. . . flew to Barcelona (Sabadell) on Sunday from EGLM to pick up a stranded friend, via Bergerac and Perpignan, between 3000' and 3500'. Returned yesterday on same route. No evidence of any ash, no marks to prop, leading edges or screen and air filters completely clear after 10 hours airborne !

I would say it seems completely safe at low level. When I called NATS to make sure my flight plan had been accepted the fellow lectured me on 'poor judgement' etc etc. It turns out their concerns are based on computer model projections, not actual data from test flights. Not very professional in my view ! (I think he just wanted to make sure the taped conversation made it clear I was an irresponsible idiot . . . just in case !)

He has probably never flown in a plane - except when going on holiday, or on some expenses paid jolly.

Sounds like a good flight. Any reason for going via Perpignan rather than San Sebastian? It would seem shorter.

In fact I wonder how CAS transits might work right now. There is little or no CAT in CAS, so ATC have no reason to refuse transit of any airspace below Class A.

My colleague was stuck down near Marbella and in fact I did initially suggest San Sebastion as a pick up location to him ! However, there is a fast new train service up the east coast to Barcelona (6 hrs) so that looked much easier than him trying to get to the north west.

As far as flying to Barcelona is concerned via the west of the Pyrenees rather than east, I don't think there is much in it. Also I had to pack in all the flight planning within an hour on Saturday night as the whole rescue idea came up at short notice . . . . so I'm not suggesting this was definitely the best route. However, I already had Bergerac flight planned and in the Garmin as I've done that journey a couple of times (direct from Deauville to Le Mans and then straight over Poitiers where they are always very helpful even though the airspace looks congested on the map). Whether in or outside CAS the French air traffic were great all the way - no complaints (although none was class A). Flying VFR in France is a wonderful experience (unlike Belgium where I won't be heading back anytime soon . . . . but that's another story!)

Drambuster.

Volcanic Ash – Advice For General Aviation Pilots
 

CAA have just published FODCOM 11/10: VOLCANIC ASH – ADVICE FOR GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS

OC619

Maybe it's very easy if all traffic is VFR - it effectively becomes a ATSOCAS Traffic Service.

They're back
 

Just been listening to the 1st jet arriving at LGW for a few days.
Controller "I've been talking to cessna 172s all day - it's nice to see a real aeroplane"
Lady Pilot "ooo I'm a PPL and I've just had a bacon sandwich and want to transit your zone"

Welcome back you lot :{

Hi Folks,

Here's the lowdown on why private flying hasn't been permitted at Heathrow...

Firstly, the Heathrow zone is class A airspace and as such only IFR/SVFR flights are permitted. Hence the Thames/SVFR controllers can't issue a VFR clearance. The CAA have mandated that IFR/SVFR clearances are not to be issued unless the aircraft is CAT A (Police heli, Medevac, etc). Essentially, a SVFR clearance is a slightly more relaxed IFR clearance which permits a pilot to operate with visual reference to the surface but requires the controller to provide IFR separation between aircraft.

Secondly, Heathrow's prime assets are it's runways. They are the key piece of infrastructure required once the volcanic ash has dispersed and as such HAL were not willing to expose them to any level of risk. There have been schools of thoughts floating around that because of the extra width of the runways (to allow for the A380) that the normal approach and landing perspective is distorted and as such could lead to a possible heavy landing. With the amounts of money being lost by the airlines while flights are suspended it was seen as too risky commercially to allow private flying in and have the potential for a blocked or damaged runway. HAL actually stopped people from going out onto the runways after a couple of days when they realised that people could drop things or lose things that wouldn't be noticed, which ultimately could present a risk once the airfield re-opened.

And finally, as the airlines essentially pay for the ATSOCA services (LARS, etc) to NATS through their en-route and landing charges (in addition to the small subsidy from the government) so that the service is provided for free to GA users, they were keen not present themselves with a situation (as described above) that could lead to further financial difficulties and place a risk on those services. The airlines actually like ATSOCA, LARS, etc because they help keep VFR traffic under control around the ever increasingly commercial control zones.

So, sorry we didn't get to see some of you at Heathrow.. I think most of us would've liked to see some interesting things visiting, but it was not to be. I hope that you all took the time to enjoy the fantastic weather and had some nice exploits while you could.

halo,

An informative post! Thanks.

Oh well...

I wonder how major American airports manage to accommodate light aircraft, even on a 'business-as-usual' day.

Specifically, how they assess risk on the PPLs who have just passed their checkride.

More parking space and a greater number of runways?

I dispair.
 

I dispair with airports considering that my tonne of spamcan landing at 70 kts is a signifficant business risk to their runways designed for 400 tonnes landing at 150 kt in a crosswind.

I dispair with the CAA and NATS being unable to see that agricultural clockwork mice are not the same as jets filled with fare paying passengers How dare anyone from nats give pilots "a lecture about poor judgement" (WTF do they know).

I dispair that in the interests of safety there no ATSOCAS above Basic Service was made available. Where is the logic here?

I dispair that large pieces of airspace near airports normally available for VFR flight were removced from availability "for noise abatemebt reasons". What authority does anyone have to do this?

I dispair that some technical danger to some engines has any bearing on the ability of an ATCO to provide in IFR clearance - let alone a SVFR clearance. Why is it safe to flyt VFR, but not SVFR?

Our hands were tied. Honestly! I have been ashamed to be an ATCO so many times over the last week and having no choice, but to turn down quite reasonable and legal requests.

I know some GA pilots were able to achieve unusual, unforgettable flights - well done those who were able to accomodate them. I just can't believe how many we were instructed to turn away with no good reason and apologise to those that I had to say no to.

I will be making a report to the CAA in thew vain hope that next time we will not be forced to withold our services to you all.

Halo

Thanks for that but it does sound like a heap of excuses to my group.

A "not below 500' " fly-by would have been possible, as happened at Gatwick - we'd even have accepted slot times for that.

As it was I went to Bristol who couldn't have been more helpful.

Their airfield too is their major asset, but they only have the one runway.

But - and I guess this is the real reason - I would bet a heap of money it was fear of a terrorist attack on a strategic asset

Does all this kerfufle around jets etc mean that the market value of my piston twin has now increased as it seems to once more be a reasonably viable mthod of transport :-)

Drambuster
I also flew from Spain to UK, last Friday, in my DA42, from La Axaquaria (LEAX, near Malaga) to EGBT (Turweston).
I had spent the previous day researching everything I could find about volcanic ash risk and came to the firm conclusion that it was perfectly safe to fly. In fact, given the CAVOK conditions, it was much safer than average for these parts.
Fabulous flight, refuelling at Biarritz.
French air traffic apparently closed their VFR aispace shortly after I departed Biarritz and the radio was very quiet. Lovely flight up the French coast at FL 85. I could see some vague dark streaks ahead over Nantes and descended, otherwise nothing to report.
French air traffic were non-plussed, being convinced that all UK airfields were shut, and I was virtually alone on frequency.
Once I passed over to London Inf it was apparent that every man, woman and their dog was out flying over the home counties.
As for a Nats official accusing anyone of irresponsibility for choosing to fly, I think you should demand an apology.
The quangocrats of Nats and Eurocontrol couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag and there will be heads rolling down the line.
Volcanic ash has resulted in a very small number of engine shut downs when aircraft bumbled straight into the dense plume in IFR, but fortunately they restarted and no lives were lost.
Thunderstorms have killed possibly thousands of passengers and crew. Icebergs have drowned many thousands of people at sea. Yet there was never a ban on North Atlantic shipping or flying when there was a possibility of thunderstorms.
The issue here is one of proportionality. The quangocrats and the politicians completely failed to grasp the reality and act appropriately, hiding behind the flawed "no acceptable risk" argument which bedevils so much of life today.
Maybe this incident will force a reappraisal of these flawed processes in other areas of life and we will all be better off for it.
Audoen

Audoen,

Excellent post. Increasingly we live in world where risk management is being replaced by risk avoidance - and often by people who don't actually understand the nature and concept of "risk" in the first place. Nobody should under estimate what a huge threat this represents to our way of life.

How many people died in road accidents over the last few days, caused by fatigue due to long-distance driving?

Friend of mine did Rome to Amsterdam (1600 km) in less than 14 hours, including the rest stops. Solo. He made it allright but was this really safer than going by airplane?

While I totally agree with you as far as the general public and media are concerned, are you really suggesting that the army of safety analysists at NATS do not understand the concept of risk?

Just goes to show the professional attitude of UK ATC :yuk:

After the events of the last few days, I'd say - yes. By all accounts, NATS have based their 'risk assessment' on one single computer model. No balloons, no test flights, no bugger all. sitting on their fat asses in an office and sucking up to the H&S Nazis who have taken over in this country.

The ONLY risk these people understand is any risk to their well-cushioned jobs.

are you really suggesting that the army of safety analysists at NATS do not understand the concept of risk?

Up until last Thursday I would have said no.
I am very disappointed and disillusioned.

I am not sure 'not understand' is true. However NATS/UK CAA/HAL do seem to have a different perception of risk management than most of the rest of the world. Not necessarily wrong ... but different.

This is true in a number of different aspects of operations not just the recent ash. And interestingly is not always more risk adverse (think of IFR OCAS with no service - 'normal' practice UK, not really done anywhere else - but not NATS' problem if anything goes wrong!)

That's exactly the problem in the UK - everyone talks about risks and safety from, what sounds like, the moral high ground but in fact it's actually CYA.

Talked to a CAA engineering type at CAA Gatwick a few years ago about a problem. After much discussion along the lines of, "absolutely no way can we allow that", in a friendly off the record sort of way he said, "why don't you wait 8 weeks, that's when EASA takes over and you should have no problem then" - somebody else's sign off/problem - nothing to do with safe or dangerous, right or wrong !!!!

Volcanic ash plumes have in the past had detrimental effects on aircraft. It is clear to me that very little is known as to how much ash/unit volume of air will damage an aircraft to a point where safety is compromised. Moreover, it is very difficult to predict ash densities for a given sector of airspace. NATS quite simply did not know what the risk/hazard mix was. NATS could have taken one of two courses: do what they did or let flights continue until someone comes back with a damaged aircraft and pants full of poo/doesn't come back at all. I don't know about you guys, but I am not a test pilot. It all boils down to what you want to pay for risk management: inconvenience and monetry costs or several hundred body bags.

What should have happened is that years ago NATS identified an Icelandic volcano as being a threat to safety in European airspace (lets face it Iceland is not called the land of ice and fire because they all enjoy a BBQ on an icecap). Having done that they should have pointed out to operators what their policy would be thereby encouraging aircraft operators to pressurise aircraft manufacturers to sort out the capability of their aircraft in ash plumes.