What sort of VFR "Clearance" was Farnborough issuing outside CAS? :confused:

I am intrigued to know where Farnborough Radar can issue a 'VFR clearance'....

Ditto :ok:

Could this be indicative of nats' grip on things....?

I would presume it was a typo.

It might mean it can only issue a VFR (not IFR) clearance through Class D CTR/CTAs, and cannot provide an IFR clearance through the LTMA and surrounding Class A airways in the South East.

I think someone in NATS doesn't know what he's talking about! There were a few light aircraft and small biz jets flying over Berkshire yesterday afternoon so why the restriction on SVFR?

I heard radio interview with NATS Director of Safety yesterday evening. Never heard a worse performer, he was utterly useless and clueless as to how to present anything. I note from thes epages a certain wariness about the ability of NATs senior management among front line ATC staff but are all your managers like him because if they are I think we are safer as things are with nothing flying around at all.

A couple of examples

We are responsible for controlled airspace-well what does Joe Public know of controlled and un controlled airspace

In response to 'is there any chance of any flights tomorrow?' he said well we are responsible for controlled airpsace what companies and pilots choose to do in other airpsace is up to them. Yes. so BA are going to start flying 747s around at 5000 in VFR just because technically they are able too other than the fact that aren't all major airpots inside controlled airpsace anyway.

he answered no questions, had no eprsonality and was the eprfect example of the 'meets targets-misses the point' British management culture of today
oops rant over

Has anyone figured out yet why ATSOCAS above Basic are unavailable?

Best suggestion I've heard is due to unknown radar perfomance at times of volcanic ash?

:confused:

We had a corporate event with air display yesterday including B737 (nats Swanwick seemed to be actively discouraging the flight of the 737!) Private business flights including biz-jets were re-entering UK airspace yesterday by flying VFR.

Criteria shouldn't be based on flight rules. IFR can take place in VMC just as VFR does. nats have elected to withdraw service provision within controlled airspace. nats has also severely reduced service provision outside controlled airspace when, in fact, they would have greater capacity to provide ATSOCA rather than restrict it. It seems that nats are adopting a high moral stance which is now impinging upon civil liberties.

I suspect that GA will today see the light and realise that they can continue as normal regardless of nats and their Basic Service.......

Assuming the volcanic ash is a problem at FL300+, what is dangerous about flight at, say FL250? By all means adjust the levels but a buffer beneath the known levels of volcanic ash (and if 5,000 ft isn't enough, go for 10,000 ft!) would seem a much more proportionate response.

Transatlantic operators probably don't want to to bimble around at FL250 or below, and possibly can't anyway due to fuel burn, but domestic and European flights would be able to operate and you wouldn't be in the slightly ridiculous situation of a large section of the UK's economy grinding to a halt.

Ahh, but then NATS directors probably wouldn't be interviewed on TV and radio and wouldn't be able to bless us with their "wisdom"...

@ Daysleeper:

No idea... there is no reason why units can't provide a Deconfliction or Traffic Service. We are :ok:

Now you've mentioned that i've realised that my manager does that too. It really grates when it's brought to your attention. Damn you :}

Farnborough were instructed not to provide any Radar (surveillance) service. This did not affect Southend LARS or Manston LARS yesterday. :ok:

Alternative View
 

What if the Volcano excuse was not the real one ? ! !

Ahrcanum

Yes..... but why?

The ash cloud is between 200 and 360.

From the looks of the sat photos, there will be no change for a while.

Is ash not affected by gravity then?
NATS don't own the airspace, they're Air Navigation Service Providers, note the words Service Providers. UK Government PLC own the airspace and it's their decision, NATS are the talking heads/mouthpieces. 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.

Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you wish but given the very well documented risks of the effects of volcanic ash on aircraft I personally don't want some aircraft owner ignoring everything and leaping into the sky with the possibility of their mangled wreckage landing on my head. I would assume the government has a similar view and are protecting the general public at large (plus the cost of clearing up the mess left behind).

BD

Not often I agree with you BD (well, never actually!) but you're right on this point. I really can't understand people claiming that NATS have overreacted. What other option did they have?

Thanks to the litigious nature of people in the USA that has spread to the rest of the world, it all boils down to ass covering The CAA along with NATS have been discussing with their legal department's as to what services (if any) that ANSP's can provide without leaving themselves open to legal problems in the event of any incidents. Also this being an un-precedented event means there is bound to be chaos and uncertainty amongst all parties involved, lets just hope it doesn't continue for another 12 months.

Of course ash is subject to gravity, though obviously affected somewhat more by air currents. If, as bradt says, the ash cloud is between FL200 and FL360, and as you've probably noticed by lack of a layer of ash blanketing the country it most likely is concentrated at those levels, and if it's safe for VFR traffic to bimble around outside CAS, then why is it impossible for commercial IFR flights to operate at lower levels???

To say that ash is "subject to gravity" (which it is) in isolation is to ignore whatever you once learned about water vapour on your met course back in the day! Water vapour, more commonly known to us as "cloud", is also subject to gravity. Does it come down? Yes, quite often in the UK. Is it capable of staying up or even rising? Yes it most certainly is! The ash cloud, rather than descending in one large blanket, is likely to dissipate as it gets further from its Icelandic source. Some of it will fall to the ground though in small enough concentrations to be unnoticeable, and some of it will likely stay in the atmosphere for years. Some of it will mix with water vapour and fall as rain or hail. 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

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

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

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."

BDiONU said,
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.... :ok:

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.

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

:)

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?:O

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....

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

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

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

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!:D

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!

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

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

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

BDIONU:

nanoo nanoo

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 :)

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

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? :)

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