ANALYSIS:Although lessons were learned from last year's eruption, the airlines still face challenges
THE ERUPTION of the Grimsvötn volcano in Iceland presents a huge challenge to the European authorities to avoid any repeat of the turmoil which followed the Eyjafjallajökull eruption a little more than one year ago.
Experts argue that many lessons have been learned from that painful affair. However, severe flight disruptions in Britain yesterday and Ryanair’s blunt challenge to the reliability of acute safety warnings show just how difficult it is to respond when a volcano disgorges fiery ash and debris into the sky.
In addition, the authorities remain prey to unpredictable weather patterns and the science they are using is still incomplete.
The stakes are very high indeed. No less than 100,000 flights were cancelled during the Eyjafjallajökull debacle and 10 million passengers were stranded. For days without end, the authorities looked powerless. In what turned out to be the biggest peacetime shutdown of European aviation, the global airline business took a hit for more than €1.2 billion. That’s not to speak of the wider economic impact.
At issue right now is whether new systems developed at the height of that crisis prove reliable as a less disruptive way of dealing safely with the dangers posed to planes by volcanic ash.
In the fraught days after last year’s eruption, it was pointed out that the lack of experience from any comparable emergency presented challenges akin to the struggle to deal with Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the 1980s. Thanks to Eyjafjallajökull, that is no longer the case.
As the Grimsvötn cloud spreads, the authorities are not grappling in the dark for a magic solution. Having closed down Europe’s skies last year, with chaotic consequences, the authorities ultimately gained control over the situation by revising the safety rules.
In the new system, deployed again this week, a strict no-fly zone is imposed where ash is most heavily concentrated.
This area is surrounded by a wide buffer, in which test flights can be carried out to assess conditions in zones that could be deemed safe for restricted flights. While it remains open to national authorities to close airspace if they decide the risk is too high, airlines can assess who should go to these zones.
Although division and dispute have surfaced over the application of these rules, EU transport commissioner Siim Kallas says the system is working well this week. “We do not at this stage anticipate widespread airspace closure and the prolonged disruption we saw last year,” he told reporters yesterday in Brussels.
“Europe is now equipped to respond with a graduated response, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This should avoid blanket closure of our airspace.” Still, Kallas said he recognised that the authorities are partly dependent on the weather and on the pattern of ash dispersion. “We are still looking at a very challenging week for passengers and for airlines.”
It may well prove to be a challenging week for Kallas himself. In spite of the commissioner’s confidence about the effectiveness of the response to Grimsvötn, Ryanair declared yesterday that it flew an aircraft through Scottish airspace which local regulators described as a having a “high ash concentration”.
Ryanair was a strident critic of the decision to close Europe’s skies last year. True to its uncompromisingly direct business style, the result of its Scottish test marked a clear challenge to the new safety system. Moreover, the airline said it received written confirmation from its airframe and engine manufacturers that it was safe to operate in areas designated “red zones”.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the tussle this prompted between Ryanair and its regulators, the case points to extreme pressure on all sides. Although the airline’s commercial imperatives are clear, any move to recast safety procedures could prove contentious politically. This reflects serious risk to life from any breakdown in the system. Apart from the human cost of any crash, the political implications would be immense.
So the risks are not taken lightly. By way of illustration, note that Germany told pilots yesterday that it would refuse to clear aircraft to fly in medium or high-concentration zones except in emergency or under certain other conditions.
Airlines would have to provide hard scientific proof and not rely only on local safety audits if they believed it safe to fly in air with a particular concentration, Berlin said.
Local safety audits are not sufficient. Airlines that believe it safe to fly above a certain threshold are obliged to provide scientific proof.
For all the effort to advance the volcanic ash science, the trickiest conundrums remain unresolved. For example, the authorities have found it impossible to establish a common safety threshold for the concentration of volcanic ash.
According to the European Commission, the establishment of a “one-size-fits-all” gauge for a safe concentration of ash is not viable at present and will “certainly not be resolved in the short term”. This greatly complicates risk assessment.
Similarly, the commission recognises the need for “greater accuracy and enhanced modelling” when fine-tuning meteorological systems to cope with crisis.
Days after the worst Grimsvötn eruption since 1873, the situation is still evolving. “The volcano is different. The ash is different. The weather is different,” Kallas said.
Aircraft are still flying over most of Europe, but testing days lie ahead.
Arthur Beesley is European Correspondent