So, those Icelanders are really getting their own back on us for that business with the banks. But are we overreacting?
I’ve just seen some professor on BBC news saying that this situation could continue, off and on, depending on wind direction, for as long as the volcano continues to erupt. Which could be, off and on, for several months.
BA flight 9‘s engines failed after it flew right through dense ash — at least that’s what it looked like in the documentary on National Geographic that was shown, oddly, several days before the eruption. I don’t get the impression that the ash is that dense in the sky over the UK, but presumably the effects on jet engines could be cumulative.
But, if its position in three dimensions is known with some degree of certainty, why not let planes fly under the ash? Some flights could be resumed if not all. Are there good reasons for not doing so, or are we too paralysed by safety fears to be flexible with aviation procedures?
Update: Some other expert on BBC news has been saying that under government regulations airlines are liable to pay the hotel bills of people stranded on holiday. They may in future go to government and ask for those rules to be changed, he says.
