The icelandic alphabet doesn't have a "c" so when you brits asked for cash, you got ash!

I love it. I work next to Heathrow. It's been all nice and quiet and there's been hardly any traffic recently.Sydney wrote:
Iceland - Ruining your economy once again-Sh1fty- wrote:
The planes' weather radar is based on detecting the humidity of the clouds, basically, the water particles. So it can't detect ashes and avoid them, sure it's a freaking big cloud you can't miss, but there's ash still floating in the air that will clog up jet engines, and it immediately melts, making the engine a giant piece of concrete attached to a brick.jord wrote:
So like, can planes not like fly a bit lower or around it?
Even if they got some ash in their engines don't jets glide? I'm sure a few new jet engines are cheaper than the millions they're losing from having to refund everyone
A lucky plane in the 80s was able to restart one engine (1 of 4) on it's 747 and fly to safety after it went through volcanic ash it didn't pick up on it's weather radar. Since the incident they haven't taken any risks.
So it's not a matter of "A few jet engines" but "A few planes", and last I checked 747 and Airbuses aren't that cheap.
Until this volcano stops erupting (it still is) Northern Europe is screwed, I can't imagine how inconvenient this is for some people, not to mention the millions that companies are losing, this will affect the economy.
edit:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 … amp;ref=nf
lol.
WUAHAHHAHAA!Hurricane2k9 wrote:
The icelandic alphabet doesn't have a "c" so when you brits asked for cash, you got ash!
well played sirHurricane2k9 wrote:
The icelandic alphabet doesn't have a "c" so when you brits asked for cash, you got ash!
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-17 05:20:20)
yup. we were able to get our rome departures out and thats aboot it so far. madrid, barcelona, and athens should be ok.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a lot of ash if you're at 30,000ft and your engines stop.
My family is now stuck in a timeshare in Malaga. o.0jord wrote:
mother couldnt go on holiday to that timeshare in malaga
hmmmmm
The trouble with flying at lower altitudes is that it uses a lot more fuel. That puts long haul flights out of the question.-Sh1fty- wrote:
6 planes flew in Germany, they're trying low level (3000m instead of 11'000m) flights to see if anything happens. Also KLM did some testing.
You also run the risk of crashing into Mountains.liquidat0r wrote:
The trouble with flying at lower altitudes is that it uses a lot more fuel. That puts long haul flights out of the question.-Sh1fty- wrote:
6 planes flew in Germany, they're trying low level (3000m instead of 11'000m) flights to see if anything happens. Also KLM did some testing.