The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continues moving ahead with establishing a national, integrated volcano early-warning system that the airline industry and other interested parties will be able to routinely tap into to avoid the hazards of volcanic ash.

To this end, the agency convened a stakeholders workshop recently in Portland, Ore., which was well attended by representatives from the aviation community and various federal agencies, says Jim Quick, program coordinator for the USGS Volcano Hazards Program. As a result of that meeting, five separate working groups are now developing a draft plan for a national early-warning system. By the end of the current fiscal year this September, the plan is expected to be ready for public consumption.

But on what date the system actually becomes operational is another matter, and will likely be subject to vagaries of congressional support. A recurrent theme at a March 16 hearing on volcanic threats to aviation before the Senate Commerce, Science, Transportation Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction was the diminishing support on Capitol Hill for volcano monitoring, which may in turn result from some lawmakers' general impressions that there's no longer a big problem with volcanic ash.

In aviation, volcanic ash can get sucked into a jet engine, melt and adhere to engine parts, and possibly cause an engine flame-out. Ash can also block the view out of the cockpit windows and, because of the attendant static electricity, interfere with radio communications.

"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," Captain Terry McVenes, executive air safety chairman for the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), testified at the hearing. "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 1800 miles from a volcano eruption."

Experts concur that the science of predicting volcanic eruptions has improved dramatically in recent years. A case in point is the Jan. 10 prediction of the Jan. 11 eruption of Augustine Volcano, near Anchorage, Alaska, by the nearby Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), according to scientists at both AVO and USGS.

"Happily, prediction of eruptions in a useful time frame 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," AVO Coordinating Scientist John Eichelberger told Congress at the same hearing.

AVO, which is affiliated with USGS and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, among others, currently monitors 30 volcanos. No other volcano observatory in the world comes close to that number, Eichelberger said.

There also have been no total engine failures in aviation due to volcanic hazards since 1991, but there's still a need for better monitoring, McVenes testified.

Better volcano monitoring, at this point, largely means a more integrated system of immediate data sharing. It also means filling in most of the gaps where there's currently the "highest threat" along with the "poorest monitoring," Quick says. And that's what USGS addressed in the middle of last year with a report that, among other things, identified the volcanos that are under-monitored and pose the greatest threats to aviation.

Key to integrating the data, Quick adds, is looking at the information-technology needs of the observatories that will be linked together, as well as their sponsoring universities and other partners. Something else everyone involved in developing the new system also realizes is that it won't work without a national watch office that is operating 24/7.

There are two basic models under discussion for having such an office. One would be to give it a permanent location. Right now, a leading candidate is Anchorage, Alaska. The second option would have the location rotate among various facilities on a set schedule. There would still be one call-in number for aviation and others to use, and the scheduling would take advantage of time-zone differences. Meanwhile, the relative efficiencies and costs of the two models also must be evaluated.

Additionally, the working groups are looking into the latest data analysis tools and data archival needs. The latter can help scientists predict how a new eruption might proceed based on the records of past eruptions at the same volcano, Quick explains. It's like a doctor diagnosing a patient's condition, and then giving a prognosis based on how the disease has developed in other patients.

Augustine, for example, had a noisy blow back in January, but it's still slowly "erupting" by issuing lava and "cone building." This is very similar pattern to two prior Augustine eruptions from 1976 and 1986. This might indicate to air traffic control that the volcano, while still active, remains only a mild concern. But it might be a good idea for Anchorage-bound flights to load up on some extra fuel, in case there's suddenly a need for a more circuitous approach.

At the March 16 hearing, full committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) filled in for the regular subcommittee chairman, Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). One of Stevens' main concerns was how the federal funding earmarked for volcano monitoring, which decreased this year from $4 million to $3 million, would affect the work of both AVO and USGS.

In response, USGS's Quick said that he and his staff would have to start pulling back some of their field operations, particularly in Alaska's Aleutian Islands, and put off the purchase of new equipment for monitoring volcanoes in the Mariana Islands, which are repeatedly cited as a volcanic aviation risk. With Augustine, current monitoring levels can be maintained for another five months, after which time it will be necessary to redirect some resources away from that effort.

At AVO, Eichelberger said the cutback will soon have him dismantling his team. But "it's easy to see why" funding has been cut, as volcano monitoring is often incorrectly viewed in the lower 48 as a "local problem."

Stevens said other legislators look on this earmark for AVO as "another Alaskan piece of pork." Stevens, who supports increased funding for the AVO, also appeared to be skeptical of the current concerns on Capitol Hill over an apparent excess of earmarked funding. But, he added, there's still a chance of restoring funding for AVO or USGS in a supplemental funding bill.

Asked by Stevens if other countries do a better job at monitoring volcanos, Quick replied that Japan is "very advanced" and "more thorough than us," while Russia has a "lot of very bright, energetic people" without much money, whom USGS is working with.

>>Contacts: Jim Quick, USGS, (703) 648-6711, jquick@usgs.gov, or Marianne Guffanti, project chief, USGS World Volcanic Activity and Aviation Hazards, (703) 648-6708, guffanti@usgs.gov<<