UK Airspace closure

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Scooby Don't

What it is extremely unlikely to do below 20,000 feet or so, is be present in significant concentrations such as to endanger an aircraft.

How do you know that, are you a volcanologist in your spare time?

BD

[anotherthing]

2 days in a row now - 100% AMAN accuracy - even with Easterly winds

When they said the engineers were working on a fix, I didn't think it'd be this drastic

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Funny that in the last few posts nobody has mentioned ICAO! NATS did not make this decision single-handed. It was as a result of ICAO guidelines... "Several air navigation service providers and Eurocontrol's Central Flow Management Unit restricted or suspended air traffic in line with ICAO guidelines."

[Scooby Don't]

BDiONU said,

How do you know that, are you a volcanologist in your spare time?

I'll have you know my Star Trek knowledge is extensive. I'm still trying to master the mind-meld, and my wife has issues with the Pon Farr....

[MNT]

OA32 its not just the UK its most of Western Europe and CAA/NATS has no influence over them. I know I would rather stay safe than risk flying through the ash which you can't see and is difficult to predict where it is.

[roger]

Whats the latest, any sign of re-opening soon?

[Lon More]

assuming, worst case scenario, the volcano explodes and the airspace remains shut for several months. Traffic counts approach zero, productivity likewise, Who would be prepared to accept a reduction in salary?

[Spitoon]

Originally Posted by OA32

Also this being an un-precedented event means there is bound to be chaos and uncertainty amongst all parties involved...

Totally un-precedented. Who could ever have imagined it? Chaos and uncertainty - I'm sure you're right. Throughout the time it took to reach for the 'here's one I prepared earlier' Volcanic Ash Contingency Plan.

All in all, operationally it seems to have been handled surprisingly well. As for how it's been presented to the media by senior ATS people and subsequently reported is another matter. Still, it's good to see Eric Moody still looks well....

[roger]

I'll bear in mind all those times I've worked while understaffed with mental traffic and think of it as payback

[A I]

I reckon (from my old age person's home) that this is one occasion when NATS ought to take a serious back seat. As BD said, NATS are simply service providers. They do not "close airspace" nor do they refuse a clearance within airspace for any reason other than safety. They do apply a zero flow rate when appropriate (no staff available is an example) but unless things have changed since I stopped working for a living, that only applies to aircraft originating within the area governed by the CFMU.

I believe that there is an ICAO guideline that an ATC clearance should not be given if that clearance is for flight within airspace where there is a known risk of volcanic ash. I suspect that this guideline has triggered the present situation where HMG in the shape of the Department for Transport (or whatever it is called these days) has told the CAA that aircraft must remain on the ground and the CAA has told NATS to apply a zero rate.

Hence my first sentence. The people in front of the cameras and being quoted in newspapers should be those who firstly predicted where the ash will be and those who made the decision to stop all traffic. Unfortunately in the middle of an election campaign, there will not be a politician available to comment (good timing Gordon) and normally DTp people don't make public appearances. In the meantime, if it's not too late, NATS should tell people who told it what it had to do and carefully check its insurance policy for loss of income caused by an act of God.

A I

[Martin Barnes]

Anyone have any thoughts about the mass exodus of heavy departures from LFPG to all points around the globe this afternoon.

according to CFMU the airspace was closed and in the middle of the red zone.

make a mockery of the whole thing LOL

[Bob Meade]

Would this Volcanic Ash affect Piston Engined aircraft? if not, I guess the Lancaster in Lincs, is the RAF's only operational bomber in the UK at the moment!

[Scooby Don't]

The effect on piston-engined aircraft would certainly be reduced, in part due to their lower speed, though the biggest issue is altitude. As per Eric Moody's experience, volcanic ash tends to be pretty high up until it dissipates. Capt Moody's 747 suffered a 4-engine flame out twice, but in the lower air they managed, twice, to restart the engines.

Were a piston-powered aircraft to encounter that level of volcanic ash, my opinion is that it would eventually clog up the air intakes and some would enter the engine causing severe wear on pistons, valves, etc. I would imagine there would be a loss of power before engine failure though, which a good pilot would take as a warning to get on the ground asap. There would still be wear on the windscreen (though not as bad as at jet speeds), and likely wear on the skin of the aircraft. Any fabric-covered airframe could be in real trouble!

[Bob Meade]

Thanks for that Scooby - yes, there would be other reasons not to fly a Lanc!......
Bob

[eMACaRe]

Who decided it...

Surely, it was not NATS who "closed" its airspace; wouldn't this, and all other "closures" have been decided after the National Administrations and CFMU/EUROCONTROL had discussed and agreed a co-ordinated plan of action. After all, it is CFMU who has the overall picture of air traffic in and out of European airspace......

Andy eMACaRe

[eastern wiseguy]

How much is this costing NSL/NERL in terms of lost revenue?

[ImnotanERIC]

BDIONU:

The government are guided by the advice from the scientific (vulcanologists) community and pressure is no doubt being applied to them not to be so pessemistic/conservative in their calculations of where the ash cloud is.

nanoo nanoo

[millerman]

eMACaRe,
I think you have got your logic the wrong way round - CFMU plan and issue slots and routes on the flow rates given to them by the ANSPs, they do not dictate how much traffic each centre or sector can take (as they do not know the precise staffing levels). If someone tells them they have a zero rate then they cannot plan traffic through that airspace.
Yes, they may have the overall picture but if someone says they cannot take any traffic then CFMU has to plan accordingly!! They can only work wih the flow rates given

[AEST]

The government are guided by the advice from the scientific (vulcanologists) community and pressure is no doubt being applied to them not to be so pessemistic/conservative in their calculations of where the ash cloud is.

I didn't know that them policy wonks were all scientist

Anyway, why don't you folks just temporarily declare all airspace G (since you've essentially eliminated all controlled traffic anyway). Or are you still concerned about us running into the IFR traffic?

Any chance of a discount on landing fees at Heathrow for us pistonpushers?

[Lon More]

Any chance of a discount on landing fees at Heathrow for us pistonpushers?

tongue firmly in cheek I hope. ATC has nothing to do with the cost of landing fees, try the airport operator

Thanks Millerman, I was trying to post that earlier but my computer went TU