Volcanic Ash Update
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
AOPA UK has provided a mechanism for reporting incidents where ATS Services have been refused as a result of Volcanic Ash. We are trying to achieve a proportionate and consistent approach to non-turbine ops, including gliders and balloons and we need evidence from airspace users to back us up.
Please click here for more details.
Please click here for more details.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Remembering of course this was the UK Met office which predicted a BBQ summer and Mild winter, and also officially supplies data to the IPCC....worrying eh?!
Throughout the last "ban" a friend of mine continued to fly his (company's) turboprop around. It was crazy, they were forced to fly VFR, even as far as spain (just so happens the French let them fly at any altitude pretty much DCT). On the ground there they met a 737 which had come from elsewhere in Europe, they had flown in VFR at FL170..
So CAA, people are flying, engines still work, but due to knee jerk reactions, safety is compromised again.
Throughout the last "ban" a friend of mine continued to fly his (company's) turboprop around. It was crazy, they were forced to fly VFR, even as far as spain (just so happens the French let them fly at any altitude pretty much DCT). On the ground there they met a 737 which had come from elsewhere in Europe, they had flown in VFR at FL170..
So CAA, people are flying, engines still work, but due to knee jerk reactions, safety is compromised again.
G
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Other than the NOTAMed No Fly Zones (which to the uninitiated might well imply one can not fly
), the refusal to grant VFR clearances in Class D, The closure of airports - particularly those whose primary operations are piston aircraft, and the general refusal to clarify that the directives only apply to turbine (or maybe even turbjet/fan) aircraft.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
By pilots with excessive preson-itis, who won't just bite the bullet and decline to fly it sounds to me.
What we are seeing is a pilot who sees blue skies (typ. high pressure weather, like we will have this week in the SE UK) as far as the eye can see, then he goes up to say 5000ft, sees blue skies as far as the eye can see, then he goes up to say 10000ft, sees blue skies as far as the eye can see, and (like me and most people with any kind of engineering/technical education) cannot understand the physical mechanism which would result in particles hazardous to his engine(s) being suspended in the air in a sufficient density while maintaining this visibility of 50nm or so.
If people saw brown (or whatever unusual) clouds, they would believe it.
But nobody I know has actually seen any evidence of this ash.
A few people have reportedly seen "ash" on their cars, but a car covered in grit is such a frequent thing anyway.
I have never seen the slightest deposit on my air filter, and I flew ~ 400nm on the "famous Friday" during the first shutdown.
The engine damage reports have never been backed up by any supplementary information on what/where/when etc.
No wonder nobody believes it.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
From: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
On my days off today from my day job ( Scottish Information ) but just seen this posted elsewhere from one of my fellow Air traffiker's.
At least when I return to work on Thursday I may have a better idea where my responsibilities lie!!! 
Just to add a couple of points I found out today at Prestwick Centre.
In the areas of HIGH ash concentration outside CAS, we will only be providing an alerting service.
In the areas of HIGH ash concentration outside CAS, we will only be providing an alerting service.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Will you still be providing the temporary airways clearance for Class G departures wishing to transfer to London Control (or its Scottish equivalent)?
OTOH, presumably, if flight in CAS is banned, IFR flights will need to leave UK airspace under VFR, on a Z flight plan.
I thought one had to "book out" with London Info on the way out of the UK, VFR. Presumably they won't want the call.
OTOH, presumably, if flight in CAS is banned, IFR flights will need to leave UK airspace under VFR, on a Z flight plan.
I thought one had to "book out" with London Info on the way out of the UK, VFR. Presumably they won't want the call.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
I have seen no sign of "coloured" clouds either last time or this time round.
So will a bugsmashing bimbler get a basic service in class G or will I be advised that I am risking life & limb being airborne in this crystal clear blue stuff?
Perhaps I shall just "presson" till the compressor & turbine blades on my C90 get all clogged up.
So will a bugsmashing bimbler get a basic service in class G or will I be advised that I am risking life & limb being airborne in this crystal clear blue stuff?
Perhaps I shall just "presson" till the compressor & turbine blades on my C90 get all clogged up.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
A new ATSIN has been issued:-
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATSIN0184.pdf
Put simply, if you are flying private VFR in a SEP within a NFZ ATC should offer you traffic services. An encouraging step.
Still no confirmation on whether the NFZ applies as much to <3000' light piston singles as it does to turbines in the flight levels however...
Also I hear that people flying within NFZs might be MOR'd. Another pressing reason why this matter needs to be clarified ASAP!
Smithy
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATSIN0184.pdf
Put simply, if you are flying private VFR in a SEP within a NFZ ATC should offer you traffic services. An encouraging step.
Still no confirmation on whether the NFZ applies as much to <3000' light piston singles as it does to turbines in the flight levels however...
Also I hear that people flying within NFZs might be MOR'd. Another pressing reason why this matter needs to be clarified ASAP!
Smithy
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 35
From: Home
Volcanic ash and ATC
I pilot I spoke to this morning en route to Popham in uncontrolled airspace and clear unlimited vis, was told by Farnborough ATC that he should not be flying as a No Fly Zone was in force!!
He was flying a Piper Cub!!
If there are no Notams in force-there wern't, then that is not in their power to stop flying in the open FIR.
The Piper of course continued on its way.
He was flying a Piper Cub!!
If there are no Notams in force-there wern't, then that is not in their power to stop flying in the open FIR.
The Piper of course continued on its way.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
I contacted the Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA having been MORd for being 3 minutes late into a NFZ and their response was interesting. Firstly they felt that it was unsafe to fly in the area of high concentration although it was admitted unofficially that was only with respect to turbine aircraft and that nothing specific was being said for VFR SEP flights.
It was also made clear that there is NO legal basis for the "no fly zone" on purpose because while they thought it was important to stress the area of high concentration and that people flying in it should turn round and fly out but that people should not be prosecuted for doing so. They also said that it was an overreaction to withdraw all ATC service from people in the zone for whatever reason albeit by 3 minutes, but that was an understandable interpretation. If it was to be airspace then it would have been called so, that would make it legal
.
On that basis not one person will be prosecuted for flying in a no fly zone. You may be MOR'd but it will get filed in the nonesense drawer.
The problem we're facing at the moment is that no consideration is being given to piston aircraft flying VFR, it makes little sense for us to be banned from flying unless there is a very clear danger and there isn't. How do we know this? Because regardless of the NFZ notams, people have been flying quite regularly and have not been dropping out the sky.
I've yet to find someone to talk to who will accept that VFR SEP/MEP flights should be permissable and that removing FISO/tower/air-ground services from those flights on the basis that we shouldn't be flying turbine aircraft is absurd and excessive.
Good luck AOPA! Hopefully you can knock some sense into NATS/CAA/Metoffice so they can at least let us fly our little put puts on these lovely days!
It was also made clear that there is NO legal basis for the "no fly zone" on purpose because while they thought it was important to stress the area of high concentration and that people flying in it should turn round and fly out but that people should not be prosecuted for doing so. They also said that it was an overreaction to withdraw all ATC service from people in the zone for whatever reason albeit by 3 minutes, but that was an understandable interpretation. If it was to be airspace then it would have been called so, that would make it legal
.On that basis not one person will be prosecuted for flying in a no fly zone. You may be MOR'd but it will get filed in the nonesense drawer.
The problem we're facing at the moment is that no consideration is being given to piston aircraft flying VFR, it makes little sense for us to be banned from flying unless there is a very clear danger and there isn't. How do we know this? Because regardless of the NFZ notams, people have been flying quite regularly and have not been dropping out the sky.
I've yet to find someone to talk to who will accept that VFR SEP/MEP flights should be permissable and that removing FISO/tower/air-ground services from those flights on the basis that we shouldn't be flying turbine aircraft is absurd and excessive.
Good luck AOPA! Hopefully you can knock some sense into NATS/CAA/Metoffice so they can at least let us fly our little put puts on these lovely days!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
From: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Dan.......good post and full of sense....I to feel the frustration that you all do about this especially if I am not allowed to provide the service we normally do.....hopefully one day soon sense will prevail and someone with half a brain will make the decision and not worry about his arse for a change!!!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: essex
i heard of a helicopter having problems.
Having flown from a private house to a local Airfield.
ATC turned him away due to the NFZ, why because he was flying VFR at night.
To ATC there is no such thing as VFR at night so must be IFR.
Helicopter diverted elsewhere.
Having flown from a private house to a local Airfield.
ATC turned him away due to the NFZ, why because he was flying VFR at night.
To ATC there is no such thing as VFR at night so must be IFR.
Helicopter diverted elsewhere.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
From: Strathaven Airfield
New ATSIN is good - and sensible news.
However, note my capitals:
*****************
ATC and FIS Providers SHOULD not offer a service within a NFZ unless the pilot is
operating under VFR and the aircraft is a glider, balloon or piston powered aircraft
1
and not operating for the purpose of public transport.
This restriction does not apply
to operational emergency services flights (e.g. Air Ambulance).
ATC and FIS Providers MAY also provide a service to an aircraft in the above
categories within controlled airspace that is:
operating under VFR within Class D airspace; operating under Special VFR in other controlled airspace provided that it is the
only aircraft in that airspace block.
*************
Shame that it is not SHOULD in both cases.
We'll have to see what happens the next time. Will NATS use MAY to decline the offering of such services?
However, note my capitals:
*****************
ATC and FIS Providers SHOULD not offer a service within a NFZ unless the pilot is
operating under VFR and the aircraft is a glider, balloon or piston powered aircraft
1
and not operating for the purpose of public transport.
This restriction does not apply
to operational emergency services flights (e.g. Air Ambulance).
ATC and FIS Providers MAY also provide a service to an aircraft in the above
categories within controlled airspace that is:
operating under VFR within Class D airspace; operating under Special VFR in other controlled airspace provided that it is the
only aircraft in that airspace block.
*************
Shame that it is not SHOULD in both cases.
We'll have to see what happens the next time. Will NATS use MAY to decline the offering of such services?
