Daily Mail
Oops
The satellite images demonstrate that the skies were largely clear, which will not surprise the millions who enjoyed the fine, hot weather during the flight ban.
Jim McKenna, the Civil Aviation Authority’s head of airworthiness, strategy and policy, admitted: ‘It’s obvious that at the start of this crisis there was a lack of definitive data.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
1. Commercial aircraft hit by lightning are usually undamaged. In fact there have only been 13 recorded acccidents where lighting has been a cause or factor. Most commercial aircraft are in fact struck by lightning twice a year.
2. FAA regulations explicitly state that aircraft must remain 20 miles from any thunderstorms in the area.
No comparison.
Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM
In other news, The Met Office reports that Global Warming is still monstrously damaging, according to computer models, and is poised to bring no less that 14 inches of sea level increase world-wide, according to computer models, and has forecast the loss of Himalayan snow pack, as interpreted by computer models, as well as the loss of not only The Snows of Kilimanjaro but also the standing of Ernest Hemingway in the pantheon of authors, as evaluated by computer models.
.
Log on to The Met Office to meet Jasmin, the newest and naughtiest of The Computer Models! You’ll be glad you paid attention to us!
ExpressoBold on April 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM
The KLM test flight was conducted when all flights were grounded.
Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM
How is everyones faith in science these days?
BL@KBIRD on April 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Please, lightening isn’t the danger for an aircraft flying into a thunderstorm.
Gee, if that’s all that it takes, then ICAO should have simply made a regulation explicitly stating that aircraft must remain 20 miles from any ash cloud in the area. Problem solved, right?
Also notice that it’s not against the regulations for aircraft to fly towards destinations with PREDICTED thunderstorms. Ask yourself why you think that is.
blink on April 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Shaken, not stirred.
Inanemergencydial on April 26, 2010 at 3:56 PM
That’s not what I asked.
Look, even if you assume that any aircraft flying into an ash cloud will crash, then ask yourself if it was possible for aircraft to avoid the ash clouds – the same way aircraft have avoid thunderstorms since aviation began.
Most aviation professionals assume an aircraft will crash whenever it flies into a thunderstorm yet aircraft take off despite predicted thunderstorms every day. Again, ask yourself why that is.
blink on April 26, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Model government…
ronsfi on April 26, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Are you a pilot?
Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 4:37 PM
You fail to note the numerous delayed flights or cancelled flights due to thunderstorms. After all, thunderstorms are completely unpredictable. They can’t be predicted 6 hours in advance. And although many flights can simply “fly over” the thunderstorms, the typical service ceiling of commercial airliners isn’t high enough to fly over thunderstorms with 60,000 foot tops. Which are frequent in the South and Midwest.
In early May of 2003 I was on a nonstop flight from LAX to PHL, and the flight plan had to be greatly modified to go around forecasted thunderstorms in the Midwest. Since this was a 5 hour flight, the location of these storms could not be predicted in LAX before takeoff. As a result, the 5 hour flight took over 6 hours as we had to swing way to the south, and then fly up the East Coast.
Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM
That’s meaningless to this discussion. Nobody would be criticizing the European authorities for delaying or canceling many flights. I’m criticizing them for not being honest about why they decided to ground ALL flights.
This is definitely not true. Maybe you meant to state that thunderstorms aren’t completely predictable. Please tell me you understand the huge difference between the two statements.
Often they can be. (But I acknowledge that, obviously, they can’t ALWAYS be.)
Actually, very few flights, if any, literally fly over a thunderstorm.
Yes, and yet aircraft are still allowed to fly directly towards a region of predicted thunderstorms.
On the other hand, it’s believed that the ash clouds topped out at a much lower altitude. Thanks for helping me make my point.
Yes. Again you help me make my point. Notice that they didn’t simply ground all flights.
I think you’re starting to understand.
blink on April 26, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2