This article is from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_iceland_volcano;_ylt=AnRGc1cXttzQkRPSP9nPU6VvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJqN2d2YXV2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDIwL2V1X2ljZWxhbmRfdm9sY2FubwRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZXVyb3BlcmVzdW1l
From the beginning of today, the clouds began to emerge from Europe which allowed limited air traffic and thus gave hopes to millions of travelers stuck around the world. However, the eruption from the Icelandic volcano was said to be strengthening and improving and sending more ash towards Britain, which is making it very unlikely that the London airports will be reopened back on Tuesday.
"Starting Tuesday morning, 'we should see progressively more planes start to fly,' said EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas."
Ever since the volcanic explosion, Europe's aviation industry has faced more than $1 billion losses.
The visual flight rules states that a pilot is allowed "to fly without reference to instruments, if weather conditions are good enough so the pilot can see landmarks and avoid any other aircraft. Those flights need to be under 18,000 feet, lower than usual altitude for commercial traffic."
What do you guys think about allowing limited air traffic to resume in Europe even though there will be more ash heading towards Britain?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that allowing as many planes to fly as possible right now should be the priority. Even though the current air clarity won't last long, people need to be able to travel internationally. For example, I have a friend at UCLA whose professor is stuck in Europe, and he has some major tests coming up and the professor isn't there to help. Nowadays, people take air travel for granted; the whole world is affected if air traffic over a section of the globe is frozen.
I can't help but wonder; how are airports handling the number of people- are people complaining about being stuck at the airports waiting for planes to be available to fly? Also, is the main reason for the frozen flights the danger allowing ash to enter the engine, or is it the lack of visibility?
The problem with the ask is that it can clog up the engine and make it malfunction.
this also reminds me of the plane crash that carried the Polish Prime Minister and other higher-ups. However, many people are deciding to skip out on it because of the volcano ash. To me, i think the respectful thing to do is to attend the funeral despite the volcanic ash. And that's exactly what Obama is doing.
Even though i agree with lauren, that it should be a priority that plans should fly... it is very dangerous and the ash could potentially cause the plan to crash.
A girl I went to band camp (yes...I know what you're thinking) with just got back after her school band was stranded there on their music tour of Europe. She was on the news! :O
I do believe that international flight is very important, like what Lauren said. However, I feel that if conditions aren't safe, there's a good reason that flights are limited. International flights are less important than people actually surviving to get off the planes at their destinations. I don't know whether it's the visibility or the danger of the ash, but I do remember learning that even a small pebble can disrupt an airplane's engine. For this reason, I think the engine itself is in danger of the debris. Also, visibility shouldn't be an issue for airplanes with such advanced technology these days; can't pilots still fly planes at night and when there are severe weather conditions?
Post a Comment