Originally Posted by ex-EGLL
(Post 11191918)
Well, AFL111 made it through as you said but AFL157 (PUJ - SV0) and AFL159 (CUN-SVO) both seem to have taken a somewhat circuitous along the US Canadian border before turning to a more northerly heading when east of Canadian Domestic Airspace
That means they are flying over Canadian, Danish (Greenland), and Norwegian airspace, entering Russia in the Murmansk region that borders Norway. In the Canadian NOTAM, there was a phone number for the affected aircraft to request an exemption, which I assumed they did successfully, since they all are one-way repatriation flights. From the Danish NOTAM, they seemed to have accepted waiver requests as well till 2300Z (they no longer are). I couldn't find any NOTAMs referring to the airspace ban in Norwegian airspace, i.e. ENOB and ENOR, which are the FIRs they're flying through. Although Norway has said they're banning Russian flights, likely because they are not in the EU, they haven't issued immediate NOTAMs in this regard.
Originally Posted by brak
(Post 11191923)
cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-27-22/h_1889b357ab1275bf9247079bf0d6f4e2
INTO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AIRSPACE MAY APPLY TO THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AT 1-877-992-6853 OR 1-613-992-6853. 27 FEB 16:41 2022 UNTIL 25 MAY 16:00 2022 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 27 FEB 16:41 2022 |
A CBC report on the Aeroflot flight includes the following:
Nav Canada confirmed to Reuters that Aeroflot did enter the Canadian airspace. It said the aircraft operator declared the flight as a humanitarian flight as it entered the domestic airspace, which requires special handling by air traffic control under normal circumstances. |
IFALPA Safety Bulletin 28 February 2022
Referring to "Airspace Closures" IFALPA has issued a Safety Bulletin addressing Interference with.GNSS signals. Text of the SAB refers to military activities and conflict zones.
Link: https://ifalpa.us13.list-manage.com/...9&e=ec48ca9e7e 22sab06. |
Some of the posts here showed a total misunderstanding of what the rules of the air are and what the old Chicago convention stipulates. You can issue sanctions against airlines, not against State flights. Civil ATC is not a police service, any flight entering your airspace with a flight plan will be given service, what happens afterwards is a matter for the authorities after landing. There are more worrying things happening right now than worrying if one Aeroflot aircraft is entering an FIR supposedly not being allowed into .We should be far more worried about the Western aircraft currently taking shortcuts around Ukrainian airspace when hell will break loose.
|
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 11192574)
Some of the posts here showed a total misunderstanding of what the rules of the air are and what the old Chicago convention stipulates. You can issue sanctions against airlines, not against State flights. Civil ATC is not a police service, any flight entering your airspace with a flight plan will be given service, what happens afterwards is a matter for the authorities after landing. There are more worrying things happening right now than worrying if one Aeroflot aircraft is entering an FIR supposedly not being allowed into .We should be far more worried about the Western aircraft currently taking shortcuts around Ukrainian airspace when hell will break loose.
. |
Qantas is now using the southern route to/from LHR to Darwin:
https://australianaviation.com.au/20...on-flightpath/ |
ATC Watcher ..... thank you for emphasizing the stuff actually important as comparrd to, single instances not too important to begin with.
I'm not getting out any citation to Convention, Annexes or other sources but - I'm pretty sure that the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known to all concerned as the Chicago Convention of 1944, separates State "aircraft" to which the Convention does not apply, from civil "aircraft" to which it does apply. (Whether it's useful to call it "old"....I'm leaving that for some other thread perhaps.) |
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
(Post 11192813)
I'm pretty sure that the ... Chicago Convention of 1944, separates State "aircraft" to which the Convention does not apply, from civil "aircraft" to which it does apply.
|
Originally Posted by andrasz
(Post 11192875)
It is very simple. The Chicago Convention applies to aircraft which are registered by a Civil Aviation Authority (as defined in the Convention) of a member state. All other aircraft are excluded. It does not matter what activity is said aircraft engaged in, it falls under the Convention. However there are articles pertaining to different activities (commercial, government,SAR, humanitarian relief, etc ).
Civil and State aircraft (Art. 3 of the Convention) a) This Convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft. b) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft. c) No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof. d) The contracting States undertake, when issuing regulations for their state aircraft , that they will have due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft. Cheers, Grizz |
|
Nordwind currently have a Moscow to Cancun flight in the air. Flight time of circa 13 hours due to the extended routing. Let’s hope they don’t need to divert en route or there will be problems!
|
Originally Posted by Atlantic Explorer
(Post 11192997)
Nordwind currently have a Moscow to Cancun flight in the air. Flight time of circa 13 hours due to the extended routing. Let’s hope they don’t need to divert en route or there will be problems!
As to the definition of what is a state aircraft , the 1944 definition moved with time into a grey area. Aircraft carrying head of State for instance can be considered State aircraft , even if a non military aircraft is being used.. A definition now widely accepted is the following : State aircraft have been defined as all aircraft owned and operated by the government. This definition is very wide and is based on ownership. Consequently, not only typical State aircraft, such as military, police, or customs aircraft, but equally aircraft owned and operated by a public body are considered State aircraft. . |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 11193042)
Let's stop this witch hunt.
|
President Biden just closed US airspace to Russian aircraft in his state of the union address.
|
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 11193042)
What problems? if he is in emergency he will be given full assistance like any other aircraft in need. Let's stop this witch hunt.
As to the definition of what is a state aircraft , the 1944 definition moved with time into a grey area. Aircraft carrying head of State for instance can be considered State aircraft , even if a non military aircraft is being used.. A definition now widely accepted is the following : , . |
Are these airspace closures viable in the long term ? What is the end game for the West with respect to denial of airspace if Putin doesn’t get out of Ukraine, which is the most likely scenario ?
|
Transport Canada is taking action with respect to Canada's airspace being closed to Russian aircraft:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...nife-1.6370725 |
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
(Post 11193881)
Transport Canada is taking action with respect to Canada's airspace being closed to Russian aircraft:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...nife-1.6370725 "It appears that the plane and its passengers were on their way to Resolute, Nunavut, with the intention of taking a planned Arctic overland expedition in a large all-terrain utility vehicle," .Hmm, any images of the large all-terrain utility vehicle? The count for Russian intrusions into Canadian airspace stands at what now? Well, there must be simple explanations, because
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11191698)
No Russian civilian aircraft will intentionally enter closed airspace, ...
IJM's Dassault Falcon 900EX (VP-CVS) from GVA arrived YZF Mar 1 11:59. |
I'm confused.
Originally Posted by EddyCurr
(Post 11194048)
"It appears that the plane and its passengers were on their way to Resolute, Nunavut, with the intention of taking a planned Arctic overland expedition in a large all-terrain utility vehicle"
Originally Posted by EddyCurr
(Post 11194048)
IJM's Dassault Falcon 900EX (VP-CVS) from GVA arrived YZF Mar 1 11:59.
This has all the makings of a non-story. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11194079)
This has all the makings of a non-story.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.