Simonpro,

As you are well aware, no one has suggested that the MET office should provide predictions as to the effects of ash on aircraft. indeed, we are well aware of what the effects are and how those effects occur in large concentration.

if the MET office can provide ash density figures with an accuracy of +/-30% from 6km to 500m over specific airways and and specific levels, why has that not been done and the information disseminated to NATS in order that ASHTAM's can be issued and airways and flight levels opened to IFR traffic?

toodle back to the Global Warming Thread and continue to praise Jones and the CRU for manipulating climate change data. :ok:

I will reiterate from previous posts because the message doesn't appear to be getting through.
NATS is an ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider), one of 56 throughout Europe, note the words Service Provider. All ANSPs provide a service in accordance with the licence issued by its respective government (in addition to the rules, regulations and laws they're also required to obey). The decision by European ANSPs to close airspace is directly in compliance with the requirements of their licence. Some European governments have gone further than simply close controlled airspace and have allowed no flying at all. In the UK NATS mandate to close airspace only covers controlled airspace and the UK Government has not chosen to go down the path of closing all airspace, hence you have seen aircraft flying VFR outside of CAS.

In the UK the airspace regulator is SRG (Safety Regulation Group) of the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), a department of the Department of Transport. Why HM Government and the D of T have been silent and are chosing to hide behind NATS skirts I have no idea but NATS spokesmen are only talking heads. NATS does not enact policy, it complies with it.

BD

What are the density figures which it's safe to fly through? I can tell you the answer, none are defined. The rules are no flying through ash contaminated airspace, very woolly but with no possibility of misinterpretation. Hence the call for some standards to be defined, cause we have none.

BD

More BA flights now en-route to LHR...
 

Bought the Farm : "Well that makes 10 inbound to LHR from the US. Can't wait to see if more are on their way".

A further 8 BA flights are en-route to LHR, predominatly from the east e.g. BKK, BAH, AUH, DEL, BOM, NRT, PEK plus GRU in Brazil.

Let's hope they all make it!

Added: now hearing they may have to be diverted - to where?

yep my moneys on madrid and I would also think that they knew that's where they may end up. Because at the same time we are sending consulate staff to set up centers for travelers there- Also Ryan air are going to get all stuck in canaries to mardid (as long as travelers agree all responisblity to get home from there is their own)

Stalling altitude: "gotta be Madrid".

I think BA Ops Team would much prefer Scottish airport(s) but if they are not available then AMS could be the fall back...obviously much closer to UK than MAD.

LHR inbounds
 

BA website still shows LHR as destination. I'd like to think that an alt has been decided if applicable or is a 'window of opportunity' planned to be open in this FIR later today for sure? Nothing like making things up as you go - dynamically speaking...

Dumping a dozen very full B747 flights anywhere outside the UK at the moment would be madness, Every effort to get them this side of the channel must be made. Maybe BA coming over as a "Gang" is meant to put more pressure on whoever it is thats running this mess.

diverting to spain where coincindentally (???) a few royal navy ships are due to arrive soon. not an extremely bad option, if uk airspace has to close again.

Flight Safety Digest May 1993 Volcanic Hazards and Aviation Safety
 

I've followed this thread closely and I don't think I have seen this paper referred to - if it has been then my apologies, but from some of the wild statements posted here then many others have not read it either!

The link is at Flight Safety Digest 1993 | Flight Safety Foundation Click on May1993

Does anyone have knowledge of any later papers following this one?

My money is on EDI given that GLA is closed.Outlook looks better on the east coast and transport links.Landing 10 744's in mainland europe and would give BA a major headache and massive additional costs.Anyone have any ideas as to the timings of these aircraft ?

Exactly!

However, there will always be contaminants in the atmosphere, which includes volcanic ash. Volcanic activity in the past has seen volcanic ash tracked to circle the globe up to three times and remain in the atmosphere for years.

Do you subscribe that we dont fly if there is any contaminants in the atmoshpere ?

What about aircraft that have been stored within 200nm of marine air, which corrodes blades and disks, which is equally damaging to engines (in different ways)?

Operators monitor engine conditions routinely as its a very inexpensive way of managing a very expensive piece of equipment.

So you are saying that the BA flight to Cardiff and other VFR operations which have occured since last week have been conducted outside of regulations ?

Can you please post the regulation and under which regulatory body this citation pertains to which should therefore stipulate the conentrations at which airspace would therefore be 'contaminated', how that airsapce is defined .. is it a FIR or an airway ... and who would therefore determine the contamination levels and by what method. thx.

A mess
 

This is a total mess, how can we have NATS taking advice from the Met Office producing charts like these:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation...1271763280.png

And EuroControl taking advice from whoever else producing charts like this.
https://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int/PUB...olcan_FIRs.pdf

I fully understand the safety calls and am not disputing it, but one would have hoped in todays age in that some kind of co-ordination between air traffic services could come up with what at least looks like a common approach. How can we have a position on one side of the channel shich is so vastly different to that in continental Europe? And Im not talking about the fact that the ash could exist either side Im referring to the fact that one thinks it is there and poses a major risk and one does not.

We now have relatively busy airspace on one side of the channel and nothing much flying here at all.

I await the NATS announcement with interest at 15:00.

alot of people are asking about this vfr ifr thing. i'm not working for the german regulatory. but it seems like good sense that visual conditions (Visual Flight Rules), i e out of the clouds and 1000 feet (or whatever) separation from those clouds, be applied. I wouldn't like to run into a little nimbostratus knowing that it might or might not contain VA. better to stay out and away from it. I'm not saying it's unsafer but VA is one thing (I guess you might be able to see a big concentration) but VA + water might be another thing completely.
please, no nonsense about flying vfr as in following rivers and country roads to known landmarks before looking at the airport's wind sock!

Taken from the BBC

Ferry companies operating out of Dover will be allowed to take 10% more passengers on their larger ships to help ease the current transport crisis.
According to David Osler, reporter for Lloyd's List, this suspends "whole chunks of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, introduced after the Titanic disaster of 1912".

The irony of at all! One rule for one form of transport another for a different one:ugh:

Of course not but thats not the legal position in Northern Europe currently. We need an effective compromise but our leaders have failed to provide this within the contingency legislation for volcanic ash events in Northern Europe.

As I've said previously you are allowed to fly VFR outside CAS in the UK. There was undoubtedly special dispensation for wee willie walsh's publicity stunt.
As I said previously the 'ban' is a blanket ban and I cannot post chapter and verse as the rules and regulations are not public domain.
Airspace is airspace, some is controlled and some not :)
As I previously said we have no defined standard and we have no method by which any concentrations could be measured. This is all stuff which should have been done as a contingency measure but wasn't. Possibly because this volcanic event is unprecedented and our great leaders never considered the risk high enough to spend the cash. One can only hope that they will do so as a matter of urgency.

BD

Greetings,

is it possible for someone to post the eurocontrol picture as following the link requires a secure log in.

regards
Howie (stuck in Azerbaijan ):*

vfr ifr
 

airseb

I agree - i posted earlier asking why the different rules for vfr / ifr (n.b. not vmc imc) - the ash density will be the same regardless of the rules.

Also as others have pointed out the lower level of atc control for vfr has to be less safe

Anyone know what excuse the French and Dutch have used to open Paris and Amsterdam - they seem to quite busy now. But they are still well within the VAAC ash cloud predicted area.