I'd rather an 'overreaction' which is speculation albeit perhaps informed, than a few airliners dropping out of the sky. The very reason that air travel is so 'safe' is purely because risks are not taken.
I'd rather a safety grounding than a flight path going down with the loss of plane after plane.
On what evidence do you base your contention that, if we fly, it will result in aluminium raining from the sky? Saftey regulation by 'just in case' measures inevitably result in nothing at all happening. How safe is safe enough? using this methodology, there is no such thing as safe enough. Yet safety, in anything, is always a compromise between risk and reward. Intelligently applied safety regulation is dynamic and relies on evidence, not assumption.
In this case, we have an ancient rule that says 'in the event of volcanic debris, you shall not fly'. It was never written, but it comes from engine manufacturers' advice that volcanic debris is highly damaging and not to be entered. However, that advice was issued when our only way of detecting such debris was visual. A volcano erupted, we could see the plume and we slapped a 200nm safety zone around the visible plume and said 'don't fly in that'. Wherever that rule has been applied and complied with, we have never had an incident due to volcanic debris ingestion. Now we are in a situation where we view and measure volcanic debris using millimetric radars, thermal imaging, and satellites working in all kinds of radiation bands. We then stick that data in the most powerful computers we have and ask them, 'where is this stuff now, where is it going, and where could it be in 48 hours from now?'. Then we bung a 200nm buffer zone around that and say 'don't fly in that, 'cos you might die'. The inevitable result is you wipe out a quarter of the globe as far as available airspace goes,
without a shred of evidence that doing so has avoided risk or improved safety. All you've done is extended the previously sensible avoidance area to something much, much larger. Because you can. And woe betide anyone who argues otherwise, because they are the Agents Of Satan and must not be trusted.
Bollocks.
At last, we have people and machinery getting out there and measuring the empirical effects of this stuff. We also have NERC using its terrific technology in the same airspace to see what's there. NERC say, 'there's lots of muck here'. Aircraft operators and engineers say, 'but it's in such small concentrations it's doing nothing bad to our engines'. So, politicians, what now?
Expect stalemate and a lot of bottom-shuffling for a good deal longer. Anticipate bankruptcies and job losses - and not just in aviation. Look forward to an eventual pragmatic solution that will acknowledge that the current regime is too restrictive, and regretting the 'inconvenience' of its application, but saying everything's ok now - please get back in your aeroplanes. Wonder at the fact that all your holiday jets are now flown by American airlines, 'cos there's no British ones left.
