U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–351 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–521

VOLCANIC HAZARDS—IMPACTS ON AVIATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND 

PREDICTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 16, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 16, 2006 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 20

Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson ............................................................ 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Eichelberger, Dr. John C., Professor of Volcanology, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks; Coordinating Scientist, Alaska Volcano Observatory .................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

McVenes, Captain Terry, Executive Air Safety Chairman, Airline Pilots Association, International ........................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Quick, Dr. James E., Program Coordinator, Volcano Hazards Program, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Department of the Interior .................................................. 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX

Inouye, Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement .................... 23

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 23

(1)

VOLCANIC HAZARDS—IMPACTS ON AVIATION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND

PREDICTION, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all for coming here today. It’s a very 

confused day, probably about 40 votes on the floor today. We all 

know the threat that volcanic ash poses for Alaska. The staff just 

gave me a little bit of ash, Dr. Eichelberger, from Augustine. I’ve 

got an opening statement which I’ll put in the record. But very 

clearly over half the population of Alaska lies within 200 miles of 

Augustine. And 2 months ago it spewed ash throughout south central Alaska shutting down several airports throughout the area. 

We’re going to have testimony today, from Captain Terry 

McVenes, Air Safety Chairman for the Airline Pilots Association, 

Mr. James Quick, Program Coordinator for the Volcano Hazardous 

Program at USGS and Dr. John Eichelberger, Coordinating Scientist at Alaska Volcano Observatory at the University of Fairbanks, and Dr. Eichelberger, I do thank you for flying all this way 

to appear before us to make the record on this issue, and I’m sure 

you want to go back in case Augustine decides to erupt again, 

right. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Thank you all for coming today, I am happy to be chairing this hearing, since volcanic ash poses such a grave threat to Alaska. I expect Senator DeMint to join us 

a bit later. 

As we speak, Augustine Volcano located in Cook Inlet, is at code orange, which 

means an explosive eruption is possible within a few days and may occur with little 

or no warning. The United States Geological Survey folks in Alaska sent me this 

picture last night. This was right before sunset yesterday over Augustine, you can 

see the steam spewing from the top. 

Over half the population of Alaska lies within 200 miles of that volcano. Two 

months ago, it spewed ash throughout south-central Alaska, shutting down several 

airports throughout the area. 

Alaska averages four days of volcanic ash activity a year, and since more than 

one third of Alaskans do not have road access, flying is the preferred method of 

2

transportation. Anchorage, our biggest city, is within potential striking distance of 

ash from over 9 active volcanoes. Anchorage International Airport is also the largest 

cargo hub in the United States, and all passenger flights from Asia to the United 

States, fly over Alaska and its 41 active volcanoes.

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Exciting times. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator, do you have any opening 

statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator BEN NELSON. I would ask that my more complete opening statement be included in the record. Let me say first I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, you having this hearing today. 

Coming from the State of Nebraska we don’t have to worry much 

about our volcanoes. We’re not too concerned in the state about experiencing a loss due to a tsunami or a hurricane either, but we 

recognize that the number one mission of our government is to protect our citizens. 

While we may have other natural hazards we have to deal with, 

we’re certainly mindful, and sensitive, to hazards that others experience. I’m very pleased to be able to be here today. We recognize 

that the hazards of volcanoes are not limited to those on the 

ground, but also to those who fly in the air as well. We all have 

an abiding interest in making sure that we’re doing everything 

that we can in this Committee to protect the public. 

I thank you very much, and I thank the witnesses as well. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM

NEBRASKA

Coming from the State of Nebraska, we don’t have to worry about volcanoes, tsunami, or hurricanes. But we do know that the number one mission of the government is to protect its citizens, whether through military strength, homeland security, or ordinary warnings about environmental hazards. It is this duty to protect 

through warnings that is at the heart of today’s hearing on volcano hazards to aviation. 

Our witnesses today will tell us about the Nation’s 169 geologically active volcanoes, and the dangers they pose. Frankly, when we think of volcano hazards, we 

assume they pose a danger to people on the ground, those who live and work near 

these sleeping giants. But each year, up to 50,000 aircraft pass near potentially active volcanoes. Should one of those volcanoes erupt, the consequences are dangerous, 

as Captain Terry McVenes will tell us. 

In April 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey issued ‘‘An Assessment of Volcanic 

Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for A National 

Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS).’’ The NVEWS report states that many 

hazardous and potentially hazardous volcanoes are left largely under- or un-monitored, including 18 very high threat volcanoes and 37 high threat volcanoes. The 

report concludes that full monitoring of these volcanoes and more basic monitoring 

of moderate and low threat volcanoes through a National Volcano Early Warning 

System (NVEWS) will allow the U.S. to protect both people and property 

proactively. 

I hope that we will learn that significant progress has been made since last April, 

and that there is a plan for systematically addressing the priority monitoring challenges. However, I fear that this is basically a question of money, money that the 

Geological Survey doesn’t have. The FY 2006 budget for the USGS Volcano Hazards 

Program is $21.5 million. The FY request is $21.7 million, an increase of $206,000. 

According to your budget documents, the agency hopes to rebuild and improve monitoring at four sites. However, there will be no wide scale implementation of the 

NVEWS framework. The plan for FY 2006–2007 supports no new monitoring in 

3

2006 and new monitoring at only one volcano, Pagan volcano in the Marianas, in 

FY 2007. 

I look forward to our witnesses’ candid assessment of what is truly needed to protect our citizens on the ground and in the air.

The CHAIRMAN. They just sent this to me. That picture was 

taken just before sunset yesterday, so the volcano is semi-active 

again, Doctor. Let’s proceed in the order that’s on the schedule. 

Captain McVenes, may we have your testimony. All of your statements, by the way, will appear in full as though read and our 

statements likewise will appear as though read. But we’re under 

a time constraint unfortunately because the votes start at 10:30. 

But, Captain, will you proceed, please. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN TERRY MCVENES, EXECUTIVE AIR 

SAFETY CHAIRMAN, AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,

INTERNATIONAL 

Captain MCVENES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Captain Terry McVenes, Executive Air 

Safety Chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which 

represents more than 60,000 professional pilots who fly for 39 airlines here in the United States and Canada. ALPA appreciates the 

opportunity to discuss volcanic hazards and the impacts on aviation. 

Of the more than 1,330 volcanoes worldwide that have demonstrated activity over many thousands of years, approximately 

500 of them have recent histories of events and action. However 

constant seismic monitoring is only available on 174 volcanoes and 

yet, worldwide, there are 55 to 60 eruptions per year. From 1980 

to 2005, more than 100 turbojet aircraft have sustained volcanic 

ash damage, with repair costs in excess of $250 million dollars. 

Seven of these encounters caused temporary engine failure, and 3 

of the aircraft involved temporarily lost all engine power. These engine failures took place as far away as 600 miles from the erupting 

volcano and more than 1,500 passengers were in jeopardy. 

Volcanoes around the Pacific form what’s referred to as the Pacific Ring of Fire. Most of the ring volcanoes are unmonitored for 

seismic activity yet some of the world’s busiest air navigation 

routes crisscross these areas. Consequently turbojet aircraft encountering volcanic ash could be in grave danger. 

I have brought with me at your request an actual recording of 

a KLM Flight. A Boeing 747 with more than 240 passengers onboard, that encountered volcanic ash, during the 1989 eruption of 

Mt. Redoubt near Anchorage, Alaska. Listen closely to the radio 

transmissions between Anchorage Center, which is the air traffic 

control facility for that region, and KLM 867. 

So what happened here? All four engines and many electrical 

systems failed in only 59 seconds. The cockpit displays became an 

electronic nightmare. Ash was shorting electronic circuit boards. 

This four-engine jumbo jet was a glider for several minutes. Although all engines eventually were able to be restarted, they all delivered reduced performance. In fact the last engine only restarted 

just before landing in Anchorage. They did finally land safely, but 

there was $80 million dollars in damage to the airplane. Had the 

4

crew’s emergency procedures failed, more than 200 fatalities and a 

total hull loss could have been the result. 

In a 1982 encounter near Jakarta, Indonesia, a British Airways 

Boeing 747 had a similar experience at night when Mt. Galungung 

erupted and propelled ash to flight altitudes without warning. That 

British Airways crew was surrounded in ash. They lost communications because of the electronic interference, all four engines flamed 

out, and was left without assistance until just before an emergency 

landing. With communications lost, most aircraft systems failed, 

and the crew was only able to navigate to safety visually. They successfully avoided what could have been another fatal consequence. 

There has been progress. Today both geostationary and polar orbiting satellites can detect eruption gases and cloud movement. 

However, industrial priorities must be constantly justified and Federal budgets annually adjusted to assure that these capabilities 

continue on future replacement satellites. Shifting priorities and 

shrinking Federal budgets have repeatedly lessened these satellite 

capabilities in recent years. 

There remain some problems to be addressed. In spite of the satellite umbrella, seismic monitors are needed around the world, especially in sparsely populated areas where communications are not 

fully developed. The Mariana Islands, for example, have volcanoes 

throughout their territory. Mt. Anatahan, the most active, has only 

minimal seismic monitoring plus a backup instrument on nearby 

Pagan. It has had eruptions for the last 3 years, including a stretch 

of five straight months of activity propelling ash clouds to cruise 

flight altitudes. Flights to these islands have been disrupted, and 

there have been deviations of commercial traffic flying air routes 

over the islands. Though Guam and Saipan are usually excellent 

en route alternates for over flights, volcanic activity introduces special emergency fuel and weight limiting procedures for long-range 

twin-engine commercial aircraft. These special procedures and diversions have cost carriers in the millions of extra operating dollars. In addition, U.S. military operations around Guam have been 

frequently postponed or canceled, driving DOD expenditures there 

higher. A wider array of monitoring in the Marianas could improve 

predictability, allow earlier warnings for the air traffic system, and 

reduce unnecessary reroutes and/or cancellations in this important 

area of the world. 

So to summarize, we continue to have multiple ash encounters 

by airliners every year. Potentially active volcanoes, especially in 

remote locations need to be seismically monitored 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week. Geologic observatories must coordinate closely with 

regional air traffic authorities to ensure that warnings are disseminated as soon as possible. Commercial operators should ensure that 

flight crew training curricula address the normal and emergency 

procedures for hazard avoidance and inadvertent encounters. The 

Congress and U.S. Government agencies should be cognizant of the 

volcanic hazard and its impacts on aviation, in order to understand 

the technical and financial support required to maintain the necessary detection that is required and to provide those resources. 

Aspects of this program are shared by the U.S. Geological Survey, 

the Smithsonian Institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and its National Weather Service (NWS), 

5

and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). All of their administrative budgets must be annotated in support of shares of that responsibility. 

In conclusion, commercial turbojet aircraft are certified with multiple redundant systems to prevent total system failures. Yet even 

they can be rendered helpless by volcanic ash. Therefore, detection, 

prediction and dissemination strategies are essential to avoid the 

hazard. Either we will identify a turning point in our understanding of the volcanic hazards and the impacts on aviation, or we 

will continue on our present course and accept the hazards of the 

encounters that we have reviewed. Unfortunately, continuing on 

our present course may produce fatal results. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share ALPA’s 

views on this important matter, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you and the other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Captain McVenes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN TERRY MCVENES, EXECUTIVE AIR SAFETY

CHAIRMAN, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Captain Terry McVenes, 

Executive Air Safety Chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which 

represents more than 60,000 professional pilots who fly for 40 commercial airlines 

in the United States and Canada. ALPA appreciates this opportunity for me to appear before you today to join with members of government and the aviation community to discuss volcanic hazards and the impacts on aviation. 

Discussion 

Historically, 1,330 volcanoes worldwide have demonstrated indications of activity 

over many thousands of years. More than 500 of them have shown some activity 

in recent history, but constant monitoring is currently only available on 174 volcanoes and yet, worldwide, there are 50 to 60 eruptions per year. From 1980 to 2005, 

more than 100 turbojet aircraft have sustained at least some damage after flying 

through volcanic ash clouds, resulting in cumulative damages of over $250 million 

dollars. At least 7 of these encounters have resulted in temporary engine failure, 

with 3 aircraft temporarily losing power from all engines. Engine failures have occurred at distances from 150 to 600 miles from the erupting volcanoes. Ash related 

aircraft damages have been reported as far as 1,800 miles from a volcano eruption. 

The eruption of a volcano located in a densely populated area of the world can 

produce catastrophic consequences for those in its vicinity. Because the ferocity of 

volcanic eruptions bring potential danger to life and property, the most active of 

them usually have seismic monitors near them, and networks of observatories and 

scientists with reactive plans to transmit warnings, evacuate population and protect 

life. Volcanic activity is usually obvious to those in close range and public reports 

may be as plentiful as those from the scientific community. As a necessary adjunct 

to those plans, aviation authorities must be notified so that air traffic may be rerouted to avoid potential danger. 

Volcanoes located in sparsely populated regions present a vastly different problem 

because most are unmonitored, and reports of activity may be either extremely random or nonexistent. Warnings to the aviation community may never be given, and 

the first indication for an aircraft in the area may be an inadvertent encounter with 

the ash cloud. Many of the volcanoes around the rim of the Pacific Ocean fall into 

that category. Volcanoes along the western coasts of North and South America, the 

Alaskan Aleutians, the Kamchatkan Peninsula, and the Asian coastal regions South 

to Australia, form what geologists refer to as the Pacific Ring of Fire. The majority 

of the Ring’s volcanoes are unmonitored, yet some of the world’s busiest air navigation routes crisscross these areas. Turbojet aircraft exposed to heavy concentrations 

of volcanic ash are in grave danger. Multi-engine commercial aircraft encountering 

ash clouds have suffered severe consequences as a result. As an example, KLM 

Flight 867, a Boeing 747 with more than 240 passengers aboard, encountered the 

1989 eruption of Mt. Redoubt near Anchorage, Alaska. Review these transmissions 

between Anchorage Center, the air traffic control facility for that region, and KLM 

867 . . . 

6

Video/Voice/Recording plays for 57 seconds for Members and audience at 

hearing...

Pilot KLM B–747—‘‘KLM 867 heavy is reaching {flight} level 250 heading 140’’

Anchorage Center—‘‘Okay, Do you have good sight on the ash plume at this time?’’

Pilot KLM B–747—‘‘Yea, it’s just cloudy it could be ashes. It’s just a little browner 

than the normal cloud.’’

Pilot KLM B–747—‘‘We have to go left now... it’s smoky in the cockpit at the 

moment sir.’’

Anchorage Center—‘‘KLM 867 heavy, roger, left at your discretion.’’

Pilot KLM B–747—‘‘Climbing to {flight} level 390, we’re in a black cloud, heading 

130.’’

Pilot KLM B–747—‘‘KLM 867 we have flame out all engines and we are descending 

now!’’

Anchorage Center—‘‘KLM 867 heavy anchorage?

Pilot KLM B747—‘‘KLM 867 heavy we are descending now . . . we are in a fall!’’

Pilot KLM B–747—‘‘KLM 867 we need all the assistance you have sir. Give us radar 

vectors please!’’

To classify this encounter as one presenting grave danger for those 240 passengers and that crew is an understatement! All four engines of this aircraft failed 

within 59 seconds! A false cargo compartment fire warning indication required special attention by the crew. All normal airspeed indications failed! The avionics compartments containing all of the radio, radar, electronic systems monitoring, and 

communications systems, all overheated and individual systems failed. The sophisticated electronic cockpit displays became an electronic nightmare. While ash was 

contaminating the engines and causing them to flame out, it was also contaminating 

electrical compartments and shorting electronic circuit boards. This four engine 

jumbo jet was essentially a glider for several minutes until the crew was able to 

individually restart engines. Three of the engines eventually restarted but delivered 

reduced performance. The fourth engine eventually came on line when the aircraft 

was on final approach to Anchorage. Although the crew landed safely, the encounter 

caused $80 million dollars damage to the airplane. Under only slightly different circumstances, 240 plus fatalities and a total hull loss could have been the result. 

KLM 867 was only one of several commercial aircraft exposed to varying amounts 

of damage during several days of volcanic activity from Mt. Redoubt. Anchorage is 

one of the world’s busiest airports for both passengers and cargo. The eventual economic impact of aircraft damages, cargo delays, passenger flight delays and cancellations, and general disruption to the Alaskan economy was staggering. Every 

commercial aviation operation in or through that territory suffered economic consequences. 

Mt. Redoubt was monitored, and the system of warnings was activated, but the 

capability to detect and predict the ash movement, and to track the cloud, was not 

as sophisticated in 1989 as it has become today. Nor were the commercial flight 

crews as aware of the hazard, or as specifically trained to deal with avoidance or 

escape, as many have been trained to do today. 

In an earlier encounter near Jakarta, Indonesia, a British Airways Boeing 747 

had a similar experience at night when Mt. Galungung erupted and propelled ash 

to flight altitudes without warning. That BA crew was enveloped in ash, lost communications because of the electronic interference, flamed out all four engines, and 

was left without assistance until just before an emergency landing. With communications lost, most aircraft systems failed, and pure visual pilotage to navigate to 

safety, they also successfully avoided what could have been fatal consequences. 

Progress 

The capability for today has improved. Both geostationary and polar orbiting satellites employ sensors to detect eruption gases and to depict cloud movement. However, industrial priorities must constantly be justified and funding made available 

to ensure that those capabilities continue on future replacement satellites. Shifting 

priorities and shrinking Federal budgets have lessened the satellite capabilities in 

recent years. Operational plans are employed throughout the world to maintain 

communications priorities to transmit volcanic ash hazard warnings and notices 

within the aviation community. Since 1989, two international volcanic ash and aviation safety conferences have been held to bring the scientific and aviation communities together to refine and improve prediction, detection, and monitoring of the 

hazard; and to improve training, operational procedures, and communications and 

warning strategies within the aviation community. 

7

Remaining Problems to Be Addressed 

In spite of the satellite umbrella, seismic monitors are needed around the world, 

especially in sparsely populated areas where communications are not fully developed. The Mariana Islands, for example, have volcanoes throughout their territory. 

Mt. Anatahan, the most active, has only minimal seismic monitoring plus a backup 

instrument on nearby Pagan. It has had eruptions for the last three years, including 

a stretch of five straight months of activity propelling ash clouds to cruise flight altitudes. Flights to the islands have been disrupted, and there have been deviations 

of commercial traffic flying air routes over the islands. Though Guam and Saipan 

are usually excellent en route alternates for over flights, volcanic activity introduces 

special emergency fuel and weight limiting procedures for long-range twin-engine 

commercial aircraft. These special procedures and diversions have cost carriers in 

the millions of extra operating dollars. In addition, U.S. military operations around 

Guam have been frequently postponed or cancelled, driving DOD expenditures there 

higher. A wider array of monitoring in the Marianas could improve predictability, 

allow earlier warnings for the air traffic system, and reduce unnecessary reroutes 

and/or cancellations in this important area of the world. 

Lesson Summary 

• Potentially active volcanoes, especially in remote locations, should be seismically monitored 24/7.

• Geologic observatories must coordinate closely with regional air traffic authorities to ensure that warnings are disseminated as soon as possible.

• Commercial operators should ensure that flight crew training curricula address 

the normal and emergency procedures for hazard avoidance and inadvertent encounters.

• The Congress and U.S. Government agencies should be cognizant of the volcanic 

hazard and its impacts on aviation, in order to understand the technical and 

financial support required to maintain the necessary detection and prediction 

resources. Aspects of this program are shared by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), the Smithsonian Institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and its National Weather Service (NWS), and The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). All of their administrative budgets must be 

annotated in support of shares of that responsibility.

Conclusion 

Commercial turbojet aircraft are certified with multiple redundant systems to prevent total system failures. Yet even they can be rendered helpless by volcanic ash. 

Therefore, detection, prediction and dissemination strategies are essential to avoid 

the hazard. Either we will identify a turning point in our understanding of the volcanic hazards and the impacts on aviation, or we will continue on our present course 

and accept the hazards of the encounters that we have reviewed. Continuing on our 

present course may produce fatal results. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share ALPA’s views on this important matter, and I will be happy to answer any questions you and the other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Captain. Dr. Eichelberger. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN C. EICHELBERGER, PROFESSOR OF 

VOLCANOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS;

COORDINATING SCIENTIST, ALASKA VOLCANO

OBSERVATORY 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of 

the Subcommittee for this opportunity to discuss prediction and 

prevention of volcanic hazards. I would like to focus on the Alaska 

region and for obvious reasons that’s where most of the U.S. volcanoes are and the Alaska Volcano Observatory which has an unusual aspect of direct involvement of the academic research community. I am Coordinating Scientist of AVO, and so I lead the University portion of the AVO effort. And as Senator Stevens pointed 

out, we’re now dealing with a major eruption of Augustine volcano. 

8

It’s rapidly extruding lava. It had an explosive phase early on and 

could go back to major explosions really at any time. 

Americans tend to think of their 49th state as remote, although 

remoteness is in the eye of the beholder. Most people don’t think 

of their homes as remote. It surprises people to discover that 

flights between eastern Asia and North America pass over Alaska, 

not Hawaii. Thus, some 25,000 people traverse Alaska’s skies every 

day and Anchorage ties Tokyo in air freight. Along this route are 

about 100 volcanoes capable of blasting ash to flight levels, with 

the potentially fatal results that Captain McVenes described. Some 

of these volcanoes are in Japan, many in the Russian Far East, 

and about half in Alaska. 

It is not enough to justify a program by pointing out a danger. 

The more important question is whether something can be done 

about it. And for volcanoes, this means getting people out of the 

way. Happily, prediction of eruptions is possible through geophysical monitoring, so volcanology is a case where a modest investment produces a large benefit in reducing the impact of catastrophic natural events. 

For the airlines, adequate monitoring means knowing when and 

where it is safe to fly. For communities, it means knowing when 

to protect facilities, how to advise people on health risks and when 

to evacuate. By making information on the condition of Augustine 

volcano, instantly available to everyone, AVO, I believe, has vastly 

reduced the disruption caused by the current activity. 

Our observatory is unique in the world in that it is a thoroughly 

collaborative undertaking of Federal and State government scientists, and, key from my standpoint, faculty and students of the 

university. The strengths of this approach are diversity of expertise, the connectedness of the university to local communities, government agencies, and the U.S. scientific community, and—most of 

all from the university’s perspective—the involvement of students 

in exciting science for immediate public benefit and the education 

of the next generation of geoscientists. 

The challenges of Alaska which our Chairman is well aware of, 

have kind of defined our areas of leadership. We have developed 

the means to geophysically monitor volcanoes in remote harsh environments. We’ve been the first to use satellite remote sensing operationally for volcano monitoring. 

We have educated a diverse group of talented geoscientists who 

serve in public, private and academic sectors, not just in natural 

hazard mitigation but also in areas of mineral and energy resources. 

We now have 30 volcanoes geophysically monitored and no other 

observatory in the world comes close to that. 

Finally, and here again our academic face helps us, we’re the 

most international of observatories, linking with our Russian colleagues to cover the entire North Pacific. For the university, having 

a strong core program in volcano monitoring leads to success in related areas. Spin-offs from this work include a new model for particulate plumes; new satellite remote sensing techniques; international volcano research drilling in Japan (we actually drilled 

through the conduit of an active volcano); geothermal energy research in Alaska (which I think is a bright hope for the future); 

9

and collaborative volcanological education and research in the Russian Far East and Alaska—the latter is supported by the National 

Science Foundation and the Russian Academy of Sciences involving 

students from all over Russia and the U.S. These NSF programs 

have opened a new bright window in our common border with Russia, which I think is very important. 

The immediate challenge for the Alaska Volcano Observatory, illuminated by the current eruption, is stability of Federal support. 

We hope that through improved coordination among the Departments of Interior, Transportation and Commerce and the National 

Volcano Early Warning System that Dr. Quick is going to discuss 

that will become possible. 

The need for a combination of instrumented vigilance, advances 

in technology and science of volcano monitoring, and geoscience 

education will continue as long as humankind exists on this dynamic planet. The benefits are not only property and lives saved, 

but in knowledge gained and in students inspired. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Eichelberger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN C. EICHELBERGER, PROFESSOR OF

VOLCANOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS; COORDINATING SCIENTIST, 

ALASKA VOLCANO OBSERVATORY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to discuss the natural hazard threat that volcanoes pose to international aviation 

over Alaska, to Alaska’s communities, and to the role that the Alaska Volcano Observatory plays in mitigating this hazard. James Quick of the U.S. Geological Survey, on behalf of Acting Director Patrick Leahy, is reporting at this hearing on the 

national program of volcano hazard mitigation. I would like to focus on some of the 

special and unusual aspects of this work in the Alaska region by the Alaska Volcano 

Observatory (AVO), an observatory which itself has some unusual aspects. I am Coordinating Scientist of AVO, and as such lead the University of Alaska portion of 

the AVO effort. This is an important time for such a report, as we are now dealing 

with an explosive eruption in Alaska’s most populous region, as well as with unrest 

at other volcanoes. I believe that AVO’s successful prediction of and response to the 

eruption of Augustine Volcano makes the case for continued support of this effort 

all the more compelling. 

Americans tend to think of their 49th state as remote, although remoteness is in 

the eye of the beholder. A remote place is far from home and usually at the corner 

of a map. But Earth does not have corners. It surprises people to discover that 

flights between eastern Asia and North America pass over Alaska, not Hawaii. 

Thus, some 25,000 people traverse Alaska’s skies every day and Anchorage ties 

Tokyo (Narita) in landed airfreight. Along this route are about 100 volcanoes capable of blasting ash to flight levels, some in Japan, many in Russia, and about half 

in Alaska. However, Alaska’s volcanoes are remote in the sense of getting geophysical equipment installed and getting data out. They provide unforgiving environments for hi-tech instrumentation. These facts, combined with Alaska’s small 

population, define the mission of AVO and explain its areas of international leadership in volcanology. 

Of course, it is not enough to justify a program by pointing out a danger. The 

more important question is whether something can be done to reduce the impact 

of a natural event in terms of damage to property and loss of life. For volcanoes, 

this often means getting people out of harm’s way, which in turn requires either 

immediate or preferably advance warning of eruptions. Happily, prediction of eruptions in a useful timeframe is often possible for volcanoes through observation of increased seismicity, subtle inflation, and increased heat and gas output. These 

changes are detected through surface seismic and GPS networks, through surveillance flights, and through sophisticated satellite remote sensing techniques. In addition to when, it is vital to know how a volcano will erupt, and for this we rely on 

the lessons of history that geology of the volcano provides. 

Ash clouds do not respect immigration procedures, and so comprehensive monitoring requires close coordination with international counterparts. Finally, hazard 

information must be disseminated widely, freely, and instantly, as is now possible 

10

through the Internet and World Wide Web. These activities, then, comprise the 

Alaska Volcano Observatory. Except for very large eruptions—infrequent but they 

do happen, and Alaska did have the world’s largest eruption of the 20th century in 

1912—potential losses are less than for large earthquakes or hurricanes. But 

volcanology is a case where a modest investment produces a large benefit in reducing the impact of catastrophic events. 

For the airlines, the result of AVO’s vigilance is knowing when to cancel flights 

during an eruption, knowing when it is safe to fly, or knowing when to take on extra 

fuel and less cargo if diversion may be necessary. Indeed, the availability and reliability of volcano eruption warnings is a factor in cargo airlines choosing to use Anchorage as a refueling stop. For communities, it means when to shut down or protect facilities from ash and how to advise people on health risks. 

How does one carry out a sophisticated and diverse monitoring program in a state 

with a small population? The way Alaskans persevere through other challenges: cooperation. The Alaska Volcano Observatory is unique in the U.S. and probably the 

world in that it is a thoroughly collaborative undertaking of Federal scientists, state 

scientists, and university faculty and students. There are many rewards to this approach, despite its seeming administrative complexity. As the USGS Acting Director 

cites, the USGS has a Congressional mandate to mitigate geologic hazards, of which 

volcanism is an important component. The USGS manages AVO and supports it 

within its national pool of volcanological talent. The Alaska Division of Geological 

and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) has a similar mandate at the state level, and 

is naturally more attuned to state priorities. In addition, ADGGS maintains extensive knowledge and databases of state geology, and is a logical choice for disseminating this information to the public. The University of Alaska has the unique role 

within the partnership of education, both in terms of introducing students to societally engaged science and in producing the next generation of geoscientists. It also 

provides a fertile intellectual environment that is more difficult to maintain in government agencies. All three partners have their specialties, though they also all participate in the monitoring and scientific aspects of the operation. 

Strengths of this unique approach are the diversity of expertise it makes available, the connectedness of the observatory to local communities, government agencies, and the U.S. scientific community, and—most of all from the university’s perspective—the involvement of students in exciting science for immediate public benefit. It is worth noting that volcanology programs funded by other agencies such as 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA cannot provide this experience 

because geophysical monitoring, the task of turning geoscience data quickly into information for safety decisions, is solely the mission of the USGS Volcano Hazards 

Program. 

The challenges of Alaska have defined AVO’s areas of leadership. We have pioneered the installation of stand-alone geophysical stations that can operate without 

attention for two to three years in a harsh environment, telemetering real-time seismic and GPS data via radio, satellite, and telephone links to Anchorage and Fairbanks. We have initiated the first operational satellite monitoring of active volcanoes, sometimes catching the very earliest precursory activity because infrared-imaging satellites (for example, weather satellites) can peer down into deep craters. 

We have contributed much to the scientific community’s understanding of how volcanoes work. And we have educated a diverse cadre of talented geoscientists who 

serve in public, private and academic sectors, not just in natural hazard mitigation 

and research, but also in acquisition of mineral and energy resources. We have also 

developed volcanology’s most acclaimed website, which serves the dual purposes of 

dissemination of hazard information and, for the Nation as a whole, science education. We are the most international of observatories, having worked with our Russian colleagues to develop monitoring capabilities first in Kamchatka and now in the 

Kurile Islands. Russian volcanoes frequently put ash into areas where the U.S. has 

aviation safety responsibilities. The most amazing fact about AVO is the number of 

volcanoes geophysically monitored: 30. No other observatory in the world comes 

close. 

For the university, having a strong core program in volcano monitoring leads to 

success in related areas of endeavor. Spin-offs from this work include a new model 

for particulate dispersal in the atmosphere; new satellite remote sensing techniques; 

volcano research drilling in Japan funded by the international scientific community; 

geothermal energy research in Alaska; and collaborative volcanological education 

and research in the Russian Far East and Alaska, supported by NSF and the Russian Academy of Sciences and involving students from all over Russia and the U.S. 

These NSF programs have opened a new bright window in our common border with 

Russia. 

11

The immediate challenge for the Alaska Volcano Observatory is adequate funding, 

not so much in terms of dollars though a modest increase is essential, but in increased stability. The USGS Volcano Hazards Program has not received sufficient 

funds to cover the expanded role of monitoring volcanoes that threaten only aircraft. 

Hence, Congress has annually assigned about half of AVO’s budget, representing 

mitigation of the ash hazard to aircraft, to the FAA, which then transfers the funds 

through the Department of Commerce to USGS. This cumbersome process precludes 

long-term planning. This year we have a serious funding shortfall just as Augustine 

Volcano emerged from two-decade slumbers and volcanoes Spurr, Veniaminof, 

Cleveland, and Korovin became ‘‘hot.’’

Alaska Volcano Observatory is the most obvious example of the evolving role in 

natural hazard mitigation of the USGS Volcano Hazards Program. Before AVO, no 

‘‘remote’’ volcanoes were monitored. Changing perceptions of remoteness are a natural consequence of increasing human population and changing patterns of human 

travel, specifically, reliance on long-distance, great-circle-route air travel. Fortunately, evolving technology has kept pace and gives us the tools to mitigate newly 

recognized hazards. The need for a combination of instrumented vigilance, advances 

in technology and science of volcano monitoring, and geoscience education will continue as long as humankind exists on this dynamic planet. The benefits are in 

knowledge gained as well as in property and lives saved.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. James Quick, Program 

Coordinator for the Volcano Hazards Program at USGS. Dr. Quick. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES E. QUICK, PROGRAM

COORDINATOR, VOLCANO HAZARDS PROGRAM, U.S.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Dr. QUICK. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the threat that volcanoes 

pose to aviation and our vision for a national volcano early warning 

system to monitor the Nation’s volcanoes at levels commensurate 

with the threat that each poses. 

The message that I hope to convey is that volcanic eruptions 

even at seemingly remote volcanoes pose a serious threat to aviation. But this threat can be effectively mitigated by strategic improvement of volcano monitoring capability coupled with continued 

improvement in interagency communication and response plans. 

Currently Mount St. Helens in Washington, Kilauea in Hawaii, 

and Augustine in Alaska are erupting. And several other volcanoes 

are being closely watched for possible renewed eruptive activity. 

Most people are aware of the hazards that erupting volcanoes 

create on the ground, including mudflows, fiery avalanches, and 

lava flows such as those that could reach in less than 2 hours the 

highly developed Kona Coast on the flanks of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. 

Less well known by the public is the threat posed to aviation by 

erupting volcanoes. Volcanoes threaten aviation safety when 

magma erupts explosively and plumes of small pieces of volcanic 

rocks, minerals, and glass, what we term ash, are ejected high into 

the atmosphere and drift for long distances across air routes. 

For example, the 1992 eruption of Mt. Spurr in Alaska was 

tracked on satellite images for more than 3,000 miles downwind of 

the volcano over Canada and the Great Lakes region, disrupting 

air traffic as far east as Cleveland, Ohio. 

Many major air routes traverse the world’s most volcanically active regions, and numerous instances of aircraft flying into volcanic 

ash clouds have demonstrated the life-threatening and costly damages that can be sustained. 

12

The practical mitigation strategy is for aircraft to avoid airspace 

containing volcanic ash. Ash avoidance is not a simple matter. It 

involves elements of: ground-based volcano monitoring, satellitebased detection of ash clouds, modeling cloud movements in the atmosphere, and coordinated communication protocols among 

volcanologists, meteorologists, air traffic controllers, dispatchers 

and pilots. 

As the USGS has increasingly recognized that volcano monitoring is needed to protect against aviation hazards, we have adjusted our monitoring program accordingly. For example, although 

the ground population is sparse in the volcanically active Aleutian 

Islands of Alaska, the risk to aviation is high. More than 200 

flights carry roughly 25,000 people over Northern Pacific air routes 

on a daily basis. With the support of Senator Stevens, the Alaskan 

Volcano Observatory, which is a partnership between USGS, the 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute, and the 

State of Alaska has systematically expanded its monitoring into the 

Aleutian chain, from four instrumented volcanoes in 1996, to 30 at 

the end of this past summer’s field work. 

Impending volcanic eruptions can be forecast, and warnings 

issued before the hazardous event occurs. This capability was recently demonstrated at Augustine volcano near Alaska’s most populated area, the Cook Inlet, when the Alaska Volcano Observatory 

issued a successful forecast on January 10, 2006. 

Such forecasts and warnings depend on telemetered, real-time 

data from adequate arrays of different types of monitoring instruments located on and near volcanoes. No single geophysical monitoring technique or system can confidently provide timely alerts of 

eruptions. 

In order to meet the needs of the aviation community, our goal 

is to notify the appropriate FAA center of an ash-producing eruption within 5 minutes of its onset. This level of notification requires 

24/7 operation at U.S. Volcano Observatories, and sufficient 

ground-based monitoring networks. Once an eruption is in progress 

the USGS, NOAA, FAA and the Air Force Weather Agency share 

data and coordinate their warning messages, so that necessary information reaches the cockpit quickly. 

There are 169 active volcanoes in the United States. In order to 

focus resources among these volcanoes, the USGS recently published an evaluation of the Nation’s volcanoes monitoring needs 

based on a systematic assessment of the societal threats they pose. 

This publication is the scientific foundation for a national volcano 

early warning system and identifies as high priorities for improved 

monitoring 19 volcanoes in Alaska, and the Northern Mariana Islands, that pose substantial threats to aviation but that have no 

real-time ground-based monitoring, and 9 Cascade volcanoes that 

pose threats to both aviation and ground communities, but have inadequate, or antiquated networks. 

In conclusion, please allow me to reiterate that there are no remote volcanoes when we consider aviation hazards. Mitigation of 

this risk requires appropriate volcano monitoring, timely analysis 

and efficient teamwork by multiple agencies. 

The USGS will continue to do its part by providing scientific information based on reliable monitoring data. 

13

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the opportunity to 

present this testimony and I’ll be pleased to answer any questions 

that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Quick follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES E. QUICK, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, VOLCANO

HAZARDS PROGRAM, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to discuss the natural hazard threat that volcanoes pose to aviation, the U.S. Geological Survey role in volcano research, monitoring, and eruption warnings, and our 

national strategy for a proactive, fully-integrated volcano hazard mitigation effort. 

Overview of Volcanic Hazards Program 

For more than 125 years, USGS has provided the Department of the Interior, the 

Nation, and the world with relevant science to guide policy and safeguard society. 

This legacy of scientific excellence is reinforced by the authority afforded USGS 

under the Disaster Relief Act (Pub. L. 93–288, popularly known as the Stafford Act) 

as the lead Federal agency with responsibility to provide notification for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides, to enhance public safety, and to reduce 

losses through effective forecasts and warnings based on the best possible scientific 

information. 

The United States is home to 169 volcanoes considered to be active, more than 

any other country in the world. The USGS has recently completed a systematic assessment of the relative societal threat posed by each of the Nation’s 169 geologically active volcanoes. For each volcano, the study determined a level of societal 

threat based on an evaluation of the hazards that could be anticipated and the societal exposure to those hazards. This study, An Assessment of Volcanic Threat and 

Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for a National Volcano 

Early Warning System (NVEWS), the recommendations of which are discussed later 

in my testimony, is being used to guide long-term improvements to the national volcano-monitoring infrastructure operated by USGS and its partners. The USGS and 

its Federal, State, and university partners operate five volcano observatories to 

monitor eruptive activity and unrest at 50 volcanoes in the Cascade Range, Hawaii, 

Alaska, California, and Yellowstone National Park. Currently, three U.S. volcanoes 

are erupting (Mount St. Helens in Washington, Kilauea in Hawaii, and Augustine 

in Alaska), and two are being closely watched for unrest or renewed eruptive activity, Mauna Loa in Hawaii and Anatahan in the Northern Mariana Islands. 

The threats that volcanoes pose to populations on the ground are generally understood in the United States. Most people are aware of the hazards that erupting volcanoes create, such as lava flows, hot, gaseous flows of volcanic blocks and ash, and 

mudflows. The potential harm of these phenomena, in terms of loss of life and societal and economic disruption, are very serious considerations for communities near 

or downwind and downstream of many of the Nation’s volcanoes. For example, lava 

flows from Mauna Loa Volcano, which has been exhibiting signs of increased unrest 

for two years and may be advancing toward eruption, can reach the highly developed Kona Coast of Hawaii in as little as two hours. Within the Cascade Range, 

13 volcanoes pose significant threats to people and infrastructure on the ground. At 

Mount Shasta in California, searing avalanches of volcanic rock and gas could reach 

more than 6,000 people in the vicinity of the town of Weed and Mount Shasta City 

in less than 10 minutes. Large mudflows formed by melting of thick ice and snow 

on Mount Rainier, Mount Baker, or Glacier Peak in Washington could race down 

populated valleys at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, devastating communities 

lying in the path of the potentially deadly mudflows. 

With appropriate monitoring, impending volcanic eruptions can be forecast and 

warnings issued before the hazardous events occur. This capability was demonstrated in advance of the June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines—

the largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century to affect a heavily populated area. 

Because the eruption was forecast by scientists from the Philippine Institute of 

Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) and USGS, civil and military leaders were 

able to order massive evacuations and take measures to protect property before the 

eruption. The USGS and PHIVOLCS estimate that their eruption forecasts saved 

at least 5,000 and as many as 20,000 lives. At least $200 million to $275 million 

in losses of military aircraft and equipment were averted by having those assets 

flown to safe areas or covered in advance of the eruption. A more recent example 

of this successful forecasting ability was demonstrated at Augustine Volcano near 

Alaska’s most populated area, the Cook Inlet. Utilizing monitoring networks already 

14

in place, the Alaska Volcano Observatory detected the onset of unrest and raised 

the alert level on November 29, 2005, and began monitoring the unrest closely to 

determine if activity was likely to escalate, plateau, or die down. Unrest continued 

to escalate, and the USGS issued an information bulletin on January 10, 2006, that 

indicated a heightened possibility of an explosive eruption within the ‘‘next few 

weeks or months.’’ The following day, an eruption at Augustine Volcano was underway. Timely forecasts and warnings such as these examples depend on telemetered, 

real-time data from adequate arrays of different types of monitoring instruments located on and near volcanoes and on remotely sensed data transmitted by other 

agencies (e.g. GOES satellite data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)). 

Volcanic Threats to Aviation Safety 

Less well known by the public is the threat posed to aviation by erupting volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions pose a serious threat to aviation, but one that can be mitigated through the combined efforts of earth and atmospheric scientists, the aviation 

industry, and air-traffic control centers. Volcanoes threaten aviation safety when 

magma erupts explosively to form clouds of small jagged pieces of rocks, minerals, 

and volcanic glass the size of sand and silt that rises miles above the earth’s surface 

and is spread by winds aloft over long distances across flight paths of jet aircraft. 

Unlike the soft fluffy material created by burning wood, leaves, or paper, ‘‘volcanic 

ash’’ particles are angular, abrasive fragments having the hardness of a pocket-knife 

blade. Upon impact with an aircraft traveling several miles per minute, ash particles abrade the windscreen, fuselage, and fan blades in the turbine engines. In addition to the problem of abrasion, the melting temperature of the glassy rock material that comprises ash is lower than the operating temperatures of jet engines. Consequently, ingested ash particles can melt in hot sections of aircraft engines and 

then fuse onto critical components in cooler parts of the engine. An aircraft encounter with ash can result in loss of visibility, and failure of critical navigational and 

flight systems, and can immediately and severely degrade engine performance, resulting in engine flame out and total loss of thrust power. 

The volcanic-ash hazard to aviation extends the volcanic threat far beyond the 

local area or region where a volcano is located. For example, the 1992 eruption of 

Mount Spurr in Alaska produced an ash cloud that was tracked on satellite images 

for three days and more than 3,000 miles downwind of the volcano over Canada and 

the Great Lakes region. 

Many major air routes traverse the world’s most volcanically active regions, and 

numerous instances of aircraft flying into volcanic ash clouds have demonstrated the 

life-threatening and costly damages that can be sustained. From 1973 through 2003, 

105 encounters of aircraft with airborne volcanic ash have been documented. This 

is a minimum number of encounters because incidents have not been consistently 

reported. 

The potential for a disastrous outcome of an ash/aircraft encounter has been illustrated by three dramatic encounters. The first occurred in 1982 when a Boeing 

747—at night over water with 240 passengers—flew into an ash cloud about 100 

miles downwind from Galunggung volcano in Indonesia. The aircraft lost power in 

all 4 engines and descended 25,000 ft. from an altitude of 37,000 ft. above sea level. 

After 16 minutes of powerless descent, the crew was able to restart three engines 

and make a safe landing in Jakarta. A few weeks later, a second Boeing 747 with 

230 passengers encountered an ash cloud from another eruption of the same volcano. The aircraft lost power to 3 engines and descended nearly 8,000 ft. before restarting one engine and making a nighttime emergency landing on two engines. In 

both cases, the aircraft suffered extensive damage. Fortunately, a greater human 

tragedy was averted. 

A third incident occurred in 1989 and was related to an eruptive event at Redoubt 

Volcano in Alaska. A Boeing 747 with 231 passengers onboard was nearing Anchorage International Airport and flew into what appeared to be a thin layer of weather 

clouds. It was actually an ash cloud erupted by Redoubt Volcano, approximately 150 

miles distant. The aircraft lost power from all four engines and descended for four 

minutes over mountainous terrain. With only one to two minutes remaining before 

impact, the engines were restarted and the aircraft safely landed in Anchorage. 

Damage was estimated at more than $80 million (in 1989 dollars). 

A decade of these harrowing events prompted action by airlines, dispatchers, airtraffic control, aviation meteorologists, and volcanologists. It had become clear to all 

that damaging, even life-threatening, aircraft encounters with volcanic ash are not 

flukes but rather a persistent hazard that requires a coordinated, multi-pronged, 

operational response for the purpose of ash avoidance. Responding to this newly recognized hazard, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)—with strong 

15

participation from USGS scientists—established procedures on a global scale for the 

rapid dissemination of information related to ash-producing eruptions and the movement of ash clouds to the aviation sector. One of these procedures is the use of a 

color-coded alert system for volcanic ash warnings to the air carrier industry. This 

alert system, originally developed in 1990 by USGS scientists at the Alaska Volcano 

Observatory (AVO), is now recommended for worldwide use by ICAO. 

Areas Targeted for Increased Monitoring 

As the USGS has increasingly recognized that volcano monitoring is needed to 

protect against aviation hazards as well as the more well-known ground hazards, 

we have adjusted our monitoring program accordingly. For example, although the 

ground population is sparse in the volcanically active Aleutian Islands of Alaska, 

the risk to aviation is high. More than 200 flights carry roughly 25,000 people over 

Northern Pacific air routes on a daily basis. Since 1996, with funding support from 

FAA, AVO has undertaken to expand its monitoring beyond the few volcanoes that 

threaten communities around Cook Inlet in the south central portion of the state. 

Over the past decade, AVO has systematically expanded its seismic monitoring into 

the Aleutian chain, from 4 instrumented volcanoes in 1996 to 28 at the end of this 

past summer’s field work. This increase in real-time monitoring capability is an 

amazing accomplishment of both planning and execution on the part of AVO, a partnership between USGS, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the State of Alaska. 

AVO also developed a capability for frequent, systematic satellite monitoring of 

active volcanoes throughout the North Pacific, to recognize pre-eruptive thermal signals at volcanoes and to detect eruptive plumes. This pioneering effort at regional 

satellite monitoring complements traditional seismic monitoring and serves as a 

model to other volcano observatories worldwide. AVO is also contributing to National Weather Service (NWS) efforts to develop the Volcanic Ash Collaboration 

Tool, a system that uses networked workstations for real-time collaboration among 

agencies by providing common views of data sources and the ability to rapidly delineate and discuss areas of ash hazard. 

Another area where USGS recently began volcano monitoring due to volcanic hazards to aviation is the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Like the 

Aleutians, ground population is sparse on most of these islands, but the aviation 

risk is significant, including the threat to stealth B–2’s and other military aircraft 

housed at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. The initial eruption in May 2003 of 

Anatahan—a long dormant volcano with no real-time ground-based monitoring in 

place—was a surprise. Since then, USGS has installed a rudimentary seismic system with real-time data transmission and is working closely with local emergency 

management officials, the U.S. Air Force, NOAA, and FAA to provide eruption notifications. 

The activity at Anatahan has demanded sustained vigilance. In 2005, the volcano 

erupted to over 40,000 feet numerous times and expelled several million cubic yards 

of ash during a nearly continuous eruptive episode that lasted eight months. After 

the largest ash eruption, USGS provided forecasts of ash deposition on Saipan to 

the local government there. USGS also supports AFWA’s mission of providing volcanic-ash advisories and situational awareness to DOD aviation. For example, 

USGS volcanologists furnished short-term forecasts of potential ash-plume heights 

to AFWA for use in planning and completing a critical training exercise in the Marianas region by the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group. 

Interagency and International Coordination 

Ash avoidance is not a simple matter—it requires the coordinated efforts of 

volcanologists, meteorologists, air-traffic control centers, dispatchers, and pilots. It 

involves elements of: ground-based volcano monitoring, satellite-based detection of 

ash clouds, modeling cloud movements in the atmosphere, and specific communication protocols among the diverse parties responding to the hazard. 

In the United States, the USGS, NOAA, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

and Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska collaborate according to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) guidelines, 

sharing data and refining communication protocols so that necessary information 

reaches commercial and military pilots, dispatchers, and air-traffic controllers quickly. The USGS has responsibility for providing notifications of significant pre-eruption volcanic activity, volcanic eruptions, and volcanic ash in the atmosphere. The 

USGS capability to provide such notifications is based on data and observations collected from monitoring networks operated by the five U.S. volcano observatories 

supported by the USGS Volcano Hazards Program. 

16

USGS volcano monitoring activities do not stand alone. For both aviation and 

ground hazards, no single geophysical monitoring technique or system can confidently provide timely alerts of eruptions; neither seismic networks, GPS arrays, 

nor remote sensing techniques on their own are adequate for reliable forecasting or 

alerting purposes. Recognizing this, we have developed very close working relationships with groups that track ash clouds using civilian meteorological satellites, in 

particular the AFWA and NOAA’s Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs) located 

in Washington D.C. and Anchorage. During precursory unrest and eruptive episodes, we share observational data and maintain frequent telephone contact to ensure consistent interpretations of volcanic activity and potential hazards. No one organization has a monopoly on critical monitoring information. Effective communication among the various groups is crucial to successful mitigation of the hazard. 

In addition to USGS monitoring efforts, we also are working to improve the communication procedures that are critical for eruption and ash-cloud information to 

reach the cockpit. In call-down lists at U.S. volcano observatories, FAA, VAACs, and 

aviation weather offices of the National Weather Service (NWS) are among the first 

agencies to be notified. Since the mid-1990s, USGS scientists have worked with Russian scientists to disseminate information about eruptions from the Kamchatka Peninsula that could affect U.S. controlled airspace. Recently, USGS scientists played 

a key role in the establishment of the first-ever monitoring and reporting group for 

the Kurile Island chain of volcanoes. The USGS has organized the formulation of 

inter-agency operating plans for dealing with ash episodes in the North Pacific and 

Marianas regions. These plans provide operational guidance by documenting the required procedures of the government agencies responsible for ensuring safety of 

flight operations. The USGS is working with FAA, NOAA, and AFWA to complete 

a national operational plan for volcanic ash hazards to aviation. 

Another important role for USGS is hazard education—building awareness among 

volcanologists, meteorologists, pilots, dispatchers, and air-traffic controllers of the 

nature of the hazard and how to respond to it. The USGS has assisted in the development of training videos for pilots and air-traffic controllers, provided technical 

briefings for airlines and industry groups, organized technical symposia, and published articles in aviation journals. 

Research Priorities 

Research is also a critical component of mitigation. To improve our forecasting 

abilities, we need to gain a much better fundamental understanding of eruption 

processes. Research and experience in the 25 years since the 1980 eruption of Mount 

St. Helens has brought volcanology to a point where, with adequate monitoring systems in place, the timing of volcanic eruptions can be forecast with some confidence 

hours to days in advance. The next major scientific goal for volcanology is to accurately forecast the size and duration of eruptions, which bears directly on hazards 

issues confronted by enroute aircraft and people on the ground. For instance, being 

able to forecast that an eruption will be small and unlikely to erupt ash to altitudes 

above 15,000 feet versus one that sends ash to 50,000 feet will have amajor impact 

on response by the aviation community. Another aspect is the ability to identify 

when an eruption is over, not just temporarily paused. This is quite a complex problem. Such information is valuable to airports, for example, because it tells them 

when they can start cleaning up from ashfall and hasten the return to normal operation. 

Air routes over active volcanic regions will continue to be heavily used, and volcanic ash will persist as a serious aviation hazard. Much has been done to mitigate 

the volcanic threat to aviation. More volcanoes are being monitored now than 10 

years ago, and eruption reporting targeted to the aviation sector is in place. Satellite 

detection of ash clouds and forecast models of ash-cloud dispersion have greatly improved. As a result of increased awareness and improved information in support of 

ash avoidance, no multiple-engine airplane failures have occurred since 1991. Despite these successes, much work remains. Many hazardous U.S. volcanoes are not 

monitored at a level that provides for adequate tracking of volcanic unrest that precedes eruption. It is still possible for there to be significant periods of time when 

ash clouds drift undetected in or near air-traffic routes, as was the case with the 

surprise eruption in 2003 of Anatahan volcano in the Mariana Islands. Hours 

elapsed from the eruption’s onset to the issuance of the first warning to aviation 

of ash in the atmosphere. 

Results of the Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities Assessment 

In order to better focus resources on improved monitoring of volcanoes that 

present the greatest threat, USGS recently published the results of the first overall 

evaluation of the Nation’s volcano-monitoring needs based on a systematic assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Aug 14, 2006 Jkt 029351 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29351.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
17

ment of the societal threats posed by all of the 169 geologically active U.S. volcanic 

centers. The publication is entitled An Assessment of Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for a National Volcano Early 

Warning System (NVEWS). The report scores various hazard and exposure factors 

for each volcano and identifies volcanoes where monitoring capabilities are inadequate—and in some cases nonexistent—for the threats posed. The results of the 

NVEWS assessment are being used to guide long-term improvements to the national 

volcano-monitoring infrastructure operated by USGS and affiliated partners. 

Aviation hazards carried substantial weight in the NVEWS assessment. The 

USGS developed a methodology for assessing aviation threat on a regional and local 

basis at each volcano and determined that about half of U.S. volcanoes represent 

a significant threat to aviation. Of this group, 19 volcanoes in Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands that pose substantial threats to aviation have no real-time 

ground-based monitoring. These 19 volcanoes are identified as high-priority NVEWS 

targets where better monitoring is needed. 

Surprise eruptions occur at volcanoes that lack real-time ground-based sensor networks. Depending on the remoteness of the volcano, even eruption reports may be 

delayed without proper monitoring. Recent experience shows that while eruptions 

can be confirmed in a matter of minutes at volcanoes with ground-based monitoring, 

it may require several hours for eruption confirmation at un-instrumented volcanoes 

by remote sensing or pilot reports. Because of the speed with which an aircraft can 

travel toward a potential volcanic-ash encounter (about 8 miles per minute), realtime 24/7 eruption reporting is necessary. Our goal is that an observatory shall notify the appropriate regional air traffic center of an ash-producing eruption within 

five minutes of the start of the event. This level of notification requires 24/7 operations at U.S. volcano observatories, adequate networks of seismic and other instruments and, in some cases, portable ground-based RADAR to detect ash clouds at 

night and in bad weather. 

In the NVEWS assessment, other very-high-threat volcanoes, including nine in 

the Cascade Range in California, Washington, and Oregon and four in Alaska, were 

identified as having inadequate or antiquated networks and are considered undermonitored for the threats posed to both aviation and ground communities and infrastructure. Eruptions at Mount St. Helens, Kilauea, Augustine, and Anatahan and 

unrest at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and Spurr in Alaska also require a robust monitoring capability. 

Conclusion 

Volcanic ash will continue to be a dangerous and costly threat to aviation into the 

foreseeable future. The USGS will continue its efforts to enhance monitoring capabilities at those sites where the greatest risk exists. 

Hazard mitigation for U.S. volcanoes requires:

• Continued improvement of monitoring capabilities and instrumentation of U.S. 

volcanoes with high aviation risk. Concerns should focus not only on reporting 

where and when an eruption has occurred and how high its plume went, but 

also with reliably diagnosing volcanic unrest and forecasting likely eruptive activity, including how long eruptive activity might continue and the potential for 

recurring explosive events.

• Continued refinement of protocols for communicating eruption and ash hazard 

information to other agencies and clientele. The aviation community must be familiar with and confident in monitoring and notification abilities through the 

use of conferences, publications, drills, and demonstrations.

• Continued USGS leadership in building awareness of the ash hazard to aviation. Without broad-based hazard awareness, the commitment to carry out a 

mitigation strategy is severely weakened. The USGS will continue to foster hazard education through a variety of venues and methods.

There are no remote volcanoes when we consider aviation hazards. Mitigating this 

risk requires efficient teamwork by multiple agencies. The USGS will continue to 

do its part by providing timely information based on reliable monitoring data. However, as the ability to prevent ash encounters improves to the point that fewer incidents occur, we must not mistakenly conclude that no threat exists. Rather, we 

must call for continued vigilance and support of proven, broad-based mitigation efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We have a problem here 

and I don’t know how we’re going to deal with it this year, because 

18

of the policies on earmarks. In the past the monies that you have 

spoken about for the Alaska Volcano Observatory have come from 

three basic sources from USGS, and this year the President’s budget does contain the same amount we had—as a matter of fact it’s 

gone up by $100,000 its $4.4 million, in 2006 and 2007. However 

the monies that the FAA has received have been because of an earmark that the Congress approved at my request each year. NOAA 

also contributed the $300,000 dollars a year to maintain the ash 

flow computer models. Their funding was cut by 50 percent and the 

future of the FAA money is in serious doubt. 

Now Captain, I think you’ve made the case for the international 

air routes going through the airspace of these volcanoes and we’ll 

do our best to try and maintain that FAA earmark. As I said, I 

really don’t know what’s going to happen to it this year. But let me 

ask Dr. Quick—USGS, because of Augustine I understand, has had 

to direct a lot of your monies in both monitoring equipment and 

manpower to really help keep track of the Augustine eruption patterns that have developed since January of this year. Has that adversely affected USGS’ capability to monitor other active volcanoes 

throughout our country, Alaska and the south 48? 

Dr. QUICK. Mr. Chairman, the USGS responds to new eruptions 

of volcanoes by redirecting funds to the extent possible. The eruption of Augustine has basically impacted our operations in Alaska 

such that we will be performing no field work on hazard assessments in the Aleutians this year, nor will we be extending the 

monitoring network in the Aleutian chain this year as the eruption 

continues, as we project it may for another 5 months or so. Based 

on past histories, we project that it will be necessary to redirect 

funds from other activities, such as purchase and deployment of 

equipment to extend the monitoring network in the Mariana Islands and rebuilding of the monitoring network damaged by the 

eruption of Anatahan also on the Mariana Islands. Funds will be 

redirected that were previously identified for improvement of monitoring networks at Mount Rainier, Mount Hood, and Three Sisters. 

Let me assure you that monitoring volcanoes is the last thing, 

however, that we will turn off. And we will continue to monitor volcanoes as long as our networks are active. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. Have you discussed this with 

the hierarchy of USGS in terms of any requests for supplemental 

money for your agency? 

Dr. QUICK. We have had discussions about possible 

supplementals, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’d be happy to be included in those discussions, if that’s possible, because there is a supplemental going 

through right now, as a matter of fact. And I would not want your 

agency to be without funds necessary to continue expanding this 

coverage. As Captain McVenes has indicated the danger goes all 

the way across the Pacific, not just in our area. I hope that we can 

continue to expand and to increase the safety factor as far as those 

planes are concerned. Dr. Eichelberger, again I thank you for coming all this way. Can you tell me, you’re part of this observatory; 

it really involves information going from USGS, from NOAA, to the 

FAA. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Right. 

19

The CHAIRMAN. Each agency has to be involved. And obviously 

each agency has to have funds. Are you satisfied that the funding 

of the past was sufficient? 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Yes, I think the outcome as far as enacted 

funding has been sufficient. It’s been very good. Although this year 

we’re doing a million dollars or about 15 percent, just as we face 

this eruption. And I’m very concerned about the future for the reasons you outlined. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re right, that earmark went down a million dollars. It was at a $4 million dollar level. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. That’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And now it’s down to a $3 million dollar level. 

And in fact it requires an earmark to even maintain that. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. That’s correct, yes. So, without either an earmark or a new firm arrangement for support within the Federal 

budget process, we’ll be starting to dismantle the team. It’s easy to 

see why this has happened I think. For one thing originally it was 

seen as kind of a local problem in Alaska. But really it’s an international one. And then of course the aviation hazard was a newly 

recognized thing. It was an expansion of the USGS mission which 

USGS never received an increase in funding for. It’s in a sense 

within FAA mission but it’s not within FAA expertise, so one can 

understand how this has happened, but it certainly needs to be addressed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, after the—what was it, the 1989 eruption 

we had a meeting at the FAA office in Anchorage, USGS came to 

that, as well as representatives of the airline industry and the university and the observatory process was the outcome of that meeting. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And it has been looked on by Congress as just 

another Alaskan piece of pork. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. That’s extremely unfortunate. But, you 

know——

The CHAIRMAN. And that’s one of the unfortunate problems of 

being located where we are, whatever we add to the budget as one 

of my colleagues formally said, was Eskimo ice cream. I just don’t 

know how to handle this one this year. We’re going to have to have 

some greater understanding throughout the country the fact that 

those planes are flying in—they’re not even landing in Alaska. Isn’t 

that right, Captain? 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Many of them are not, that’s right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Most of them are over flying Alaska these days, 

cargo planes land there because of fuel, but the bulk of the planes 

that your pilots fly start in Chicago or New York, and fly over Alaska on the great circle route to the Orient. And that’s the great advantage of the great circle route to the pilots, it just happens to 

come over Alaska. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But this is not an Alaska matter, this is protecting Americans and people from all over the world that are traveling on those planes. We don’t seem to have the understanding 

here that we need. 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. That’s right. 

20

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Nelson? 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we know 

what some of the other nations in the vicinity do in terms of monitoring, and what their contribution to this process may be? They’re 

obviously the beneficiaries of the same route, and they obviously 

would have some of the same problems. Do we know what they’re 

doing? 

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Yes, Japan is very advanced in monitoring 

its volcanoes. Probably in general their volcanoes are more thoroughly monitored than ours are. Russia has a lot of very bright energetic people and not much in the way of financial resources right 

now. And we have worked very closely with them to help them develop their monitoring, which they are now doing more and more. 

In fact I’ll be going there after this meeting and continue that 

work. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator DeMint? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. I apologize for missing your testimony; I appreciate all of you coming here. It’s clearly a problem that a lot of us 

have not been that familiar with. So it’s very helpful to me. This 

Committee is all about prediction and prevention of natural disasters and certainly volcanoes are one of those issues. Just one question, I know we need to go vote, and this has probably already been 

answered. But does the airline industry—and Captain, I can direct 

this at you, believe that they receive adequate warnings from the 

National Weather Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, or 

the U.S. Geological Survey, about potential threats of ash plumes? 

I mean, where are we with that? 

Captain MCVENES. Well if you look at the events that have taken 

place, fortunately a lot of the mitigation strategies and the monitoring of volcanic eruptions have improved greatly. We haven’t had 

any total engine failure situations since 1991, so obviously there 

has been some progress made. 

But we’re still in a position where we need to do a little bit better 

job. Have a little bit better monitoring, so we can do better forecasting of when these eruptions will take place so that the airlines 

can better plan their routes around these areas; so that we don’t 

get ourselves in a position of inadvertently getting into them when 

we don’t know it. 

We also need to have some more research and advancements in 

the areas of predicting the movement of the ash clouds again so we 

can better plan ahead of time. 

Senator DEMINT. But this can be a problem at 30–40,000 feet 

right? 

Captain MCVENES. Yes sir. 

Senator DEMINT. We’ve got a lot of work to do, I appreciate all 

the information and Mr. Chairman, unless you have some additional questions? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I do appreciate you taking the time, all of 

you, to come help us make a record of this, so we can do our best 

to try and restore this funding this year. 

21

Dr. EICHELBERGER. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know it’s been hard on you particularly, Doctor, 

so thank you very much for coming. 

[Whereupon at 10:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned]. 

(23)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I doubt that the general public is aware of the grave dangers volcanic ash clouds 

present to passenger jets. Given the number of volcanoes that we have in Hawaii, 

we are a bit more familiar with this hazard. 

Ash from an erupting volcano can reach 30,000 feet, the same altitude passenger 

jets fly. Volcanic ash may limit visibility, damage flight control systems, and cause 

jet engines to fail. It is difficult for pilots and radar operators to distinguish ash 

clouds from ordinary clouds, but the implications of flying through an ash cloud can 

be disastrous. 

The airlines have experienced a number of such cases, including one incident 

where a passenger jet lost more than 14,000 feet of altitude and resulted in $80 million worth of repairs. Also, ash clouds can drift several hundred miles away from 

the eruption and present risks to planes far away from volcanic activity. These are 

serious concerns for me and the people of my state because we rely so heavily on 

aviation for our transportation needs. 

The best way to address this risk is for planes to avoid the volcanic ash clouds 

completely. However, this requires coordination between seismologists, 

volcanologists, air traffic control operators, and pilots. This entire system depends 

on the accurate monitoring of volcanic activity. 

The recent report by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is disturbing 

because it found that many of the most dangerous volcanoes currently are 

unmonitored. It correctly concludes that a greater, more complete monitoring effort 

is required. I encourage the USGS to commit greater attention and resources to the 

National Volcano Early Warning System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

This Statement for the Record will provide a brief background on the impacts of 

volcanic ash on aviation, and highlight the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) role in mitigating the impact of volcanic hazards on aviation. 

Impact on Aviation 

With the advent of modern fuel-efficient commercial jet aircraft engines and the 

increase in flights worldwide, routine volcanic eruptions, which previously had been 

only a minor inconvenience to commercial aviation, have become a major hazard. 

When fine silica particles lofted into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions come into 

contact with jet engines, the particles melt from the heat of the engine and become 

hard deposits on the turbine blades. These deposits can eventually result in a loss 

of power or emergency shut-down of the engine. Because aircraft are capable of moving at several hundred miles an hour, the ash particles also act as projectiles. These 

particles cause abrasion to the aircraft, damaging windshields, fuselage, and critical 

instrumentation on the outside of the aircraft. The ash can also enter the aircraft’s 

cabin and ventilation systems. 

The aviation industry is greatly impacted by the hazards posed from volcanic ash. 

More than 80 commercial aircraft worldwide have unexpectedly encountered volcanic ash in flight and at airports in the past 15 years. Seven of these encounters 

caused in-flight loss of jet engine power, which nearly resulted in the crash of the 

airplane. These incidents highlight the vulnerability of aircraft to volcanic ash 

clouds. 

The national and international aviation communities have taken action to help 

aircraft avoid such dangerous environments. In the mid-1990s, the International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and NOAA reached an agreement whereby 

NOAA monitors satellite imagery and data to detect volcanic eruptions and, in the 

24

event of an ash eruption, issues advisories and warnings for the aviation community. NOAA also runs computer simulations to forecast the dispersion of volcanic 

ash. NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) work in a strong partnership to monitor and mitigate the effects of 

volcanoes on aviation. 

Airspace managers, in consultation with airlines, pilots, and others in the aviation 

community, have developed a course of action in the event of an impending encounter with volcanic ash. The common goal is to completely avoid the ash cloud. To accomplish this, airspace managers determine new flight paths for the aircraft based 

on the location of the ash cloud and its projected path. There are ‘‘safety zones’’ near 

ash clouds which range from a few miles to several hundred miles based on forecast 

uncertainty and winds. Minor deviations can cost the airlines in the order of tens 

of thousands of dollars, while significant re-routes, which include landing at alternate airports, can cost airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars or more per flight. 

Timely and accurate observation, forecast, and warning information is crucial to 

the aviation community for safety and economic reasons. The aviation industry is 

moving toward a minimum of five minutes lead time to be notified of an explosive 

volcanic eruption. Such an eruption can send its ash high into the atmosphere 

reaching flight level in about five minutes, potentially impacting en route jet traffic. 

Research continues to develop better tools for forecasters to provide faster and more 

accurate detection of eruptions. 

NOAA Operations 

Major volcanic events during the 1980s and into the early 1990s helped to bring 

the global community together to help mitigate the hazards of volcanic ash. By 

1997, the ICAO established nine worldwide Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs) 

as part of a global network. NOAA currently operates two of these nine VAACs. The 

Washington D.C. VAAC is jointly managed by NOAA’s National Weather Service 

(NWS) and NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service 

(NESDIS). The Anchorage, Alaska, VAAC is managed by NWS and co-located with 

the NWS Alaska Aviation Weather Unit (AAWU). 

The Washington VAAC area of responsibility includes the continental United 

States, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America to 10 degrees south 

latitude. It also includes U.S. controlled oceanic Flight Information Regions (FIRs). 

The Anchorage VAAC area of responsibility includes the Anchorage FIR and a portion of eastern Russia (north of 60° N. latitude and east of 150° E. longitude). 

The role of the VAAC is to monitor all available satellite, radar, and other observational data (e.g. Pilot Reports) to determine the location, extent and movement 

of volcanic plumes. VAACs use this information to issue real-time text and graphical 

products about airborne volcanic ash to the aviation community. The centers use 

volcanic ash dispersion model predictions to assist in making a forecast of these ash 

plumes out to 18 hours. The dispersion model predicts where the volcanic ash will 

spread over time and this information is then relayed to the user community. Information about the volcano, including a detailed forecast of the ash plume, is included 

in a Volcanic Ash Advisory (VAA). VAACs provide this information to international 

Meteorological Watch Offices (MWOs), which in turn issue Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMETs) to the aviation community. The SIGMET is the official 

warning product for airborne volcanic ash. 

There are dozens of MWOs around the globe, ostensibly one for each country, or 

one designated by a country as an MWO. These offices are established under an 

ICAO agreement, with three designated in the United States located at the Aviation 

Weather Center in Kansas City, the Weather Forecast Office in Honolulu, and the 

AAWU in Anchorage. MWOs are responsible for issuing SIGMETs, warning the 

aviation community about atmospheric hazards to aircraft, including volcanic ash, 

turbulence, large areas of thunderstorms, icing, and tropical cyclones. 

The NWS also issues volcanic ash products for the national airspace managers in 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Air Route Traffic Control Centers 

(ARTCC). Center Weather Advisories are produced by NWS Center Weather Service 

Units (CWSU), which are collocated at 21 ARTCCs. NOAA products and information 

are distributed widely to the aviation community, private sector, U.S. military agencies, and Federal, state, and local governments. 

As a further service to Alaska, one of the most volcano-vulnerable areas of the 

United States, the Alaska Aviation Weather Unit/Anchorage VAAC, Anchorage 

Weather Forecast Office, and CWSU also participate in an interagency group for 

volcanic ash. Membership in this interagency group includes the NWS, USGS, FAA, 

United States Air Force, United States Coast Guard, and the State of Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The group meets quarterly 

to discuss a wide variety of issues including science, research, and operations issues 

25

concerning volcanic ash. The group is also responsible for updating an Alaska Interagency Operations Plan for Volcanic Ash Episodes every 2 years, which defines the 

responsibilities of each of the participating agencies. The Alaska plan has become 

the foundation for the development of a new National Interagency Volcanic Ash 

Plan. 

Active Volcanoes 

The Anchorage VAAC has just over 100 historically active volcanoes contained 

both within and in close proximity to the Anchorage FIR. In 2005, there were several active volcanoes both within and in close proximity to the Anchorage VAAC 

area of responsibility. These volcanoes included Veniaminof and Cleveland in the 

Aleutian Islands and Karymsky, Sheveluch, Bezymianny, and Klyuchevskoy in 

Kamchatka, Russia. In 2006, only Augustine Volcano located just 175 miles southwest of Anchorage has become active starting on January 11. A series of emissions 

continued throughout February. As Augustine is close to the Kenai Peninsula and 

Anchorage, the State of Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, USGS, FAA, NWS, State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Municipality of Anchorage Health and Human Services, and others have 

worked closely together during these events to help mitigate potential impacts from 

the eruptions. This collaborative partnership between numerous agencies at different levels was coordinated by the NWS National Volcanic Ash Program Manager, 

who is located at the NWS Alaska Region Headquarters in Anchorage, AK. 

In 2005, the following volcanoes within the Washington VAAC area of responsibility were active; Mount St. Helens in Washington State; Colima and Popocatepetl 

in Mexico; Soufriere Hills on Montserrat Island; Anatahan volcano on the Mariana 

Islands chain; Santa Maria and Fuego in Guatemala; Santa Ana in El Salvador; 

Reventador, Tungurahua, and Sangay in Ecuador; Galeras in Colombia; and Negra, 

Sierra, and Fernandina on the Galapagos Islands. So far in 2006, six volcanoes have 

been active including Colima, Popocatepetl, Reventador, Santa Maria, Soufriere 

Hills and Tungurahau. Ash from volcanoes located within the Anchorage VAAC area 

of responsibility, such as Augustine volcano, can move into the Washington VAAC 

area of responsibility, requiring detailed additional coordination and requiring the 

Washington VAAC to issue volcanic ash advisories. 

Volcanic Ash Dispersion Models 

NOAA’s Air Research Laboratory (ARL) continues to improve volcanic ash modeling with the HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) 

model. The HYSPLIT model is NOAA’s official dispersion model and was developed 

by researchers at NOAA in partnership with the external community. When the 

Washington or Anchorage VAAC detects an eruption in their area, NOAA’s National 

Centers for Environmental Prediction is notified and runs the HYSPLIT model. The 

dispersion model predicts where the volcanic ash will spread over time and this information is relayed to VAACs, as well as the user community. By tracking volcanic 

ash and forecasting where it will spread, NOAA is helping to reduce the risk volcanic eruptions pose to aviation. 

Research and Improvements 

The research community is very involved in the volcanic ash hazards program. 

NOAA has made many contributions during the past decade. A prime example of 

this effort is the development of multi-spectral volcanic ash image products using 

Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) data, Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite (GOES) data, and Moderate Resolution Imaging 

Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aqua and Terra spacecraft. The FAA Aviation Weather Research 

Program is also working on a multi-sourced automated 3-dimensional analysis of 

volcanic ash clouds. Here ‘‘multi-sourced’’ refers to the use of multiple satellites 

(geostationary and polar-orbiting) and multiple ash detection and height estimation 

methods (according to viewing wavelengths available, time of day, scene characteristics, etc.). Sensors on NOAA’s GOES and POES satellites are able to detect a volcanic ash eruption within minutes of an event. In some instances, these satellites 

are the only means by which NOAA meteorologists know a volcanic ash hazard exists in the airspace. To build on current satellite contributions to NOAA’s volcanic 

ash activities, NOAA’s future GOES and NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System) will continue these detection capabilities. 

NOAA supplements its operations using data from NASA Aqua, Terra, and TOMS 

(Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) spacecraft, and foreign satellites, as needed. 

New guidance and products resulting from this research is tailored to aviation 

needs and is focused on making the national airspace system safer and more efficient during a volcanic ash event. Efforts are focused on integrating the latest adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 Aug 14, 2006 Jkt 029351 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29351.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
26

vancements in volcanic ash detection and dispersion from the research community, 

allowing users to overlay and manipulate this information in real-time, developing 

tools to generate impact statements and graphics, and disseminating the impact 

statements to end users in a timely fashion so hazard mitigation plans can be activated. 

The Volcanic Ash Collaboration Tool (VACT) is an experimental tool designed to 

help locate and determine the extent and movement of volcanic ash so that more 

accurate, timely, consistent, and relevant ash dispersion and ash fallout watches, 

warnings, advisories, and forecasts can be issued. The VACT allows users at different sites and with different expertise to simultaneously view identical displays 

of volcanic ash and other related data sets (i.e., shared situational awareness) and 

collaborate in real-time. The VACT assists forecasts in preparing and issuing current products and services and will also make possible future products such as 

graphical tactical decision aides for airspace management. The VACT has been successfully tested in operations in Alaska during the recent eruptions of Augustine 

volcano. 

All volcanic ash events are captured and archived to help improve detection and 

dispersion methodologies, train new users on VACT functionality, detect and eliminate problems with multiple agencies collaborating in real-time on volcanic ash 

events, and improve dissemination techniques. 

Future efforts will focus on incorporating the VACT to adjacent VAAC’s operations so information isn’t lost as ash moves across the globe. The text chat capability will be extended to be multilingual. As new detection, fallout, and dispersion 

techniques are created, they will be integrated into the tool. New capabilities in dissemination technology are also planned to be incorporated into the VACT. Such a 

tool also shows great promise to allow interagency coordination for other hazards 

such as tsunamis and hurricanes, and also represents a capability to allow NOAA 

scientists to brief other decision-makers, the media, etc.

Æ