar reason that the that map has been selected for the closed airspace graphic which does not include Kosovo? It has its own section in the table, its airspace was affected, and it only seems logical that it should be included. Unless I'm missing something... Bernerd (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is now closed between 20 000- 32 000 feet in Samsun, Zolgundak and Sinop, areas around the black sea. http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2010/04/18/yetkililerden_aciklama from 16.30 Sunday to 12 00 Monday. (Turkish Time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.250.221 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Info On Ireland

Does anything that there is too much info regarding Ireland on this page (and on a lot of wikipedia pages)?

Mentioning an emergency planning taskforce is stretching it but then the members of this committee are also mentioned?

Superfluous info i think? Anyone agree?

The government's emergency planning taskforce, which included several government departments, An Garda Síochána, Met Éireann, the Irish Aviation Authority and Dublin Airport Authority, met on the evening of 15 April to discuss the emergency.[54] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.79.233 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania

It is red on the airspace map but not mentioned anywhere else in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugg1900 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

MetOffice has some good animations - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/volcano/gallery.html 66.193.79.189 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) vikram

Funeral

How has Medvedev managed to arrive on the Polish funeral?--DAI (Δ) 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he borrowed a bike? Skinsmoke (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he arrived in a small government jet aircraft that had special permission to fly at low altitude. Dbfirs 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Canada

apparently ash is now entering Canadian airspace, and the easternmost airport, St. John's Nfld will start experiencing its effects.

Also, apparently, ash forecasts for the North Atlantic, west of Ireland, are under the control of the Montreal Ash Forecast Centre, while Europe is by the London Ash Forecast Centre (ref: CBC News).

70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added this info to the article. FWIW, if you refer to the Montreal VAAC (or the Washington or Toulouse VAAC), they will refer you to the London VAAC for forecasts, as the London VAAC covers Iceland. - 74.58.77.31 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Other countries

Many passengers are actually stranded at airports outside the shut-down area. From what was covered in the news many flights from, e.g., the UAE and Hong Kong were cancelled. The current article focuses only on what have happened within the shut-down area.

Agreed. Flights from Portugal have been cancelled with carriers in mainland Europe. For example, Lufthansa cancelled flights from Porto and from Lisbon over the last few days. This needs to be included. 85.240.90.251 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree being stuck in transit in Singapore for 5 days is becoming a major pain; and there is just no other but air travel to get home from here. Arnoutf (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't you fly into Italy, Greece or Turkey? (or Egypt...) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not help, all the flights are booked, and at least Singapore is comfortable, I rather be stuck here than in Cairo. But travel agency is looking for alternatives (without much succes).Arnoutf (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall we add a section in the article to tell what'd happened in major hubs, such as JFK, Atlanta, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc., and what had happened to other airline companies, e.g., Air New Zealand, Delta Air Lines, Cathay Pacific?

Sounds good to me. If it helps, here's a reference to the on-going delays in Portugal http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdiario.iol.pt%2Fsociedade%2Fvoo-aeroporto-lisboa-porto-faro-tvi24%2F1156398-4071.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.90.251 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Last flight to leave the UK on April 15

The quoted source (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/04/16/flight-from-cardiff-airport-last-to-leave-uk-as-volcanic-ash-grounds-planes-91466-26254292/) for this appears factually incorrect. It states this Thomson Airways flight left UK airspace at 11:25 BST (local time), however the Virgin Atlantic VS19 LHR to SFO left the gate at 11:37 and was on the runway at 12:09 local time, but still made it to its destination.

This data is currently available here: (free registration required) http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlightExtendedDetails.do?id=189100741&airlineCode=VS&flightNumber=19

(There maybe other flights that left after it, that just happens to be one I know of) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.175.130 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

let s not make this a UK centric article. Personally I dont care about the UK at all at this stage, but I was booked on about the first cancelled flight from Changi (Singapore) to Schiphol last thursday, so some carrier taking me home would be nice. Arnoutf (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sport?

WWE and chess aren't sports, are different sections required for those issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.41.189 (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually they are. What does this have to do with the article?--Interchange88 ☢ 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Other - Canada

Does anyone know why Canada is floating around on it's own in a section called other? I'm assuming it's because there have been airspace closures but it's the only one outside europe. If that's the case, why not incorporate it into the main table and split out if many more non-european countries close their airspace too.ChrisUK (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake - I didn't read it properly. It seems that Canada has never had an airspace closure. I propose to delete because we said a while ago that cancellations would not be included on this page otherwise we'll be listing every country in the world practically.ChrisUK (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought Canada should be included because unlike other countries that had cancellations of flights to Europe, Canada actually had cancellations (of domestic flights) for fear of the ash cloud actually reaching St. John's. I don't think any other country outside Europe was at risk of the ash cloud actually reaching its territory. - Montréalais (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I did an edit about Canada which became:

Canada	Several flights scheduled to leave St. John's International Airport in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador on Monday, 19 April before 9:00 a.m., were canceled after a forecast by Transport Canada and Nav Canada gave warning of a 30% risk of volcanic ash reaching St. John's.^[1]^[2] However, most cancellations and delays at St. John's were the result of heavy fog on that day. Only one flight cancellation, from Porter Airlines, seems to be related to the volcanic ash warning ^[3], while Air Canada said their flights were "subject to some delays due to inclement weather, unrelated to ash cloud." ^[4] and WestJet canceled a flight because of a maintenance problem.^[5]. The Canadian airspace has never been closed or restricted because of volcanic ash.

Why are we back with the previous edit:

Canada	Several Air Canada, WestJet, and Porter Airlines flights scheduled to leave St. John's International Airport in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador on Monday, 19 April before 9:00 a.m., were cancelled as a precaution. Transport Canada and Nav Canada forecast a 30% risk of volcanic ash reaching St. John's. Inbound and outbound flights were also cancelled in Gander and Deer Lake. However, no order to close the air space was given.^[6]^[7]

If a entry on Canada should be there, I think that what I added was relevant.LeQuantum (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I restored from an earlier version. I'll add it back. - Montréalais (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenya is not within Europe

Turkey is barely within Europe, but Kenya is definitely not. So if someone could please fix this. 205.142.197.91 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Also the impugned section does not describe an air traffic disruption caused by the presence of the ash cloud in Kenyan territory (it isn't). I'm moving it to the other page. - Montréalais (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused

In the section "Attempts to reopen airspace" we have the president of German airline Air Berlin, in an interview with the newspaper Bild am Sonntag, stated that the risks for flights due to this volcanic haze were nonexistent, because the assessment was based only on a computer simulation produced by the VAAC., but two days earlier in "Effect on air forces" section it says Volcanic dust was found on the engines of three of the aircraft and a further inspection revealed extensive damage by melted glass deposits inside the combustion chamber of one of the engines..

So was he unaware of this (seems unlikely he would be this badly informed), extensive damage to aircraft engines is a nonexistent risk, or somehow he knows something that makes the damage to the F-18s no risk to passenger jets (type of engine, altitude of flight, or something?), or something else I can't think of? Is there any explanation for this discrepancy that we can find a source for, because it looks odd having both of the and no explanation of why. --86.173.140.91 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that, even if Air Berlin were willing to take the risk of flying, their insurers would withdraw cover, and no airline would risk flying without insurance cover. Has the president made any other off-the-cuff statements? Has he clarified his statement? Has he now seen the scientific evidence? ... or was he referring just to a specific condition at a certain location and time? Dbfirs 07:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you fly in dense ash cloud you will get engine damage. No argument. But how dense? It seems that ash cloud is imagined where it is not. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation is now clearer with maps showing varying densities, and some no-fly zones where the ash is still a risk. Fortunately, the really dangerous ash from magma cooling rapidly in the ice caldera is no longer being emitted because the ice has melted, so there is now just normal volcanic ash being emitted. Dbfirs 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. BA Flight 009 did not encounter "really dangerous" ash formed in an icy caldera, it was flying in the tropics at the time and encountered really dangerous normal ash. Leaky Caldron 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What has changed is not the type of ash but the attitude of the regulators to it. This was reported on Newstalk (Irish radio station) yesterday. Better citation required, perhaps, but needs to go in the article.

Summary section

A summary section has appeared which duplicates information in the main table and looks untidy. It surely is only temporary anyway but could it be merged into a new column in the main table with a title of "current status" or something? ChrisUK (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This particular volcano is erupting into a caldera of ice that rapidly cools and fractures the magma, creating a different type of very fine dust. Once the ice has melted, the dust will not be so dangerous to aircraft. Dbfirs 07:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

... The ice has now melted, so the volcano is now emitting normal ash - still a risk but not nearly so dangerous. Dbfirs 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The ice is reported to have some effect but I think what has changed is not the type of ash, but the regulators' attitude to it. As reported yesterday on radio news (Newstalk, Ireland) several times yesterday what has happened is a replacement of the zero-tolerance policy with the model used elsewhere in the world. I forget the terms, but there are now prohibited, precuationary and unaffected areas. until yesterday all three were prohibited from IFR traffic by over-cautious regulators. Better citation required but it's needed in the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice article on the engine topic

Dunn, MG (1994). "Influence of volcanic ash clouds on gas turbine engines". DIANE Publishing. p. 107. ISBN 9780788116506 http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=pKY_VLqMTgsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA107. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "title Geological Survey bulletin: Volcanic ash and aviation safety: proceedings of the First International Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety" ignored (help)

I was wondering why they close all that airspace, but that text makes more sense than what the stupid journalists talk the whole day.--Stone (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another general resource I found useful was [5], I was considering adding it as an external link or something as context. --86.173.140.91 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of unsuccessful attempts in the 1950s to build a gas turbine running on pulverized coal for railway use. The ash proved to be an insuperable problem. Biscuittin (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why people are using piston engined airplanes... In Alaska and Northern Canada, fairly large piston engined aircraft are in daily use as passenger airplanes... I think in Russia as well... Those should survive the ash cloud. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Piston engined aircraft continue to fly. Airports are not closed. Airspace is not closed. IFR clearances are not being issued. All scheduled passenger services must be flown under IFR rules. Hence no scheduled passenger flights. But you can fly VFR by charter, or in your own a/c. Problem is there are practically zero piston engined a/c with more than a few seats still flying. But jet a/c can fly VFR too. Just not on a scheduled passenger service. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If this lasts more than a month, I think people will start buying piston engined planes... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Either that or the regulator's attitude to the (computer simulated extent of the) ash will have to change. Ah, look see! Mohammed and the mountain. The regulators have climbed down. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Actually it is UTC. Use of the term GMT is deprecated outside the UK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

techically there are some differences to do with the handling of leap seconds, but for the purposes of this article they are essentially the same Dasy2k1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

Iceland itself (has this been just a regulatory overreaction?)

Can anyone explain why the airspace of Iceland itself isn't much affected?

I think the volcano is on the southeastern coast, and because of easterly winds, it just blew away into the ocean, towards continental europe. Colipon+(Talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't it explain in the article? And as a matter of fact the ash also reached the Atlantic coast of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If the same regulators were in charge of Icelandic airspace then there would have been no scheduled flights in and out of Iceland too. The European regulators stated that worldwide rules require any tiniest risk of ash means no passenger airline flights. This interpretation is not that made by other regulators in the Americas and in Asia, as flights continue there every year in the same conditions as experienced in Europe. This comparison of regulators' attitudes deserves to be in the article. Essentially the 6-day disruption has been a regulatory over-reaction, a scandal. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no single "European regulators", each country in the affected area is in charge of its e own airspace. They've just been following recommendations by the Met. Iceland is just now closing some of its airspace due to the wind turning westward. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But there is one European agency drawing the risk of non-zero ash as a dense grey shading over much of Europe. There is no single "European regulators", correct, but they are following the same guidelines and using the same (flawed) information. Conditions over europe have not changed, what's happened is that the interpretation/implementation of the regs has changed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Last time I read the article, it only mentioned Merkel, Sarkozy and Obama. Harper and the Governor General weren't there, that's why I said "only Obama". It also said Merkel had to "stay home", which suggested she was in Berlin. Thanks for making it clear in the article. – Alensha ^talk 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I specifically checked and also made this clear in my comment.

But to repeat, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, although the GG of NZ and Stephen Harper weren't given examples, as I also mentioned it did make it clear a large number were affected, not just the examples given. There was no reason to presume, as you did, that the other people who weren't given as examples didn't have just as good a reason as Obama.

If you had said, of the examples given or something along that lines then fine, but you did not. So it's logical to presume you for whatever reason you meant of all the people affected (and to reinterate the article made it clear there were many even if it only gave 3 examples) that "The only one whose absence can be explained with the volcano eruption is Obama" which never made much sense since clearly anyone outside of Europe would have great difficulty travelling there in time (even if they weren't given as examples) and there was no reason to think of the plenty of other people not given as examples, some of them weren't from out of Europe.

Of course since this is wikipedia you don't have to believe me. You made your comment [6]. The version at the time [7]. If you took more then 8 minutes between reading and commenting, or were otherwise reading an older version your welcome to check further history, you welcome to check older versions, e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I haven't checked every revision, but if we find when this was originally added, we see [13].

In other words, it seems extremely unlikely to me that there was a revision which you saw that did not say

The most significant event disrupted is the funeral of Polish president Lech Kaczyński in Cracow on Sunday, 18 April 2010, which was to have been attended by 69 presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of states. Almost half of these (including Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and others) have been forced to stay at home because of the snarled air traffic

or something along these lines. This makes it clear there are plenty of people other then Obama, Merkel and Sarkozy who were affected. In other words, I find it rather unlikely that you ever saw a revision that implied only Obama, Merkel and Sarkozy were affected, since from the beginning it made it clearly they were just a few examples of the many people affected. So there was no reason to think only Obama was affected even without knowing where Merkel and Sarkozy were.

I agree the 'stayed home' part was confusing hence why I changed it.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The page "Aftermath of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption" has much overlap with this page, but seems to focus on the indirect effects of the air travel disruption instead of the direct effect. The air travel disruption should really be a section in the "aftermath" article. Brianski (talk)

Could be considered once the dust settles (excuse the pun). Too many fly-by edits happening here and there at the moment - plus naming issues on both articles. I'm staying away from this because there are too many inexperienced editors just trying to make both articles a live news feed - like reporting that a stand up comedian was stranded in the Ilse of Man! Leaky Caldron 08:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Two articles should never have been created on what is essentially one topic. The "fly-by edits" syndrome Leaky_caldron mentions is even worse because there are two places for well-meaning editors to add their contributions to. YLee (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support per the reasons stated above. ~Asarlaí 10:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Good reasons have been provided. Sherenk (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait and see The reason I created both articles is because the air travel disruption is a topic in its own right (e.g. airspace closures and re-openings, travel impacts etc). The Aftermath article (or whatever it ends up getting called) is about the knock on effects of the air disruption (e.g. on pop concerts, funerals, flowers in kenya etc). So they could all be merged into one article but my gut feel is that there are two distinct topics of interest in the future, and certainly will be better than one big article describing both. Also, there is not much duplication of information - and both articles are of pretty reasonable sizes already. ChrisUK (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You've described exactly why the two articles should be merged; everything in the Aftermath article is occuring because of what's in the Air Disruption article. There is no distinction. That's why people are constantly putting in "Aftermath" stuff in the "Air Disruptions" article, because they (not unreasonably) want to record on Wikipedia that the reason musician XYZ is in London instead of San Francisco is because she can't get a flight.

As for size, the articles are as large as they are because (as noted) editors are busily adding in everything, great and small, they can. Once things slow down much of the cruft will be cut out in favor of neat paragraphs that will summarize the eruptions' impact on various fields (arts, sports, politics) with a few representative, significant events for each. YLee (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Merge sooner rather than later - the work involved in merging will only grow with time, whereas the naming problem can be safely left for another day. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment if they are merged, the name still has to be sorted out. Perhaps it should be like earthquakes and tsunamis... This should be called Effects of the 2010 European ash cloud... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, based on historical precedent, "Effects" is the right word. Look at Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans and Economic effects of Hurricane Katrina. (And no, we don't yet need separate articles on the eruptions' effects on the arts, politics, and sports. Ask again if the effects continue for the next six months.) YLee (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait and see. Right now the "air travel" topic is extremely high profile, and the Wikipedia article is even being listed next to AP and Reuters by Google News as an active news source on one of the top stories in the world. So it might be best to leave things alone for now, until the crisis is past. Once traffic decreases, a merge might be appropriate. But for now, keep things as they are. --El on ka 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

* The normal redirect that gets created when a page is merged should automatically take care of the Google News issue. YLee (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait and see. I'd normally support an immediate merge, but Elonka convinced me to wait. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I believe there should be a major article called Effects of the 2010 European ash cloud but do not support Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption being merged into this article as it has too much (specific) information for it to be merged into a new article. (L blue l (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

Don't bother merging them. Information is changing so fast that by the time somebody nicely melded the articles the circumstances would have completely changed, and it's going to end up a mess. 58.164.254.223 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait and see The Impact on society section need to be merged with aftermath_of_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption section before any merges of whole articles takes place. This article should be just about airplanes and airport closures etc. 60.226.113.111 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the point that the impacts section of this article should be cut and pasted into Aftermath article as soon as possible. Already this article is being polluted by things like John Cleese and world chess championships (which was the reason why it was split out in the first place - this article is about the disruptions to the air travel, not the disruptions to events and people in general). I propose a savage cut and paste now from the Impacts section and keep a ruthless eye on it so it doesnt expand beyond a few summary sentences and divert all other similar edits into Aftermath. We can then have a proper debate about merge and page name once the dust has settled.ChrisUK (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no way a merge should be performed while the articles are being so heavily edited. So a cut and paste of the Impacts section into the Aftermath article should be performed, for now keeping the two articles seperate. Once the event is over the status of both articles can be re-assessed. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the comments above, I've moved most of the old Impacts section to the Aftermath. Need to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't grow again. This doesn't affect the debate about the merge - it just cleans up so info is in either one place or the other, not both.ChrisUK (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait and See Per Above. Also I looked at the Article Size per WP:SIZE and the 2 articles merged now would be almost 100KB in Total. Right now This Article Alone is 65,885 Bytes and the other article is 32,319 Bytes. I would estimate the merged article would be around 80KB if you remove the overlapping if there's that much to remove. The large article size will not effect Wikipedia per WP:PERF but affect the users who are trying to view the merged page on a mobile device like an iPhone, ETC trying to keep up to date on this article. Also because this is still a current event a merged article would also have a very increased chance of Edit Conflicts which can be very annoying. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 05:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait and See Many people have bookmarks and use this page to plan their travels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.74.153 (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong do not merge I've changed my opinion above from wait and see. Now that all the content is in the correct article there is very little overlap. However, if both of these were merged into one I think it would be a very unwieldy article over 100Kb with about 14 sections and sub sections. However, I also think that the name of the aftermath article should be changed, but I'm not sure what to just yet (there is a discussion over there about the name change).ChrisUK (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge. There is a clear distinction between "the following airspaces were closed and disrupted" and "the following were miscellaneous effects of the closures," with both being lengthy. We can continue sorting effects into the other article. I feel that merging them would create a very unwieldy article full of cruft. - 74.58.77.31 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge A combined article would be way too large. Raysonho (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge: As the air travel affects would unbalance a merged article. I also suggest that the article on air travel should keep some of the "out-of-date" ash cloud maps available for long term use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not merge - This is a big enough issue that it deserves a separate page. Plus, both articles are fairly long. There would have to be some summarizing if a merge is to occur. --Interchange88 ☢ 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong do not merge: The air travel problems are happening during the eruptions, and with the volcano still erupting, thats causing the air travel disruptions. Only thing is that since its happening during the eruptions why merge it, because this article is about the air travel disruptions. Still going on during the eruptions. Since the volcano is not done yet erupting. There will still be air travel disruptions for a while. If after the eruptions are done, and then Still Air travel disruptions (of course they probably will be) then add a section to the aftermath article, but this article deserves to not be merged.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Reversed merge. I think the Aftermath should be merged into the Air travel disruption as all problems mainly stem from the traffic disruption. Brandmeister[t] 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong do not merge*: Per reason stated above - the article is too big. DavidHøstbo (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The disruption to airline operations is a topic in its own right. The knock on effect due to the disruption is a seperate, but equally important, issue. Considering the length of both articles a merge is simply not appropriate.Jdrewitt (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support of a merge when the dust settles The statement that the articles are too big to be merged seems ridiculous, as both the articles contains a lot of information that needs to be cut down on anyway due to the heavy traffic of "drive by edits". I find it hard to argue that there is a noticeable difference between the ash-cloud shutting down the airspace, and the impact that the air space shut down has had. The impact the ash cloud has had on economy etc. was due the airspace was shut down. I (like mentioned somewhere above) strongly support that the articles should be merged under the headline "Effects of the 2010 eruption of ...". If it turns out there is a major impact on the environment, that might deserve an article on its own - but the focus of both these articles are both dealing primarily with the grounded planes. (Pardon the bad English, it is a second language). T-Roland (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even cutting out the drive-by stuff both articles are both pretty huge and the point of wikipedia is that we can split articles if they get too big, its what gives it an advantage over a printed encyclopedia. Its not unreasonable to have one article on the event (i.e. the disruption to airline operations) and a second on the effects of this event. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge only after this is old news While this is still making headline news i think it deserves an article on its own... when the dust (or rather ash) has settled and everything is back to normal then it can be merged, but not before Dasy2k1 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can the tag be removed as there is a consensus not to merge at this time. In a month or so if people still think the articles need to be merged we can discuss it then. L blue l (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The following comments moved from Talk:Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafijallajökull eruption. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree - merge. Nop sense to keep separate arrticles on this matter. 86.29.126.11 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Object - the article is too big to be merged. DavidHøstbo (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
DO NOT MERGE. This well-written article provides detailed information about travel disruptions only, while the Aftermath... article discusses several other impacts. Additionally, the magnitude of the travel effects (worst since World War II and worst due to natural causes in recorded history) make it notable on its own and worthy of its own article. Truthanado (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Countries affected

Why is there a list of countries affected? This simply duplicates the information provided in the much better presented table that lists the countries affected in significant detail. I propose the additional list of countries affected be deleted. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - good luck. The problem though is that this section is factually correct even though it's dross. It's very difficult and painful to get this kind of content removed from wikipedia because you end up in endless discussions about how valuable the contribution is.ChrisUK (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicated information and moved the "Attempts to reopen airspace" section below the "Airspace restrictions section" since this seems a logical order and also the list of countries affected now appears sooner which should satisfy any users who feel the duplicated list was actually useful! Cheers Jdrewitt (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

If the a/c carrying the packages do not need IFR clearances then they can fly to any of the very many (most of them!) airports which remain open. By regulation scheduled passenger flights must be flown under the IFR rules and this requires ATC clearance for flight in controlled airspace. It is these clearances which are being refused. Airspace is not closed to all traffic. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The mail service almost definitely has been affected, most of the Asian sellers I've seen warn of the delays for European sellers, I think I've even seen an official warning from HK Post and the Japanese postal service. Also a general warning on eBay from memory. And I think I saw these before the 18th. I think I've read reports of couriers having problems too. No idea why the USPS didn't have any warnings. Also no idea how bad it is of course. Edit: Aftermath of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption mentions couriers and freight. It's obviously extremely unlikely that bulk air freight and couriers were affected but regular mail was not. Of course depending on how badly it was affected it may be less noticeable since the time frames are longer anyway (however I would expect the others to have higher priority) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If, on the other hand, the a/c carrying packages did need the IFR clearances ... etc etc. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I replied under you I wasn't really disagreeing with you simply pointing out that whatever the reason, the mail service has almost definitely been affected (since that was the OP's question, not under what conditions they would be disrupted). Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No Trivia

As much as we all like random, pointless facts, Wikipedia is not a place for trivial information. I propose to remove the "BBC reports" facts in the "Stranded Travellers" section. Please reply if anyone is opposed to this.--Interchange88 ☢ 19:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection - the sooner the better.ChrisUK (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It is not trivia: it is a few samples of very many similar details which add up to a big general situation, and so give a picture of that general situation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is utter drivel. It fails any test of notability and if you insist on including this please indicate what policy or guideline you are relying on. Leaky Caldron 11:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The text under discussion is this:

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think there is a valid point about examples building up a bigger picture, and there are similar sorts of points already in the section already. But wikipedia should refer to the facts themselves, not who reported the facts, so the first part of the sentence should go. If the bullet points about the Tallinn man and the Faro woman can be backed up with a web based source, I suppose you could add them to the existing set of bullets in the stranded passenger section. The other bullets are pretty pointless however and would not survive in a months time anyway. I think it's important in these kind of situations to look at what battles are worth fighting for, and this one wouldn't be top of my list ChrisUK (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So far:

3 people support removing the content.
2 people oppose or compromise removing the content.

If the count does not even out, I will remove the content under question within 48 hours of now (23:21, 26 April 2010 [UTC]). --Interchange88 ☢ 23:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Consensus on wikipedia isn't formed purely on the number of counts/votes. But anyway, I would say that the there is a case for including some of these stories. They were reported on during the event by the BBC which is most certainly a notable source. Similar stories were reported by other equally notable news agencies. Provided suitable citations are employed this information should be included since it is part of the overall event. These things don't happen under normal circumstances. It was due to the unusual closure of european airspace and the resulting lengths that people had to go to to get to their destination that makes this information notable. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but I'm removing said text from the article. In case it needs to be re-included, the text will remain in the box above.--Interchange88 ☢ 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What you deleted was not the BBC content in the box above - that was removed some time ago. Instead you removed the whole paragraph with examples of how and where people got stranded. I'm not saying that this parapgraph is the highest quality ever, nor that it couldn't do with some editing, but deleting it is a bit harsh. Why don't we have a go at editing it down a bit to give a flavour of what happened to the stranded passengers and the effect on ports, bus services and car hire firms? That is something worth preserving as part of the events in ths article. ChrisUK (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

People can always revert if they want. --Interchange88 ☢ 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Over-reaction (warning: original research)

According to WP 100 million m3 of ash was erupted. That's 0.1 cubic km. The area affected (according to regulators) is 3000x2000 km or 6 million square km. And in a layer from 10000-20000 ft (say 3km) thick makes that 18 million cubic km. Or one part of ash to 180 million parts of air, by volume, if evenly distributed. Obviously there was no need to close so much airspace to passenger traffic. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

250 parts per million dust to air is considered safe to breathe. 1:180,000,000 is approx 5 per billion! Arsenic occurs in drinking water at concentrations higher than that. Aircraft are more sensitive to volcanic ash than humans are to arsenic? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the fault of the airline industry itself. In 2007 the airline industry refused to supply data on a safe limit for the ash concentration. That led to the authorities for aviation safety to stick to the zero tolerance limit for the ash concentrations on the grounds that no safe limits are as of yet known. All what was needed to change that was for the engine manifacturers to do some tests where they deliberately inject ash in the engines and on the basis of that come up with some hard figures. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But in the USA and elsewhere around the world the same strict European criteria for ash (zero parts per billion being the upper limit) are NOT followed. And now Europe has reviewed its criteria without the engine manufacturers doing any extra testing. So pop goes that argument. But at the concentrations over Europe (0.5 ppbn if you accept that 90% of the ash was in the ash cloud) that's about as much ash as is found all the time in the atmosphere certain areas of the world. Hysteria and panic and bureaucracy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that they don't follow the "zero tolerance" criterium? I seem to remember reading that in the US or in the Pacific they typically don't need to close airspace in case of volcanic eruptons as airplanes can usually comply with the zero tolerance rule, as there is usually plenty of room to completely avoid ash clouds. The manual for pilots still says that they should ash clouds, at least that is what I remember reading. Count Iblis (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the good Count as mislaid a word here, "should avoid ash clouds," seems appropriate. :-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying ash should not be avoided. But there were (almost) no ash clouds to avoid. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For that calculation to be complete you'd have to calculate how much air the engines are likely to suck in while they're in the ash zone (takeoff and landing). How many grams of ash would that translate into? How much melted glass do you need to inject into a jet engine to run into trouble? Wasn't it also cited that the distribution wasn't known and they wanted to avoid the case of a single aircraft running into a dense layer of ash? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The human tolerance for arsenic being higher than what the a/c ban seemed to imply was the jet engine tolerance for ash set off my bullshit detector. I agree with you, however, it's all very much more complicated than that. As a wild guess I would bet that the content of volcanic ash ordinarily in air over certain parts of the globe [being regularly flown through e.g. Indonesia] is typically as high as 1 ppbn. If you are prepared to accept that 90% of the erupted ash is to be found in the highly visible ash plume, then the remainder of the 180million km3 of air banned from a/c flight would contain only 0.5 ppbn. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the issue of unexpectedly flying into an ash cloud, entropy dictates that no dense cloud of ash would suddenly materialise/coalesce out of the very diffuse (almost zero) ash content over Europe. If there is no ash cloud, and there is no ash cloud nearby, then it is safe to fly. That's the rule used elsewhere, and now adopted Europe-wide. For 6 days airliners did not fly and there was no nearby ash. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The zero tolerance policy is completely nonsensical. The only time planes have ever had any problems with volcanic ash is when they flew right through the ash cloud! There are vast quantities of sand kicked up into the air above desert regions, this doesn't stop planes, including jets, flying through the "sand clouds" where the particle size and density in the air is far far greater than any of the volcanic ash seen aver most of europe. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At least in Finland there was a problem with a Boeing F-18 fighter flying into ash cloud with relatively low density and getting some damage into its engines. I understand that there has been a similar incident in the UK concerning Typhoon fighters. So something must be wrong in the above reasoning.IlkkaP (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the details of the actual extent of the damage. Maybe wear and tear on the engines would be greater than if the engines were working in fresh air but this is completely different to planes falling from the sky due to total engine failure. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The military fly differently, at different altitudes, at different speeds, in different places, not under control of civilain ATC. Why did the military fly close to the ash? Who knows. Why is the info that a military engine was damaged by ash relevant? No one is saying there were not any ash clouds, no one is saying civilian passenger airliners should fly through them. But plainly most of the closed airspace had very diffuse ash concentrations, and lower than routinely exists elsewhere in the world. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the source of problem are the engine manufacturers. They refused to specify a safe limit for ash concentrations. Presumably this was for tactical reasons. If a plane crash happens and it was due to engine failure, and some small amount of ash is found in the engine, the engine manufacturer will want to be able to exploit the ash to get off the hook by saying: "the pilot did not stick to our guidelines, so we are not to blame". It was only during the video conference of the EU transport ministers that Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney and Airbus agreed to issue a guarantee for their engines for ash intake levels up to 2 milligrams per second. This allowed the maps for dangerous ash concentrations to be re-drawn and airspace could then be re-opened. Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the 2mg? I think your info could very usefully be in the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above describes the average concentration of dust in air, it does not discuss what the maximum concentration might be. And that is what would be harmful to aircraft (engines, windscreen, wing surfaces, etc.). Localized high concentrations of ash that an aircraft would fly through could cause serious problems, as it did for the British Airways 747 near Indonesia several years ago. It seems prudent for the officials to err on the side of safety initially and close the airspace ... the real question is, and we may never know the answer, is when was it safe to reopen it. Truthanado (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and by your reasoning, the presence of concentrated ash in places means that elsewhere there is space with less ash than average. That's where we're now flying. (The BA 8 story is a red herring, it flew through an ash cloud over Indonesia.) Thermodynamics, entropy and every day common experience persuades us that the ash does not spontaneously coalesce into ash clouds, it is constantly being diffused, made less concentrated, by mixing with the rest of the atmosphere. There has been no danger of us being surprised by the sudden appearance from nowhere of an ash cloud over Heathrow. Ash clouds are not like water-vapour clouds, which do seem to spring from nowhere. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There's one thing to consider, though: The crew of British Airways Flight 9 (if I read that right), didn't actually see an ash cloud. They didn't know what hit them until they were on the ground again. So just avoiding a dense ash cloud isn't enough to be on the safe side. So since the cloud cannot be seen, there are (as of now) no really good techniques of determining the density of an ash cloud and, as said above, no concentration limits, one just didn't know where that cloud was. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not looking out of the window much when in the cruise in an airliner. You are flying IFR, relying on ATC for separation from other a/c. Flying IFR means you are *allowed* to fly through cloud. That BA9 didn't see ash doesn't mean they were looking out the window or that they would not have seen it had they looked. That the ash is described as "glass" doesn't mean it is transparent like window glass - it is in jagged tiny pieces which, collected together in a heap, we would not describe as glass. At the safe 1 ppbn level (which is the 2 mg/m3 now agreed on) looking through 1 km of air would have you looking through 1 meter linearly of ash - which is, of course, completely opaque. In other words, if you can see 1 km then there is no dangerous concentration of ash. BA9 would have, were they looking, perhaps have mistaken an ash cloud for a regular cloud. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A significant factor is that the cloud was not just vague dust or sand. Most of it was glass. So it wouldn't just sandblast the engine, it would melt and then solidify on it. That was the more important risk. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sand is glass just as much as ash is glass, more so. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The main constituent of sand is SiO2 which is one of the key glass forming compounds. Also sand particles are much much larger than an invisible ash cloud. No one said anything about sand blasting. Sand will melt and condense in plane engines just as readily as any glass forming material found in volcanic ash. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a (german) source for the above statement of the 2mg limit. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 07:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

2mg per cubic meter, not 2mg per second (100+ times less). Elsewhere (Daily Telegraph) I read that at no time during any of the test flights was anywhere found with a concentration higher than 1/7th of that. They struggled, mostly, to find any ash, anywhere, at all, flying right through the dark grey shaded areas of dangerous ash in the maps distributed by the hysterical/paranoid/panicky ash distribution modeling unit based in the UK. Mostly no ash showed up on the detectors at all! Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref links in the lead

Do we need quite so many ref links in the summary? I appreciate that statements need to be sourced in the main article, but the summary is supposed to be a summary of the article so surely the references should be in the body and the summary can then be fairly clear of links. I only raise this because I think it looks very ugly as an article lead with 12 links, some sentences have three references for them. I've never really been a great believer that every single statement in wikipedia needs to have references hanging off them. Surely we can write a summary that is uncontraversially true and yet free of links? Comments only please - I'm not about to start deleting links (I'm not that daft....)ChrisUK (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at the lead and, in my opinion, the citations do not make the prose look untidy and it doesn't appear to be overcited. Yes the lead should summarise the rest of the article. But it should also introduce the key sources so that a user who reads only the lead can easily research the topic using these key sources. Where there are instances of the same information being cited by multiple sources then perhaps there is a case to list only the most significant source in the lead (but still include the other citations in the body of the article). If there is a sentence in which multiple facts are stated and where these different facts are cited in different sources then all of the sources should be cited. Since the lead is the first instance for many citations the references should be named (see WP:REFNAME) to ensure that the same reference doesn't appear more than once in the reflist. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you see dangerous levels of ash? (WP:SYN warning)

All seem now to have agreed the safe level of ash is 2 milligrams / cubic metre. The specific gravity (relative density) of glassy volcanic ash is about 2. So that's the same as 1 ppbn ash to air by volume. Note there are 1 billion cubic metres in a cubic km. Looking linearly (as one does) through 1 km of air would have you looking through 1 meter (linearly) of ash - which is, of course, completely opaque. In other words, if you can see 1 km then there is no dangerous concentration of ash. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But then I come in and say dust isn't as dense as a one meter block of ash, so the light can scatter and still reach you. -- DasRakel 〒 20:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It won't be dark, because, as you say, scattered light still reaches you. But you won't be able to see anything (or any "thing") through it. Like being in a water cloud. But still safe enough in which to run your jet engine, now all agree. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct. If there is 1 ppb relative density, it means that in 1 km^3 of air there is 1 m^3 ash. As this 1 m^3 is distributed to 1 km^2 are in your example, the layer of ash is only 10^-6 m or one micrometer thick.IlkkaP (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, 1 cubic meter spread over 1 sq km is 10^-6 m thick. Maybe you can't see dangerous levels of ash! Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the {{current}} tag because this event is still a current event, airspace closures are still occuring and hence new content is and will likely be added to this article altering its content and context for at least a few more days. It's not about being in the news, as the edit summary of the user who removed the tag suggested, its about the fact that this event is still occuring and closures ARE still in effect due to the volcanic ash. The warning should remain for the time being. Hopefully someone will see sense in my reasoning and re-add it. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to edit the article itself to reflect the fact that disruptions continue? Abductive (reasoning) 08:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits have been made by other users, check the edit history. The fact remains this is still a current event and the tag should inform readers of that because the information we provide might not be up to date and some users may rely on the information we provide so should be warned. Polyamorph (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who books air travel based solely on information they obtain from Wikipedia should have their head examined. As a compromise, could the tag only be up when there is an airspace closure in effect? Abductive (reasoning) 08:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the tag back since you seem to agree it is still a current event. I also cited the statement re:continued disruption. Wikipedia is relied upon by many many users and while there is a chance that the information may not be accurate or may not be up to date then we need to inform users accordingly. This is why we have tags. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also yes I agree re: tagging only when the airspace closures are in effect. Most news items are only current events when they happen. Of course they may be in the news for weeks but that doesn't necessarily make them current events. Where this article is different is each new airspace closure is a new event. So yes if we could have the tag up while the airspace closures are in effect that will be grand. Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't get into an edit war over this since the tag has been removed again BUT if the recent closures are not newsworthy and are not deemed current events then why when you click on the link given in the current events templates does it provide a link to the wikinews article on the May 5 closures of airspace in Scotland. Wikinews deems it a current event so they why should wikipedia not? And I wouldn't call closure of Ireland, N. Ireland and scottish airspace insignificant, they are 3 countries with very large numbers of flights affected. Anyway cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is the link to the current events portal which the {{current}} template links to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events&oldid=349017128 . The airspace closures are one of only three May 5 wikinews articles. Anyway, cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New disruption

should a new article be created? there is major disrruption today in spain and protugal Mydreamistofly (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

New developments?

Should this article also have updates for latest flight disruptions in Western Europe? --79.101.209.226 (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do think so. I flew from Hamburg to New York on May 8, and because of the ash cloud over the North Atlantic we had to pass between Iceland and Greenland, with some spectacular views of both Greenland and the ash cloud. Our flight took one hour longer than usual, but the view was worth it. -- megA (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

UK met maps

[14] Can someone explain what are the red, blue and green areas? Thanks,--DAI (Δ) 10:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

These are Flight level indications. Simply put, different colors indicate the ash distribution on different heights. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Jet engine tolerance to airborne particles

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the particles sandblasted the whole windshield of the plane making it difficult to see? DavidHøstbo (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That can happen at high concentration levels, but well before that level is reached the ash effects the engines. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Delay of Polio Vaccines for Sierra Leone

A number of news, polio, and vaccination websites have mentioned that among the things that were delayed by the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull was a lot of 15 vaccines intended for West Africa, more specifically, for Sierra Leone. They were part of a Rotary International campaign in which the third dose was to be administered beginning April 24th. The History of Vaccines website reports:

"Among the cargo grounded by the volcanic eruption were 15 million doses of polio vaccine bound for West Africa, prompting fears that delayed immunizations could allow the virus to spread—or that the vaccines would be rendered useless before they could be delivered. The incident highlighted the many difficulties of maintaining temperature control of vaccine materials throughout the length of the supply chain." http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/diseases-and-vaccines#EVT_000107

According to Fox News, "Sierra Leone polio shots delayed by volcanic ash." "The polio campaign was to begin Friday but the vaccines were to come from Copenhagen." http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/22/sierra-leone-polio-shots-delayed-volcanic-ash/

The shots are, I think, part of the ones described here:

"Vaccinations will be repeated on 26 March in the six key countries, and again on 24 April for all 19 countries involved. The campaign is funded by Rotary International who have provided $30 million."

However, I can't find any information about what happened after the flights resumed, or whether the vaccines delivered? Were they, and still viable? Ileanadu (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

^ "Flights scrapped as Iceland ash heads to N.L." CBC News, 19 April 2010
^ "Le nuage de cendres pourrait atteindre Terre-Neuve." La Presse (Quebec), 18 April 2010
^ "Canada Sees 'Low Risk' From Volcanic Ash Drifting West"The Wall Street Journal, 19 April 2010
^ "Volcanic cloud fears lift, Canadian airspace remains open" The Globe and Mail, 19 April 2010
^ "Les vols annulés sont causés par le brouillard." La Presse Canadienne, 19 April 2010
^ "Flights scrapped as Iceland ash heads to N.L." CBC News, 19 April 2010
^ "Le nuage de cendres pourrait atteindre Terre-Neuve." La Presse (Quebec), 18 April 2010

[1] "Flights scrapped as Iceland ash heads to N.L." CBC News, 19 April 2010

[2] "Le nuage de cendres pourrait atteindre Terre-Neuve." La Presse (Quebec), 18 April 2010

[3] "Canada Sees 'Low Risk' From Volcanic Ash Drifting West"The Wall Street Journal, 19 April 2010

[4] "Volcanic cloud fears lift, Canadian airspace remains open" The Globe and Mail, 19 April 2010

[5] "Les vols annulés sont causés par le brouillard." La Presse Canadienne, 19 April 2010

[6] "Flights scrapped as Iceland ash heads to N.L." CBC News, 19 April 2010

[7] "Le nuage de cendres pourrait atteindre Terre-Neuve." La Presse (Quebec), 18 April 2010

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]