Presumably that's why they've asked pilots to avoid it - because they know there's lots of traffic. Seems logical to me. Anyway isn't everyone always saying these days that they never use NDBs, how useless they are etc? NS
A little less conversation, a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSouth
Presumably that's why they've asked pilots to avoid it - because they know there's lots of traffic. Seems logical to me. Anyway isn't everyone always saying these days that they never use NDBs, how useless they are etc? NS
Umm....well, yes. The Ockham NDB is particularly useless.
Well you should not realy be navigating by ADF at that sort of hight any way. But thanks for pointing that one out. Made me laugh any way. Every flight I do the company briefing system has pages of that sort of notam. Totally irelevant to our flight. I'll start reading them now looking for classics like that. (After I've finished the papers.)
Well you should not realy be navigating by ADF at that sort of hight any way.
Actually OCK is a VOR but I guess that doesn't alter the meaning of your statement. So I have to ask - why not?
OCK is conveniently located in the tight squeeze between the London CTR and the Gatwick CTR. By dialing the appropriate heading on the OBS you have one additional gross error check (in addition to following the M25) that you're not straying into someones airspace.
Places like that, I tend to use all the nav tools that are available to me. The Mk.1 eyeball, map, compass & timer, radio nav, GPS. Regardless of my altitude.
I thought NOTAMs were meant to be for informing us pilots of matters of genuine importance, e.g. TRAs, U/S Nav beacons/Radar, ATC issues, Mil activity, Danger Area (de)activation etc.
Asking (not instructing) pilots to avoid overflying a VOR because someone's filming something for telly is neither reasonable nor an issue to be NOTAMed...
Q) Egtt/qroxx/iv/nbo/w/000/025/5118n00027w002 B) From: 10/09/28 13:25c) To: 10/10/13 23:59
E) Pilots Are Invited To Practice Visual And Vor/dme Approaches At Wisley Disused Ad 5118n 00027w (ockham, Surrey). Min Altitude Of Overflying The Runway 500ft Agl. Noise Augmentation Procedures In Effect: Aircraft Are Requested To Maintain Runway Centerline At Lowest Permitted Height With Max Throttle And Rpm. All Aircraft Overflying Wisley At Or Below 1000ft Agl Will Feature In Tv Show.
Lower: Sfc Upper: 2200ft Amsl Schedule: Sep 28-30 And Oct 01-13 Hj
(Edited: If you post an all-caps post in PPRuNe it automatically converts it to the above...)
I thought NOTAMs were meant to be for informing us pilots of matters of genuine importance, e.g. TRAs, U/S Nav beacons/Radar, ATC issues, Mil activity, Danger Area (de)activation etc.
Asking (not instructing) pilots to avoid overflying a VOR because someone's filming something for telly is neither reasonable nor an issue to be NOTAMed...
Smithy
It does raise the question about who has the authority to sanction or reject NOTAM requests. I can appreciate the position of the people who are doing the filming - must cost a bomb in reshooting scenes set in the 18th century becasue a Cessna suddenly appears in shot! Meanwhile I was thinking of having a quiet day on Saturday and have some friends around to a barbeque in the garden but the aeroplanes sometimes fly quite low over my house. Maybe I could NOTAM my garden for the afternoon?
I was thinking the same gpn01. Does the CAA not have to approve NOTAMs for publication before they are issued? Or as you say can any munchkin apply for a NOTAM for whatever reason willy-nilly?
Nope anyone once they find out how the system works can submit NOTAMS.
I was asked by a white settler how to get a NOTAM in stating that there was kites on cables up to 500ft on his croft that he had just bought.
Some nimby BB had recommend it as a method to stop low level jets overflying properties.
To be honest I don't really mind the Telly folk doing an occassional one like the example. It pisses me off way more when they block roads and other such antics with no warning.
Not an unreasonable request IMHO. I appreciate that we are all Sky Gods determined to exercise our inalienable rights to fly where and when we want within the legal envelope, however a little courtesy to others goes a long way.
FYI most NOTAM requests are handled by AUS (Airspace Utilisation Section) of the CAA whose job it is to try and deconflict stuff.
Not an unreasonable request IMHO. I appreciate that we are all Sky Gods determined to exercise our inalienable rights to fly where and when we want within the legal envelope, however a little courtesy to others goes a long way.
Mike, the place in question (OCK) is in the middle of a busy funnel/corridor. It's not reasonable to expect pilots to instead either risk flying into LHR airspace to the north or to fly over the higher ground to the south, especially in the present poor weather and low cloud we are "enjoying". Wisley is a good VFR route check point; in worse conditions the beacon is used by aircraft flying just beneath the London CTA.
The point of this thread is not to be discourteous to others. However, this and other NOTAMs are of no real use to pilots or are unreasonable. I can give more examples!
Fair point Mike, although I think it misses the issue somewhat.
The NOTAM system is purely for important notices to pilots relating to safety. Issuing NOTAMs to ask people to keep clear of a VOR because filming for a gogglebox programme is happening is not a safety issue, therefore it is not a constructive nor correct use of the NOTAM system.
I wonder if the sponsor of this NOTAM is aware that Fairoaks arrivals/ departures route via OCK often at 1500ft (1400ft if there's class A airspace round Farnborough); hopefully they're aware of the helipad just outside the airfield boundary too.
Class A controlled airspace (London TCA) begins at 2400 feet above this area. The cloudbase in UK at this time of year is often well below 2200 feet.
This 2nm avoid effectively "plugs" a funnel feature in a busy transit route for VFR only traffic routing south of the Heathrow Control Zone. Fairoaks ATZ is emebedded in that same conrol zone immediately adjacent to this area. So yes, it can be a problem to avoid it either by altitude or laterally.
At another location it would be far less of an issue. It's a bad place to go filming if they don't want disturbance by aircraft.
It's a bad place to go filming if they don't want disturbance by aircraft.
Indeed. But it is only a REQUEST. Safety of flight in this Class G airspace is entirely up to the pilot so if you're there VFR with a cloudbase of 2100ft you are unlikely to be able to comply if for some reason you are unable to go 2nm south. So you then do your best, which might be crossing at 1900ft. I don't expect an overflight at 1900ft has much difference noise-wise to one at 2201ft. As I said they're only asking you to be nice. If being nice would result in your or someone else's death I suspect they might forgive you not complying. NS
A little less conversation, a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 701
Well, while we're on the subject of NOTAMs due filming, if anyone is planning on visiting White Waltham on Friday 8th October I gather that the place will be NOTAM'd closed to visiting traffic owing to a film shoot - apparently, the clubhouse is going to be transformed into Heathrow circa 1956.
I can see it now though. The Director screaming "CUT!!!!! - sorry Kenneth, darling.....no.....no your lines were perfect....but we're doing 1950's England, not sodding Star Wars - but will somebody get that bloody great Wookie out of the background...please...."
)
!
