As predicted by this blog, the regulatory risk experts are starting to draw lessons from the Icelandic volcano eruptions and the resulting disruptions on air travel.
Alberto Alemano will be providing, in the next issue of the European Journal of Risk Regulation (expected in the coming days), an analysis of the regulatory answer developed across Europe in the aftermath of the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull. In the meantime, a preview is available online, attempting to answer, on the spur of the moment, a few questions: Who did the assessment of the hazard posed by volcanic ash to jetliners? Who was competent to take risk management decisions, such as the controversial flight bans? Is it true that the safe level of volcanic ash was zero? How to explain the shift to a new safety threshold (of 2,000 mg/m3) only five days after the event? Did regulators overact? To what extent did they manage the perceived risk rather than the actual one? Fascinating reading for us BR experts. Thank you Alberto !
Alberto Alemano will be providing, in the next issue of the European Journal of Risk Regulation (expected in the coming days), an analysis of the regulatory answer developed across Europe in the aftermath of the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull. In the meantime, a preview is available online, attempting to answer, on the spur of the moment, a few questions: Who did the assessment of the hazard posed by volcanic ash to jetliners? Who was competent to take risk management decisions, such as the controversial flight bans? Is it true that the safe level of volcanic ash was zero? How to explain the shift to a new safety threshold (of 2,000 mg/m3) only five days after the event? Did regulators overact? To what extent did they manage the perceived risk rather than the actual one? Fascinating reading for us BR experts. Thank you Alberto !
No comments:
Post a Comment