Will Europe allow airlines to decide when is safe to fly?

BACKGROUND:EUROPE'S AVIATION authorities came under ferocious pressure from airlines to review the ban that paralysed air travel for five days. At issue now is whether they can restore flights without compromising safety.

EU transport ministers decided last night to reopen most European airspace while maintaining a strict no-fly zone in the immediate vicinity of Iceland. To do this, they relied on data from as many as 40 test flights which suggested there was nothing abnormal in airspace deemed unsafe by automated computer models run by the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre in London.

Apportioning blame for the disruption that flowed from the application of that “black-and-white” system will be for another day. For the moment, however, it seems that many air services will gradually return to normal.

A longer-term issue for the European authorities is whether they might adopt US-style rules, a system in which airlines decide whether and where to fly when a volcano erupts.

With passengers, airlines, airports and the wider economy under acute strain as a result of the blanket lock-down, critics say similar bans were never imposed after eruptions in the Americas and Asia.

“We have seen volcanic activity in many parts of the world but rarely combined with airspace closures and never at this scale,” International Air Transport Association (IATA) chief Giovanni Bisignani said.

“When Mount St Helens erupted in the US in 1980, we did not see large-scale disruptions because the decisions to open or close airspace were risk-managed with no compromise on safety.”

In the US system, the public authorities provide airlines with information on airspace conditions. European Commission director general for transport Mattias Ruete said it was “not necessarily” so that more European airspace would have been opened under the US system. He said it was no more risky: “The American system is not a system of less safety.” But changing the rules raises a host of prickly questions. If the US system was to be adopted, for example, airlines would have to assume the burden of risk when allowing planes to fly.

Mr Ruete said the problem in the current system is that the computer model that projects the spread of ash is based on “certain assumptions”. This is akin to a black box, based more on probability than on scientific evidence. “We don’t know what the density of the cloud has to be in order to affect jet engines.”

A key problem days ago was the lack of any empirical data on air conditions, meaning those faced with the choice of closing airspace or keeping it open had a daunting responsibility.

Mr Ruete said there were no indications of ash on aircraft following tests by French, Dutch and German airlines over the weekend. However, glass build-up from the eruption was found in the engine of a Nato F-16 fighter jet. This underlines the danger in the current scenario.

That said, Mr Bisignani of IATA called it “incredible” that EU transport ministers took five days to organise a conference call.