2002
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0434(2002)017<0691:tfeomc>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The February 2001 Eruption of Mount Cleveland, Alaska: Case Study of an Aviation Hazard

Abstract: Mount Cleveland, Alaska (52Њ49ЈN, 169Њ57ЈW), located on Chuginadak Island, erupted on 19 February 2001. The atmosphere-volcanic plume interactions that occurred as part of this event led to several serious encounters of commercial aircraft with the ash. A number of continental and oceanic air traffic control areas were affected. Here, a detailed case study of the eruption, subsequent movement of the airborne plume, and operational response is presented. The likelihood of such encounters in the future may be re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(13 reference statements)
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5 and Table 2) are known to have occurred. Detection of this cloud was initially hampered by some diffuse cirrus cloud from storms over Japan earlier in the afternoon, by the moist air into which the eruption occurred (similar to the case described by Simpson et al (2002)), and presumably also by water present in the phreatomagmatic eruption column (Rose et al, 1995). However, weak ∆T*s of -1.5 to -2.0 K were visible in the plume until it moved over the developing low at 1230 UTC, which although 35 K warmer than the eruption cloud at that stage, presented a sufficiently cold background to inhibit detection ) when combined with the other factors.…”
Section: Miyakejima 18 -19 August 2000mentioning
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…5 and Table 2) are known to have occurred. Detection of this cloud was initially hampered by some diffuse cirrus cloud from storms over Japan earlier in the afternoon, by the moist air into which the eruption occurred (similar to the case described by Simpson et al (2002)), and presumably also by water present in the phreatomagmatic eruption column (Rose et al, 1995). However, weak ∆T*s of -1.5 to -2.0 K were visible in the plume until it moved over the developing low at 1230 UTC, which although 35 K warmer than the eruption cloud at that stage, presented a sufficiently cold background to inhibit detection ) when combined with the other factors.…”
Section: Miyakejima 18 -19 August 2000mentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Aircraft in the vicinity need to know about volcanic eruptions immediately that ash is at cruising levels, with a five-minute desired notification time often quoted (eg Ellrod et al, 2002;Simpson et al, 2002;FAA, 2001), based on the knowledge that an eruption cloud can reach cruising levels within five minutes of the eruption (FAA, 2001). ICAO (2000) set no actual lead-time standards; warnings are presumed to go out as soon as possible, which in practice has been known to take hours.…”
Section: Detection Of Volcanic Eruptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…European airspace: making the 'invisible' visible While Eyjafjallajökull was not the first volcanic eruption to endanger aircraft and disrupt air traffic (see Casadevall, 1994aCasadevall, , 1994bCantor 1998;Hufford et al 2000;Simpson et al 2002;Guffanti et al 2005;Owen 2006;Prata and Tupper, 2009), both its short-term socio-economic effects and longer-term regulatory implications were profound. On an average weekday, 25,000-28,500 commercial flights, plus many thousands more military and private aircraft, use European airspace.…”
Section: Figure 1: Eyjafjallajökull's Effects On European Air Trafficmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Every modeled ash cloud has a different structure, shape, dispersion and travel distance depending upon the physical processes at the source volcano, altitude of the cloud and wind fields at the time of the eruption. Figures 2 and 3 show selected events from Schneider et al 1995;Dean et al 2011;Simpson et al 2002;Dean et al 2004;Sassen et al 2007 andSchneider et al 2008). Figures 2a and 3a for Crater Peak, Mt.…”
Section: Time Series Analysis: 1970 To Presentmentioning
confidence: 99%