To me, the whole situation remains garbled, vague and confusing.
The NOTAM speaks very clearly of a "No-Fly Zone", however as Mike stated in the original post there has been no restrictions as such on flying in accordance with the ANO. The SI is as yet still not publicly available for viewing on the website either... additionally "No clearances may be issued to penetrate the NFZ"... fair enough but unless in CAS VFR does not require clearance... so are we back to the "VFR is OK but no IFR" situation again?
We still have this vague "No-Fly Zone" thing, but no mention if it applies to IFR or VFR or both, and seemingly no backing legal reference to the ANO. If it applies to both, then the NOTAM should be very clearly and forcefully worded as such, e.g. "Airspace closed to all traffic - no movements, VFR or IFR, permitted under any circumstances", or words to that effect, and with appropriate reference to the appropriate legal documentation in the ANO.
Until then, we are stuck with the same question - Are we allowed to fly or not?
The CAA need to be much clearer with this matter as it is going to be with us for some time. I would hate to see pilots being prosecuted on this matter, too vague and complicated.
Another thing - we heard that yesterday afternoon PIK was apparently closed. Checked the NOTAMs - nothing.
If we aren't allowed to fly - then clearly say so.
Smithy