The regulation of civil aviation is a complex matter. There is the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) which sets basic international standards and practises. The European Union has a Transport Commissioner. Numerous other agencies also play a role (e.g. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); Eurocontrol) as well as national governments (Dept. of Transport), national regulatory bodies (e.g. Civil Aviation Authority) and providers of services such as National Air Traffic Services. It is unlikely that a decision to close down national airspace could be lawfully taken at a lower level than national government.
The pity is that the "blame culture" is now swinging into action. Decisions, based on safety, have been taken in good faith and the volcanic activity still continues and, for all we know, may worsen. The important thing for now is that those responsible make safety assessments on whatever evidence is available and not be influenced by financial and political considerations. There will no doubt be a lot of "lessons to be learned" but they will need to await another and calmer day.
See also London Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre. For those interested in the technology have a good look around this website. Interestingly, Switzerland has been using a laser-based technology to monitor for volcanic ash. The Airbus website carries very useful information for aircrew. There are over 1500 "active" volcanoes on earth.
Meteorological Office response to Civil Aviation decision to change the engine tolerance levels for the safe levels of ash ingestion into aircraft engines - Met. Office 21st April.
The Times 21st April - Lord Adonis states that the airlines did not force the government's arm.
Addendum 22nd April: It appears that the "budget airline" Ryanair is refusing to pay the costs of passengers who were stranded - see The Guardian 22nd April. However, later in the day, there was something of a reversal of attitude - see The Guardian 22nd April.
"The pity is that the "blame culture" is now swinging into action. Decisions, based on safety, have been taken in good faith and the volcanic activity still continues and, for all we know, may worsen. The important thing for now is that those responsible make safety assessments on whatever evidence is available and not be influenced by financial and political considerations. "
ReplyDeleteObiterJ, safety is not an absolute, nor is safety in one regard necessarily in accord with safety in other regards. Safety is and always will be a trade-off, both between other risks (such as road travel, and inability to travel for medical purposes), and other non-safety goals, such as commerce and the joys of travel itself.
It is therefore disappointing that you seem to think a decision, because it is based on safety, should therefore be immune from criticism, or even analysis.
As for "blame culture", I see nothing wrong robustly challenging such decisions when it seems to you that they are based on poor evidence. Indeed that is currency of a free society.
I certaily wouldn't hang a man for making the wrong decision under such circumstances when it is such a rare event, but we must be able to say that, in retrospect, he was wrong, and that he ought to have taken different actions. Or how can we do better next time?
The rabble of agencies involved is I think a good thing, as the resulting discussion between interested parties certainly shortened the crisis. If anything I am disappointed that interested groups didn't more robustly challenge the evidential basis. Had they done so we may have got more radiosonde observations done, and the shortcomings of the computer estimates would have come to light much sooner.
Thanks Ben - good points. I entirely agree that "safety" is not an absolute and I agree that the various actions/decisions taken may be criticised. However, I merely think that the time for analysis of all this should be a little later. At this stage, I am not in favour of being unduly critical of those who had to make these difficult decisions. It also seems a little harsh to say that the decisions taken were based on "poor evidence". To say that would require considerable expertise in how these things are monitored.
ReplyDeleteI have just added some interesting links which look at some of the techniques used to monitor volcanic ash. I don't pretend they are a comprehensive coverage of the topic but they are interesting.
By the way, before getting into law, I spent a considerable time in civil aviation "at the sharp end" so I know a bit about it.
The bottom line of all this in my opinion is money. There is no 100% guarantee of anything in this life except death. Ryanair and others [Iberia I believe being another] are claiming "act of god" and how it is unreasonable for them to conform to EU regulation in respect of refunds etc Surely this is what Insurance exists for? The fact that airlines are apparently uninsured against risks of {this} nature [god] is their own shortcoming. Their obligations must be met or forced out of them.
ReplyDelete