Volcanic Ash Update
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volcanic Ash Update
Some of you will be aware of ATSIN 182 and some of you may have experienced some of the results during the last period of ash restrictions.
Following on from that I have on behalf of AOPA UK been in contact with the CAA's Air Traffic Standards Division with a view to clarifying policy and trying to ensure that practice follows policy.
AOPA UK was concerned that some of the wording in the ATSIN could result in unwarranted restrictions and withdrawal of services to non-turbine powered aircraft. In particular the following:-
Although termed "No Fly Zones" there was no prohibition on flying in them and no Restriction of Flying in accordance with Art 161 of the ANO was imposed.
It was not the intention that piston engined or unpowered flight would be restricted but the wording of ATSIN 182 might have caused ATSU's to refuse for example to provide clearances through Class D or to provide Flight Information services to gliders, balloons or piston engined GA.
As you'll appreciate the situation is very fluid. ATSD has noted my concerns and I can advise as follows:-
A new Statutory Instrument was signed yesterday which is designed to allow restrictions to be placed on flying as a result of ash contamination. It's not yet on the OPSI Website and I therefore don't know the detail.
It is likely that ATSIN 182 will be re-written in the light of the new SI and will provide better guidance that takes account of the effects of ash contamination on different power sources or on unpowered aircraft such as gliders.
Any NOTAM that need to be raised are also likely to be worded differently.
Mike Cross
AOPA UK
Following on from that I have on behalf of AOPA UK been in contact with the CAA's Air Traffic Standards Division with a view to clarifying policy and trying to ensure that practice follows policy.
AOPA UK was concerned that some of the wording in the ATSIN could result in unwarranted restrictions and withdrawal of services to non-turbine powered aircraft. In particular the following:-
6. Advice to ATC and FIS Providers
6.1 Extensive instrumented test flying throughout UK airspace has demonstrated that Volcanic Ash exists in multiple layers across the UK FIRs and that there are predicted to be some areas with higher concentrations that could pose an immediate hazard to flight safety. These areas (No Fly Zones) shall be contained within designated areas, the co-ordinates for which will be issued by NOTAM by the CAA.
6.2 ATC and FIS Providers should treat these areas as No Fly Zones for aircraft, within which services should not be offered; although assistance to enable a pilot to exit such an area in the most expeditious and appropriate manner should be provided.
6.1 Extensive instrumented test flying throughout UK airspace has demonstrated that Volcanic Ash exists in multiple layers across the UK FIRs and that there are predicted to be some areas with higher concentrations that could pose an immediate hazard to flight safety. These areas (No Fly Zones) shall be contained within designated areas, the co-ordinates for which will be issued by NOTAM by the CAA.
6.2 ATC and FIS Providers should treat these areas as No Fly Zones for aircraft, within which services should not be offered; although assistance to enable a pilot to exit such an area in the most expeditious and appropriate manner should be provided.
It was not the intention that piston engined or unpowered flight would be restricted but the wording of ATSIN 182 might have caused ATSU's to refuse for example to provide clearances through Class D or to provide Flight Information services to gliders, balloons or piston engined GA.
As you'll appreciate the situation is very fluid. ATSD has noted my concerns and I can advise as follows:-
A new Statutory Instrument was signed yesterday which is designed to allow restrictions to be placed on flying as a result of ash contamination. It's not yet on the OPSI Website and I therefore don't know the detail.
It is likely that ATSIN 182 will be re-written in the light of the new SI and will provide better guidance that takes account of the effects of ash contamination on different power sources or on unpowered aircraft such as gliders.
Any NOTAM that need to be raised are also likely to be worded differently.
Mike Cross
AOPA UK
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done on trying to do something about this.
1st time round, we could fly down Glasgow's runway no problem.
2nd time round, Glasgow closed their airspace (airfield was also closed for maintenance).
Had the crazy situation that a controller at Glsgow would tell you over the radio that ATC was closed, so wouldn't even offer a Basic ATSOCAS service. So couldn't keep one updated about the ash!
3rd time around (today) the Notam states:
THE AREA IS DESIGNATED A NO FLY ZONE (NFZ)(ICAO DEFINTION: AREAS OF
HIGH CONTAMINATION) SINCE THE CONCENTRATION OF ASH MAY EXCEED TEN
TIMES THE STANDARD THRESHOLD AND THEREFORE MAY EXCEED SAFE LIMITS. NO
CLEARANCES WILL BE ISSUED TO PENETRATE THE NFZ.
So, again, Class D airspace is closed to all traffic, including VFR SEP and microlights.
Why?
If we can operate outside controlled airspace, and there is no traffic in the Class D to "control", why not make the Class D Class G?
1st time round, we could fly down Glasgow's runway no problem.
2nd time round, Glasgow closed their airspace (airfield was also closed for maintenance).
Had the crazy situation that a controller at Glsgow would tell you over the radio that ATC was closed, so wouldn't even offer a Basic ATSOCAS service. So couldn't keep one updated about the ash!
3rd time around (today) the Notam states:
THE AREA IS DESIGNATED A NO FLY ZONE (NFZ)(ICAO DEFINTION: AREAS OF
HIGH CONTAMINATION) SINCE THE CONCENTRATION OF ASH MAY EXCEED TEN
TIMES THE STANDARD THRESHOLD AND THEREFORE MAY EXCEED SAFE LIMITS. NO
CLEARANCES WILL BE ISSUED TO PENETRATE THE NFZ.
So, again, Class D airspace is closed to all traffic, including VFR SEP and microlights.
Why?
If we can operate outside controlled airspace, and there is no traffic in the Class D to "control", why not make the Class D Class G?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this is ar*se covering by anally retarded officials who refuse to move a finger until they have a legal liability backstop in place.
I don't think anybody has actually seen any of this "ash", anywhere in Europe, at a concentration which could conceivably affect any type of engine or aircraft.
I was in Germany a few days ago and apparently the airlines there are blaming the UK Met Office for spreading a load of bull and causing the recent disruption, and they don't think there is any danger to aircraft.
For my June holiday down to Greece, I will bring VFR charts (of some kind...) because it seems sure one will always be able to get back to the UK, via France, under VFR. Whereas if one takes an airliner, and they ban IFR/CAS, one could get screwed just like countless thousands got screwed recently, with Eurostar screwing people for 600 euros a ticket.
I don't think anybody has actually seen any of this "ash", anywhere in Europe, at a concentration which could conceivably affect any type of engine or aircraft.
I was in Germany a few days ago and apparently the airlines there are blaming the UK Met Office for spreading a load of bull and causing the recent disruption, and they don't think there is any danger to aircraft.
For my June holiday down to Greece, I will bring VFR charts (of some kind...) because it seems sure one will always be able to get back to the UK, via France, under VFR. Whereas if one takes an airliner, and they ban IFR/CAS, one could get screwed just like countless thousands got screwed recently, with Eurostar screwing people for 600 euros a ticket.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody tried validating a Eurocontrol flight plan passing through the NFZ?
If necessary, as a Z (leaving the UK for say Italy) so VFR within the UK. I bet nobody will stop you, not least London Information who, officially, cannot see you on radar
If necessary, as a Z (leaving the UK for say Italy) so VFR within the UK. I bet nobody will stop you, not least London Information who, officially, cannot see you on radar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends where from.
There is a possibility that IFR pilots may need to fly on a Z flight plan and start off VFR until they are out of the UK and then continue IFR.
Or whatever.
There is a possibility that IFR pilots may need to fly on a Z flight plan and start off VFR until they are out of the UK and then continue IFR.
Or whatever.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows getting bigger..
Dont think your correct there...no one told me ( Scottish Info ) that I cannot provide a Basic Service to aircraft outside controlled airspace during the NFZ........also interesting thread running on Flyer forum regarding operating in Class D airspace......if the likes of Glasgow etc are unable to provide a service in class D airspace then surely it should lose its class D status for that period and revert to class G......I believe the CAA may have to look at this and come up with an answer PDQ as this aint going away ina hurry!!!
xrayalpha, it is worse than that. By the wording of the NOTAM all airspace within the given coordinates (including Class G) is designated a NFZ.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is ash in various concentrations over the most of the UK at present. If any of these concentrations are assessed to be high, the CAA will issue a NOTAM creating a No Fly Zone for the relevant coordinates and levels. At present the common division is SFC to FL 200 and FL200 to FL350. A No Fly Zone means exactly that: you may not fly in it, VFR or IFR. To do so will render you liable to prosecution for a breach of the ANO.
At the time of writing this, there is a No Fly Zone covering the most of Wales, the Cotswolds, the London area and Kent until 0600Z. This zone has moved SE over the last 24 hrs, so it might continue to do the same. Your VFR positioning flight may well be OK unless it lies in these zones.
At the time of writing this, there is a No Fly Zone covering the most of Wales, the Cotswolds, the London area and Kent until 0600Z. This zone has moved SE over the last 24 hrs, so it might continue to do the same. Your VFR positioning flight may well be OK unless it lies in these zones.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either will do.
Please advise of your intentions in either case....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A somwehat agressive reply... but here's the text from a recent NOTAM (my highlighting).
QUOTE
(H1529/10 NOTAMN
Q) EGXX/QWWXX/IV/NBO/W /000/200/5624N00804W415
A) EGTT EGGX EGPX B) 1005161800 C) 1005162359
E) VOLCANIC ASH IN THE FLW AREA HAS BEEN FORECAST.
6100N 01132W - 5918N 00500W - 5822N 00419W - 5725N 00426W - 5649N 00507W - 5602N 00459W - 5523N 00412W - 5503N 00155W - 5445N 00050W - 5436N 00031W - 5343N 00145E - 5335N 00159E - 5306N 00222E - 5244N 00151E - 5230N 00119E - 5227N 00040E - 5210N 00001E - 5155N 00127W - 5219N 00244W - 5251N 00308W - 5305N 00340W - 5217N 00624W - 5207N 00750W - 5207N 00810W - 5446N 01520W - 5607N 01858W - 5633N 01902W - 6100N 01735W - 6100N 01132W THE AREA IS DESIGNATED A NO FLY ZONE (NFZ)(ICAO DEFINTION: AREAS OF HIGH CONTAMINATION) SINCE THE CONCENTRATION OF ASH MAY EXCEED TEN TIMES THE STANDARD THRESHOLD AND THEREFORE MAY EXCEED SAFE LIMITS. NO CLEARANCES WILL BE ISSUED TO PENETRATE THE NFZ. NOTAM FOR ADJACENT FIR SHOULD BE EXAMINED TO ESTABLISH FURTHER NFZ. IN ADDN THERE ARE VOLUMES OF AIRSPACE WHERE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES MAY APPLY (ENHANCED PROCEDURE ZONES (EPZ) (ICAO DEFINITION: AREAS OF LOW CONTAMINATION).
UK ACFT OPR CERTIFICATE (AOC) HOLDERS PLANNING TO OPR WI AN EPZ SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE LATEST FLT OPS DIVISION COM (FODCOM) DOCUMENTS, AVBL AT The UK Civil Aviation Authority (SEARCH FOR: FODCOMS PUBLICATIONS AND FODCOMS FOR GENERAL AVIATION). ALL NON-UK AOC HOLDERS PLANNING TO OPR WI THE EPZ SHOULD SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO OPERATE SAFELY. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE EPZ ARE AVBL FM THE VAAC, AVBL AT WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK/AVIATION/VAAC (FOLLOW THE LONDON VAA-ISSUED GRAPHICS LINK). NOTE - THE FORECAST DIMENSIONS OF BOTH THE NFZ AND EPZ ARE UPDATED EVERY 6 HR.
F) SFC G) FL200)
I also hear a rumour that someone who flew VFR in a No Fly Zone the last time around is being investigated with a view to prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, but that suggests to me that there is some statute which makes this possible.
QUOTE
(H1529/10 NOTAMN
Q) EGXX/QWWXX/IV/NBO/W /000/200/5624N00804W415
A) EGTT EGGX EGPX B) 1005161800 C) 1005162359
E) VOLCANIC ASH IN THE FLW AREA HAS BEEN FORECAST.
6100N 01132W - 5918N 00500W - 5822N 00419W - 5725N 00426W - 5649N 00507W - 5602N 00459W - 5523N 00412W - 5503N 00155W - 5445N 00050W - 5436N 00031W - 5343N 00145E - 5335N 00159E - 5306N 00222E - 5244N 00151E - 5230N 00119E - 5227N 00040E - 5210N 00001E - 5155N 00127W - 5219N 00244W - 5251N 00308W - 5305N 00340W - 5217N 00624W - 5207N 00750W - 5207N 00810W - 5446N 01520W - 5607N 01858W - 5633N 01902W - 6100N 01735W - 6100N 01132W THE AREA IS DESIGNATED A NO FLY ZONE (NFZ)(ICAO DEFINTION: AREAS OF HIGH CONTAMINATION) SINCE THE CONCENTRATION OF ASH MAY EXCEED TEN TIMES THE STANDARD THRESHOLD AND THEREFORE MAY EXCEED SAFE LIMITS. NO CLEARANCES WILL BE ISSUED TO PENETRATE THE NFZ. NOTAM FOR ADJACENT FIR SHOULD BE EXAMINED TO ESTABLISH FURTHER NFZ. IN ADDN THERE ARE VOLUMES OF AIRSPACE WHERE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES MAY APPLY (ENHANCED PROCEDURE ZONES (EPZ) (ICAO DEFINITION: AREAS OF LOW CONTAMINATION).
UK ACFT OPR CERTIFICATE (AOC) HOLDERS PLANNING TO OPR WI AN EPZ SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE LATEST FLT OPS DIVISION COM (FODCOM) DOCUMENTS, AVBL AT The UK Civil Aviation Authority (SEARCH FOR: FODCOMS PUBLICATIONS AND FODCOMS FOR GENERAL AVIATION). ALL NON-UK AOC HOLDERS PLANNING TO OPR WI THE EPZ SHOULD SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO OPERATE SAFELY. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE EPZ ARE AVBL FM THE VAAC, AVBL AT WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK/AVIATION/VAAC (FOLLOW THE LONDON VAA-ISSUED GRAPHICS LINK). NOTE - THE FORECAST DIMENSIONS OF BOTH THE NFZ AND EPZ ARE UPDATED EVERY 6 HR.
F) SFC G) FL200)
I also hear a rumour that someone who flew VFR in a No Fly Zone the last time around is being investigated with a view to prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, but that suggests to me that there is some statute which makes this possible.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also hear a rumour that someone who flew VFR in a No Fly Zone the last time around is being investigated with a view to prosecution
Like all the prosecutions over IFR flights without an ADF. Never happened.
Such is GA.
I don't see a problem with flying in Class G - so long as the airport(s) are not closed.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Captain Smithy; 17th May 2010 at 06:54. Reason: Addendum
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyeinthesky
Have you read the CAA FCOM that you link to?
This talks of the interaction between jet engines and the VA, as jet engnes have vast amouts of unfiltered air passing through them blocking on the turbine cooling ducts is posable.
Piston engines use far less air and this air is filterd, in short these are two different types of engine and the technical part of the CAA knows this as is indicated by the FCOM. after all if this VA was such a danger to piston engines then the motorways would be clogged with broken down cars!
The problem is that a bunch of people who don't understand the the difference between piston and turbine engines have made a "blanket" rule by those who have over reacted once and can't get themselfs out of this mess without loosing face.
Its just the sort of thinking that had the CAA doing GPS approach research to approve a system that had been in use for more than ten years in the USA just because they had dug themselfs into a hole by ignoring the GPS system for years.
As an engineer I have been taking notice of another CAA document that recomends regular inspection of engine air filters, these extra inspections have yet to find anything unusual.
The volcanic ash cloud over Europe created an unprecedented situation for aviation. At no other time has such an extensive amount of volcanic ash settled over some of the most congested airspace in the world and in stagnant weather conditions. The existing guidance for 'planes encountering volcanic ash is to AVOID AVOID AVOID so allowing for no interaction between jet engines and ash. Because this situation had never occurred before, the international guidance was largely untested and was never intended to cause such widespread disruption. It assumed there would continue to be flight paths which would allow avoidance but in this case there was not the space to do so.
The CAA has led the international discussions and investigation which has enabled manufacturers to come to an accurate and evidence based set of restrictions and agree engine tolerance levels to ash density. When you are dealing with people's lives it is not enough to just make up a less restrictive standard, you have to agree one based on robust scientific evidence and data. The UK 's work to prove this has now been adopted across Europe.
The CAA has led the international discussions and investigation which has enabled manufacturers to come to an accurate and evidence based set of restrictions and agree engine tolerance levels to ash density. When you are dealing with people's lives it is not enough to just make up a less restrictive standard, you have to agree one based on robust scientific evidence and data. The UK 's work to prove this has now been adopted across Europe.
Piston engines use far less air and this air is filterd, in short these are two different types of engine and the technical part of the CAA knows this as is indicated by the FCOM. after all if this VA was such a danger to piston engines then the motorways would be clogged with broken down cars!
The problem is that a bunch of people who don't understand the the difference between piston and turbine engines have made a "blanket" rule by those who have over reacted once and can't get themselfs out of this mess without loosing face.
Its just the sort of thinking that had the CAA doing GPS approach research to approve a system that had been in use for more than ten years in the USA just because they had dug themselfs into a hole by ignoring the GPS system for years.
As an engineer I have been taking notice of another CAA document that recomends regular inspection of engine air filters, these extra inspections have yet to find anything unusual.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny.
The Dutch Minister for Transport claims the exact same credits. And no, last time I checked he didn't work part-time for the CAA.
The CAA has led the international discussions and investigation which has enabled manufacturers to come to an accurate and evidence based set of restrictions and agree engine tolerance levels to ash density. [...] The UK 's work to prove this has now been adopted across Europe.
G
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in Germany a few days ago and apparently the airlines there are blaming the UK Met Office for spreading a load of bull and causing the recent disruption, and they don't think there is any danger to aircraft.
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.