That Volcano Again

As I mused in my blog on the 16th of April 2010: everyone is now re-assessing the action taken to ban flights over the areas affected by the volcanic ash in Europe.
The government and the authorities, in my view, are correct to err on the side of caution. If air travel is allowed to resume in the affected area and there is an air crash, then there will be a public outcry and the news media will traduce the authorities, even if the cause is not volcanic ash.
The airlines themselves are pressing for a re-assessment of the danger based on evidence rather than weather models. The evidence in front of my eyes over the weekend, in both South London and West Sussex, was that a layer of fine dust was coating the surface of cars. This dust felt very abrasive, much more than the dust from the Sahara which coats flat surfaces when the wind is from the south. There is ample evidence to suggest that volcanic ash is dangerous to aircraft. It is, probably, very difficult to predict both the density and location of the dust. I would not put my faith in the results of the few test flights that have been made so far, to determine either the extent of the ash, its concentration or its effect on the engines. It is quite possible that a very large number of flights could be made through the ash, quite safely, but what are the chances of a plane flying through a dense cloud that could damage the aircraft? The risk might be small but the consequences are potentially disastrous, so why should people on the ground be subjected to a risk over which they have no control? Are the airline companies prepared to indemnify both their passengers and third parties of the consequences of a crash? Probably not, so the government would have to step in.
All human activity incurs risk and we are prepared to accept the risk of the unexpected but most people are not prepared to accept a known risk. This is why we must err on the side of caution.
What is, also, apparent is that the airline companies have no contingency plan in place to get passengers home or look after them when they are stranded.
We have all got used to quick, cheap and easy travel, but do most passengers consider that they may have to rely upon their own resources when a natural event upsets their plans? A catastrophe has been averted but a logistical nightmare has ensued. It will be very difficult for either the government or the airlines to resolve the problem of getting huge numbers of travellers home. If, we want the government or airline to provide instant assistance, are we prepared to include the cost of this in our airline ticket? It is time for us all to reconsider the options and costs when something goes wrong.
The economic consequences of the eruption are equally disturbing and require pause for thought. Many businesses and jobs are based on the model of quickly supplying fresh products to rich European markets and using air travel as a delivery mechanism. Many poor people are going to suffer as a result of this business model going wrong for just a few days let alone months. Do we really need to fly flowers from Kenya to satisfy rich Europeans’ cosmetic demands? Would it not be better to set up businesses in Kenya which do not rely upon such a vulnerable supply chain? It will be very difficult to unwind this business model; so we should consider the effect on third world economies if we proscribe air transport for reasons other than the risk of a crash.
Perhaps, it is time to reflect upon our business models whilst we are waiting at the airport. Time to reflect what will happen, if James Hansen is correct, and the climate and the wind change direction permanently. Time, perhaps, to put away our Blackberries and Spreadsheets, for a moment, and think rather than punch numbers.