It looks as if the European Union’s famous precautionary principle is behind this absurdly risk averse air travel ban.
Writing for the Guardian, Simon Jenkins observes: “The truth is that putting large, heavy bits of metal into the air is just too much for the psyche of modern regulators. They panic. The slightest risk cannot be taken or someone might blame the regulators, whose job is not to assess risk but avert it. Even an airline company, with everything to lose, is not allowed to assess its own risk.”
Frank Furedi on Spiked: “The eruption of a volcano in Iceland poses technical problems, for which responsible decision-makers should swiftly come up with sensible solutions. But instead, Europe has decided to turn a problem into a drama. In 50 years’ time, historians will be writing about our society’s reluctance to act when practical problems arose. It is no doubt difficult to face up to a natural disaster – but in this case it is the all-too-apparent manmade disaster brought on by indecision and a reluctance to engage with uncertainty that represents the real threat to our future.”
EU transport ministers hold emergency talks this afternoon over air travel crisis this afternoon and there is growing anger that European authorities panicked and closed down the skies unnecessarily.
UPDATE – THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION INTERVENES:
Europe should reduce its volcanic ash flight ban to “several dozen kilometres” around Iceland and rethink the Met Office science behind the current no fly restrictions, said a senior European Commission official today.
Matthias Ruete, the Commission’s director general of transport, criticised national air traffic authorities for relying on a single source of scientific evidence for the four day ban, which has created a major aviation crisis.
“The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,” he said.
“We don’t even know what density the cloud should be in order to affect jet engines. We have a model that runs on mathematical projections.”
“It is probability rather than actual things happening.”
The Dutch have led the way to accuse Europe, in the form of the intergovernmental Eurocontrol, of over reacting to the volcano ash cloud and are pushing to restore flights. KLM and Lufthansa, which held test flights over the weekend (give those pilots a medal) say that most of Europe’s skies are safe.
European air control authorities at Eurocontrol have admitted that they have interpreted international guidelines “more rigorously” than the US.
Here’s Camiel Eurlings, the Dutch transport minister: “I do not think that Europe needs to be stricter than a country such as America, where you have a lot of volcanoes erupting. Those people have a lot of experience and do not close the whole airspace. If we remain on the present course, then I predict we will remain in this misery for a very long time. That will not help travellers or the air sector and it is probably not necessary.”
Lufthansa, rightly furious over this disaster, has said it was “scandalous” to impose a ban based on limited data from virtual computer modelling rather than real flights testing safety.
A spokesman said: “We found no damage to the engines, fuselage or cockpit windows. This is why we are urging the aviation authorities to run more test flights rather than relying on computer models.”
Giovanni Bisignani, the head of IATA, has been on the BBC this morning to accuse the Europeans of creating a “mess”, of banning flights without a proper risk assessment and of not showing leadership. He is right.
Europe has lost its nerve. It relied on UN and British Met Office computer simulations rather than real science, that is testability, samples and experimental test flights. America, which has its own volcanoes, as Mr Eurlings observed, uses a different system that, backed by test flights, aims to keep the air travel moving.
It took pilots (who led the fight back, first at KLM and Lufthansa, then at Air France and British Airways) and airlines to make the tests that could challenge the tyranny of experts who use theoretical models and the precautionary principle to make policy, this time at an obviously huge and unacceptable cost.
A big part of the problem is the powerful, deeply conservative and risk averse environmentalist strain (or should it be stain?) in European politics.
This political development has catapulted the expert – especially the climate scientist – to the top of a hierarchy that tells us how to run our lives based on the principle that human activity, if it is not downright negative, carries huge risks.
Naturally, these crazy green anti-humanist types have celebrated the volcano as scoring a long overdue victory by nature over us horrible humans, with all our nasty civilisation and progress such as air travel, a particular bug bear for environmentalists.
Here’s the intro from a British newspaper, the Observer: “The eruption in Iceland and the ash cloud that has brought our airlines to a standstill give us a true picture of our standing in nature. [...] By colonising the space above our heads and above much of our continent, the eruption provides a reminder of our status in relation to our planet and over which we have arrogantly seized stewardship. We imagine ourselves its master and yet with one modest belch it hems us into our little island, sweeping instantly from the skies the aeroplane, which we consider to be an example of the irrepressible genius of our species.”
Thankfully, some brave Dutch, German, French and British pilots did not swallow this kind of defeatist nonsense and were ready to risk test flights that have challenged mindless orthodoxy and the tyranny of the experts. They are true Europeans.
POSTSCRIPTUM
I am pleased to be back here after a long break, for reasons too tedious to go into.
I cannot resist signing off with some of the bleats and sniffling from MEPs who have not got the gumption to get in a car and to drive to Strasbourg. There is no excuse for them not to show up this evening.
Here is Sonia Alfano MEP: “As regard my situation it would be very hazardous and risky to attend the plenary because I need to take 3 flights. EP can not clearly vote under these circumstances. It seems that maintaining the plenary in spite of rationality consideration, would be the result of pressure from some countries. I hope it’s not true, it would say we (MEPs, assistants, officials and other servants of the European parliament) are properly taken as hostages for political consideration. It’s clearly unacceptable.”
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert MEP (who is not showing the same grit as KLM): “Can we have a realit-y check please? What about all these passengers trying to find their way home/destination (already for days) and us causing even more burden on trains, roads etc.? European citizens will be furious if they’ll find about this, and rightly so.”
Um, well, I think European citizens will be more annoyed to know that an Italian and a Dutch MEP cannot stir their stumps to board a train and or to get on the motorway to Strasbourg.
#1 by Tom on April 19, 2010 - 2:22 pm
Spot on Bruno – well done. The precautionary principle must rely on some evidence otherwise it is worthless – and pointless. The machinations of the EU executive, UKMO and UK government departments has all the hallmarks of baboons inspecting a spacecraft – woeful, really – a comprehensively poor show.
Computer models are not evidence – they are contrivances based on arithmetic and require observations / measurements to be input to refine the results generated by the calculations. The calculations are wildly unstable from almost infinitessimally different starting conditions and it is prudent to run a series of scenarios through the model – even then, a human generally picks what “looks best”.
African flights fly through extensive dust clouds for 4 to 5 months a year – the Harmattan, Khamsin or Ghibli – whatever you want to call it.
#2 by SUP on April 19, 2010 - 3:29 pm
Geat job Bruno! Cameron would be proud.
You make it sound like the evil EU system in Brussels is responsible for this nonsensical ban – even though Eurocontrol is an intergovernmental organisation which is completely seperate from European Union institutions.
Gosh, what a surprise.
#3 by Graeme Lee on April 19, 2010 - 3:30 pm
Well genius, just genius.
By now you’ve probably realised I’m being sarcastic.
There is obviously precedent for volcanic ash SERIOUSLY affecting aircraft. I would love to ram this article somewhere, how would you feel if the ash brought down an airliner, whether full or a test flight, which govornment or agency is going to take that chance, knowing the scandal that would follow should something go wrong!?!?!
#4 by Bruno Waterfield on April 19, 2010 - 3:42 pm
The blog clearly locates the problem at a wider level than the EU. Although the precautionary principle that was in operation for Eurocontrol is strongly associated with the EU.
@SUP, you are going to have to grow up a bit. This article is about questioning authority, a wider problem of political culture generally, not just the EU specifically. Cameron, and his Tories, like everybody else, took the hysteria at face value. Shame on them.
@Graeme, the US has had plenty of experience of dealing with volcano ash plumes without grounding all the planes, see my update. Yes – the European Commission has done the right thing in this debate and I am very happy to say so.
#5 by Tom on April 19, 2010 - 4:26 pm
@ Graeme Lee
hey pal,
pilots are not suicidal nutters (OK, there’s been a couple of wayward ones…) and airlines are in general highly responsible.
The EU precaurionary principal is utter tosh unless governed by informed insight. It would seem that the folk deciding on this ban aren’t asking anybody with relevant experience for input. It is a shambles being gouged by Mandlebum for a Falklands Factor and MEPs trying to skank off for a few days….
Like I said – don’t fly to Africa between November and March.
Stupid boy.
#6 by Ghost on April 19, 2010 - 4:32 pm
Eurocontrol is not an EU body as far as I can tell:
“EUROCONTROL is a civil-military intergovernmental organisation with 38 Member States across the European continent. The European Community is also a member” (http://www.eurocontrol.int/corporate/public/standard_page/lp_governance.html)
So it is just another bureaucratic institution, parallel to the EU. This mess is because the European countries cannot decide for either a mini-UN intergovernmental organization type or a federal state for of organization. They try to have the both in the same time, and look at what mess all Europe is. Make a choice, guys!
#7 by Rich on April 19, 2010 - 4:42 pm
Why would anybody take anything the Met office says seriously? They can’t predict the weather a week out, instead pumping out government propaganda about ‘climate change’. And now they’re supposed to be experts on volcanoes? Pull the other one!
#8 by Thomas_EU on April 19, 2010 - 5:13 pm
Actually kinda ironic this “no-fly zone Europe”… had the volcano broken out a week earlier, Polish President Kazcinsky would still be alive…
But then a homophobe would still be running this country with veto-power-.-
#9 by french derek on April 19, 2010 - 6:43 pm
The “scientific” thinking behind the EU precautionary principle is mainly the UK Met Office, apparently.
Was Michael Fish involved?
#10 by EURSOC on April 19, 2010 - 10:16 pm
Good to see you back, Bruno
#11 by Huguenot Revenu on April 20, 2010 - 12:23 am
If you always take precautions you won’t have that many babies. Could the precautionary principle therefore be contrary to evolution or even a threat to the future of the human race?
Meanwhile has anyone investigated if suspended CRU staff migrated to the VAAC?
#12 by Huguenot Revenu on April 20, 2010 - 12:26 am
PS Great to have you back blogging Bruno, but please update your photo. I’m sure most people would agree you’re ageing quite gracefully…
#13 by Paul Henri Cadier on April 20, 2010 - 8:43 am
Huguenot revue. Excellent point about the absurdity of the precautionary principle. Without freedom to behave as informed adults all progress would cease. Life would probably be longer for those who do not commit suicide out of boredom, but the price would be a lifetime sentence in a padded cell. This absurd blanket flight ban is a \first\ in the history of aviation. Volcanoes have always been erupting somewhere.
#14 by Ronald Grünebaum on April 20, 2010 - 9:23 am
Oh man, you are totally out of your depth.
The EU (which you still seem to call by the name of Europe) has never been mandated by Member States to deal with such situations, neither has been Eurocontrol.
As a Brit you should know best the country which obstructs EU harmonisation wherever it can.
My suggestion is simple: Load a plane full of heroic journalists like you and give it a try over the UK.
And, of course, the precautionary principle is to be applied exactly when you do NOT have full scientific evidence. That’s the whole point of it.
For little Englanders like you the EU will never be able to do anything right.
And what is the harm done? Some holiday makers are stuck in places where they don’t belong in the first place and which they would not be able to find on a map. Britain is acting particularly silly: Sending the navy to repatriate its precious underclass holiday louds from distant shores such as the other side of the channel. Pathetic!
#15 by Huguenot Revenu on April 20, 2010 - 10:06 am
“And what is the harm done?” Are you in the taxi business perchance Ronald?
#16 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on April 21, 2010 - 10:21 am
Just a point in general: the EU Transport Direction has been asked to give an advice and that’s it. Eurocontrol is not an EU institution and also has only an advisory role when it comes to closing air space. The only morons in this sad story are the members states governments. They are the ones who closed their air space in the name of the precautionary principle, as they are the only ones with such responsibility. Also a last point: the precautionary principle is a specifically EU thing only for the poorly informed and the sensationalist journalists. It is actually a UN rule, which was first written out by a non-EU member (Norway). Last but not least, the precautionary principle never asks you to do nothing, only to refrain from acting without reasonable scientific evidence or studies. Precisely what should have been done in this case.
I am sick and tired of people spreading disinformation about the EU, especially journalists who are supposed to know better. I know the profession has declined a lot recently, and that I shouldn’t expect too much double checks or even facts from the media these days. But still, it annoys me tremendously when people who are supposed to inform us actually do no better than an automated Google search. Use your brains…
#17 by Sam on April 21, 2010 - 3:23 pm
Precaution is horrible. Much better to operate the way the US does, where the FAA basically allows the airlines to do whatever they want so they can make money. If a few hundred or thousand souls go down an aircraft, ah well, its okay, right?
#18 by Jeremy Jones on April 21, 2010 - 5:06 pm
I wish to add my own tongue-in-cheek observation that it’s amusingly ironic to see an argument against the ‘precautionary principle’ advance by people who almost certainly vote for a party called the ‘conservative’ party.
#19 by Patrick on April 21, 2010 - 7:33 pm
Bruno, why not go the whole hog and blame the EU for the volcano?
After your one year hiatus, I must admit I was hoping for a bit more than a continuation of your cheap pot-shots aimed at sating the appetites of those who don’t understand European politics, but nevertheless need a convenient target (preferably foreign) at which they can direct their ire over Britain’s decline.
That approach might wash in the Torygraph, but here you’re up against a (generally) informed audience.
#20 by Sam on April 22, 2010 - 9:32 am
More reality check here. It becomes clear that the airlines are at fault:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/airlines-flights-ban-airspace
#21 by Slim K on April 23, 2010 - 10:06 am
I can only imagine the invective that Bruno would spew out if the governments hadn’t closed the airspace.
“EU risking innocent lives for a fistful of dollars”
“Air passengers in mortal peril over EU laissez-faire”
And yes, it would be better for the world, if oiks would stay where they belong and not fly cheaply to Spain or France. I am for properly taxing aviation and its fuel.
#22 by Bruno Waterfield on April 23, 2010 - 3:05 pm
Sigh
This was a posting taking up a wider European – than EU – culture of risk aversion
The European Commission did the right thing, as noted
I praised the Dutch and German pilots who made a difference
#23 by tea party on April 25, 2010 - 4:56 pm
well done! and good to see you back online!
#24 by zeleneye on April 27, 2010 - 1:52 pm
Bruno – you should read the blog on this issue by Charlemagne in the Economist (your Daily Telegraph predecessor) on 20 April to find out what real media commentary is about: http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne
Maybe one day you too could aspire to such heights?
What a pity to see EU Observer has allowed your pathetic jingoist whinging back.
“A big part of the problem is the powerful, deeply conservative and risk averse environmentalist strain (or should it be stain?) in European politics.”
What a load of deluded tin-foil hat nonsense…if anything it is libertarian free market capitalists of your ilk that have a predominant influence in European politics.
You should consider surgery for that huge chip on your shoulder. It can’t be good for your mental well-being.
#25 by Lila on June 16, 2010 - 5:11 pm
Nice blog you have. Check out mine about Santorini island in Greece http://santorini-hotels.blogspot.com/
#26 by Joe on June 16, 2010 - 7:35 pm
So what you’re saying is that if someone disagrees with you that they are jingoistic, and alternately should be limited from airing their views? How sad and all too typical. The idea that one opinion on a matter that appeals to you being out simply trumps anyone’s right to speak differently say a lot about your instincts toward autarchy. Plus, in love with Soviet psychiatry practices too… as a salve to for your ego. How typical.
Oh, and to clarify your uninformed lecturesome ass, the Economist is NOT the predecessor of the Telegraph.