Is it me?
Grounding of all air activity is unheard of in our lifetimes, probably even in history of airtravel. We know for sure that big business employs actuaries and risk assessors to take decisions based on costs and not preventative safety.
So, how can the CAA be so sure that an aircraft is likely to fall out of the sky?
What key information do they hold that tips the balance to choose loosing millions per day, over risking passenger safety?
It's not as if a there is evidence that this airbourne glass from a volcano in Iceland is that dangerous, or is it?
The news recently of the entire Polish government dieing in an unprecendented aircrash might just have a bearing on recent events.
With evidence of the dangers, the decision to cancel all flights looks far more like sensible risk assesment and probabilites. Without evidence do we really, truly believe that all air travel would be stopped, with the vast costs incurred, on the basis that it might be dangerous.
I draw your attention to rail, hardly a safe form of transport in the UK, yet the trains are still running.
It's simply mathematical risk with a model based on some strong evidence...