[jhb] Re: Grounded by NATS
- From: "Paul Reynolds" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:35:20 +0100
Don't VFR regulations include remaining clear of cloud? So naturally you
would not fly into cloud whether they are made up of the normal droplets of
water vapour, various other airborne pollutants (e.g. farm stubble burning)
or indeed volcanic ash - would you? <g>
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 15 April 2010 17:53
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Grounded by NATS
Is it actually closed to VFR flights too? I can see a good reason for
NATS having the authority to close down controlled airspace, since
they've been delegated the authority to control it. Having control over
all airspace is a different matter IMHO. I wouldn't have thought there
was much risk of engine damage to a piston engined aircraft, flying at a
couple of thousand feet. If I'm wrong, then there's a risk to cars
travelling over high ground; which clearly isn't the case.
Gerry Winskill
Fossil wrote:
> As we can't generate a virtual volcanic cloud it would be daft to close
> down the UK in IVAO..
>
>
>
> Despite NATS closing down the UK airspace (somewhat prematurely in my
> view) there are still a lot of aircraft flying. My SBS has recorded 5844
> transponder pings since 1400 and I've picked about 23 aircraft on screen.
>
>
>
> bones
>
> bones@xxxxxxx <mailto:bones@xxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> *From:* jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Reynolds
> *Sent:* 15 April 2010 13:29
> *To:* jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [jhb] Grounded by NATS
>
>
>
> Are we? That is does the NATS restriction apply in the simulated world?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
Other related posts:
