THE RECENT impact of the Icelandic volcano’s ash cloud on the airline industry is estimated to have cost at least US$1,7- billion and have affected some 1,2-million passengers a day during the six days in which most of the skies over Europe, and particularly the United Kingdom, were closed to air traffic.
When the eruption first occurred and the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) was forced to place the ban on air traffic, almost everyone was in agreement that it was the safest thing to do. The incident in 1988 when a British Airways B747 had a flame out in all four of its engines when it flew into a volcanic ash cloud at night over the ocean in the Far East, was quickly recalled.
No one wanted a repeat of that incident, despite the fact that the aircraft’s engines were eventually relit and it landed safely. But when the enormity of what it was costing the airline industry started to bite there was a changing of the mindset which accelerated as day followed day, so much so that the International Air Transport Association issued a statement sharply criticising European governments for their lack of leadership in handling airspace restrictions in light of the Icelandic volcano eruption and urged a re-think of the decision-making process.
Within a few days of the crisis developing and with no end in sight, Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s director general and CEO, issued a hard-hitting statement in which he said: “We are far enough into this crisis to express our dissatisfaction on how governments have managed it — with no risk assessment, no consultation, no coordination, and no leadership. “This crisis is costing airlines at least $200-million a day in lost revenues and the European economy is suffering billions of dollars in lost business. In the face of such dire economic consequences, it is incredible that Europe’s transport ministers have taken five days to organise a teleconference,” he said, referring to the first organised press conference since the crisis began.
“Governments must place greater urgency and focus on how and when we can safely re-open Europe’s skies. This means decisions based on risk-management, facts and utilising operational procedures that maintain safety,” said Bisignani. IATA criticised Europe’s unique methodology of closing airspace based on theoretical modelling of the ash cloud. “This means that governments have not taken their responsibility to make clear decisions based on facts. Instead, it has been the air navigation service providers who announced that they would not provide service. And these decisions have been taken without adequately consulting the airlines. This is not an acceptable system particularly when the consequences for safety and the economy are so large,” said Bisignani.
“Safety is our top priority. Airlines will not fly if it is not safe. I have consulted our member airlines that normally operate in the affected airspace. They report missed opportunities to fly safely. The European system results in blanket closures of airspace. I challenge governments to agree on ways to flexibly re-open airspace. Risk assessments should be able to help us re-open certain corridors, if not entire airspaces,” said Bisignani.
IATA estimated that for the three-day period that covered April 17- 19, when the disruptions were most widespread, losses totalled roughly $400-million per day for airlines. On April 18, the number of flights fell by as much as 79% from the same day the previous week (from 24 965 to 5 204), according to EUROCONTROL.
A commercial aviation consulting analyst for Frost & Sullivan said the event had affected up to 8% of global trade. He added that “it may take up to three years for the industry to recover fully (a sentiment echoed by the IATA) and weaker carriers may not make it without government help.” In the shadow of that financial possibility, the safety actions have stirred controversy.”
The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority “led the way” in establishing the groundings, according to CAA CEO, Andrew Haines. UK Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, called the CAA’s actions “overcautious.” Haines is, so far, standing by the CAA’s decisions. The Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull’s ash cloud “created an unprecedented situation for aviation and in particular the UK,” according to Haines, who said they acted based on scientific evidence.
“Without establishing what was safe and what wasn’t, based on robust scientific data from the current ash cloud, the agency was not willing to reopen the skies regardless of pressure from the airlines,” said Haines. IATA, which represents about 230 airlines that comprise roughly 93% of scheduled international air traffic, believes earlier testing could have opened some airspace sooner. Airbus and a number of airlines conducted flight tests to determine whether the aircraft were in any way affected by the ash clouds.
Afterwards, Airbus welcomed industry position on ash impact saying that the industry joint effort had enabled evaluation of safe conditions of flight. The fact of the matter is that there are currently no “volcanic ash” certification specifications and various agencies are collaborating with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to establish new standards. Intense work with aircraft and engine manufacturers has been carried out to establish appropriate measures to ensure aircraft remain airworthy when flown in airspace with low levels of contamination from volcanic ash.
Bisignani called for an urgent meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the specialised agency of the UN, to define government responsibility for the decisions to open or close airspace in a coordinated and effective way based on real data and special operating procedures.
But the question being asked is: “Is it the governments’ or ATC service providers’ responsibility to determine when it is safe to fly?” All these accusations and crying over vast amounts of money lost cannot hide the fact that the closure of the airspace was without doubt the safest thing to do. The ash cloud showed up the aviation industry as being ill-prepared to face such a calamity. Had the industry done any research prior to last April about protecting aircraft from ash clouds, especially in view of the near disaster in 1988? Or did it merely consider such occurrences as “acceptable risks”?
In this day and age of high technology one would have thought that ash clouds would surely have been considered as a serious threat to flight safety. Maybe the airlines were more concerned about the all-important mighty dollar when they began urging a “return to flight normality”. Although nearly a billion people worldwide were inconvenienced by the shutdown, few would have liked to have been on an aircraft which suddenly found itself in extreme difficulties.
The whole industry owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the agencies throughout Europe who enforced the shutdown with the result that no lives were lost, nor were any threatened in any way. Eyjafjallajokull certainly taught the industry a lesson and perhaps some action should be taken as soon as possible to prepare for another such unexpected onslaught by Mother Nature and her sibling volcanos, not only in Europe, but around the world.
