Well ladies and gents,
A mixed response and I agree that the original intent of this thread was not to generate a debate on how available, or otherwise, NOTAMs are. As I am sure that you are all aware, private/non commercial air transport pilots are required to comply with the following from the ANO currently in force:
Article 86
Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft other than EU-OPS aeroplanes
(1) This article applies to the commander of any aircraft except for the commander of an EU-OPS aeroplane intending to commence a commercial air transport flight.
(2) A commander must, before taking off on a private flight, an aerial work flight or a public transport flight, take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied of the matters specified in paragraph (3).
(3) The matters referred to in paragraph (2) are that:
(a) the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
In days gone by before t'internet, AIS would provide a briefing to anyone requiring one, or alternatively one could be provided by telephone or fax from a Flight Briefing Unit at a major airport or Parent ACC. One only had to ask...
The issue I raised was one of airmanship or lack thereof. Class G airspace or not, it may be reasonable to surmise that the fellow in question in the Elvington area yesterday may have been in contravention of Articles 86, 137 and 138 by his behaviour above an active air display site - quite obviously an air display site. Indeed it might reasonably thought by some that the actions shown were intentional with the multiple flypasts of the site, before and after the aerobatics conducted.
Flyingmac
(You were crap, by the way).
Funnily enough, you were not the only one to note this!
fabs
Either you assume rather a lot or you are not as familiar with Fenton ops as you make out. I can assure you that the process involved in obtaining an Air Display permission under Article 162 of the ANO, and the requirement to co-ordinate such airspace use with the Airspace Utilisation Section of the CAA (jointly with MOD) means that it is not just left to a "phone call to the tower 3 days before".
The briefed hold based on Acaster Malbis disused airfield is, in fact, 4nm from Church Fenton, outside their ATZ and 1nm displaced to the north of their final approach track to Rwy 24. The co-ordination with Church Fenton's controlling authority ensured that the hold at Acaster Malbis was agreed as CF were not flying yesterday and that only 1 aircraft may require the hold today. In the event, CF operations were fully discussed at the aircrew display brief this morning and a final decision as to where aircraft may hold was made on an
airmanship basis with the current facts to hand, timings against those notified to us by CF and the requirements of the display aircraft. I do not intend to discuss the reasons behind the choice of Acaster as a hold, as I don't believe that is required on a public forum. Suffice to say, the decision was taken on many airmanship points and in close discussion with relevant authorities.
mad_jock
Sadly, the Buccaneer, Victor and Nimrod are now limited to the paved surface of Elvington for their ground taxy displays, meaning that the "Mountain must come to Mohammed" to allow the event to take place in all it's glory!
Lastly, on behalf of all those involved at Elvington today both in the air and on the ground, may I say thank you to all those pilots who took the time to call York Radio today to ensure that our mutual operations did not conflict. As a result, we did not have any uncomfortable moments today and we were able to provide appropriate traffic information to those enjoying their Sunday aviating around York. If you called when we were temporarily unmanned and got no response, please accept my apologies but a man's bladder can only hold so much!
Regards,
Max