You were not the person who first dropped this depth charge. That was
Jonathan Osborne with comments on science in the media, which no longer
seems to be the subject under discussion.
One question worth asking, which none of the media seems to have done, is
what has Rolls-Royce to say on the issue? My spies, in very high places, say
they have tried but the company is keeping mum on the issue. Why?
These days they could use the "We asked them to comment..." routine.
As to the rest of this, from what I have read here the general view is that
it was sensible to have grounded flights. That also seems to be the
consensus opinion in the engineering community. There don't even seem to be
many complaints from travellers about the decision. The moans are about the
recovery process. But what do people expect of an airline that flogged them
tickets to Spain for a few quid?
On the press, Andrew Russell's account does not surprise me. When did the
Daily Mail ever care about the facts?
No cloud? Tell that to the people who had to strip out the engines of
helicopters and fighter engines that flew through it.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18
-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/y5meavs
MK
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Etherington
Sent: 27 April 2010 09:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Reporting Science
My main point [as the person who lobbed the depth charge in and then went
silent for 24hrs(!)] was the public and industry reaction to the use of the
precautionary principle by the appropriate authorities. As has been pointed
out, volcanoes do not create ash clouds that affect air travel that often
and, in the absence of any firm evidence about safe flying levels in clouds
that were not visible to the naked eye, the decision was made to stop
flights until more information was known. This reaction is interesting given
recent occurences where people have called for the implementation of the
precautionary principle (PP) when scientific knowledge is called into
question e.g. swine flu, MMR etc.
My comment about the airlines not having taken steps to determine safe
flying levels arises from their strong criticism of the use of the
precautionary principle and links to Health and Safety law in the UK which
rests on the phrases "practicably reasonable" i.e. what practicable
reasonable steps could be taken to protect the safety of passengers. So,
given the 1982 incident, and assuming that an aircraft had actually been
troubled by ash it was flying through in this case, the Health and Safety
Executive would be asking, is it foreseeable that planes might fly into ash
clouds again? Then have all reasonably practicable steps been taken to
mimise risk. So, in the absence of any verified safe limits for fluing in
ash, the only reasonably practicable step to ensure passenger safety is to
ground the planes. I am fully aware that airline companies (as with all
induustries) do not want to spend more money than necessary, but if the
airline companies want to have the right to complain about these steps then
they should be undertaking the necessary reasonably practicable measures to
identify safe levels. This is why I brought this into the discussion as part
of the reaction to the use of the precautionary principle.
By the way, the use of the precautionary principle is part of EU law for
environmental and consumer protection laws amongst others.
Bruce
P.S. I'll probably go silent again till tomorrow morning when I next receive
my PCST digest email.
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask]
with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list
archive, can be found at the list web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and
science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to
mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|
