This is not a NOTAM (but it should be)

[whitehorse]

In the spring this year a new wind farm construction started some 5nm west of of EGMD (Lydd). It consists of 26 windmills each 377ft high, these are almost all in place now.
In the spring I contacted NATS and they said they would pass the information to the CAA. I waited for a NOTAM to come out but there was nothing.
Last week I wrote a MOR and I have had a reply to say that they are waiting for the Defence Geographic to get the full details. In the meantime nothing in the NOTAMs, plenty of information about cranes etc around Kent and London.
With military helicopters going to D044 and pilots flying along the coast it is a potential problem in marginal weather conditions. In fact I know of some who have been "suprised".
I know that the pilots should have missed them by 123ft, but comming upon them suddenly is not much fun.
This is just for info. as the NOTAMS system does not seem to work. I would hate to have a pilot being more than just "suprised".
I´ve had my bitch now and feel better, back to the beer.

[207592]

Should it not have 500 feet (of any structure, ....)

[Mike Cross]

I stand to be corrected but I suspect a NOTAM is required if they pierce the standard limitation obstacle surfaces of the a/d (i.e. the info shown in the AIP is incorrect). At 5 nm I suspect they don't.

If they did then any NOTAM would be withwrawn once the AIP entry had been updated (assuming as in this case that they are permanent).

These wouldn't by any chance be the Wind Turbines at Little Cheyne Court notified in Chart Amendment 11839 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=64&pagetype=65&appid=8&mode=detail&chart=11) would they?

[whitehorse]

Thanks MC, yes it is, should have looked at that.
However my point still stands, even the date of that ammendment was after the construction started, and I don´t think that there are many pilots that check those ammendments before every flight. NOTAMs yes but not the chart amendments.
I understand that it is the resposibility of the constructor to inform the authorities of the proposed construction. However a construction of this magnitude should have been NOTAMed.
WH

[Mike Cross]

NOTAM
"A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations"

Essentially if the information in the AIP is wrong (e.g. AIP says there's an ILS but it's inop) then a NOTAM will be issued. Similarly if there's a restriction of flying or controlled airspace that is not in the AIP. You'll also get Unusual Aerial Activity such as air displays, PJE etc.

However obstructions are part of charting and will usually only end up as a NOTAM if they would affect an AIP entry, e.g. they affect an a/d and would alter the aerodrome chart or procedural charts that are in the AIP.

That is my understanding. Bear in mind that the amendment I pointed you at was a roll-up of several months worth. You'll notice gaps in the numbering series and it's quite possible that it was previously issued. Also bear in mind that there's no magical way of picking this stuff up. CAA are dependent on us letting them know. They're always happy to hear of useful new visual features or the demise of old ones (e.g. chalk hill figures that are no longer maintained and have grown over, demolished brickworks etc).

I understand the obstacles database is maintained by the Mil as they clearly have an interest. It was an error in that database that resulted in Stokenchurch Mast going missing a year or two ago. The current VFR Chart Editor is a lady called Jo Suter who is a cartographer with a PPL. She'll be happy to receive feedback, feedback form accessible from a link on the left of the page I linked to. It'll do no harm to remind them so it gets on to the next chart as a wind farm.

Hope this explanation helps.

Mike

[whitehorse]

Once again, thanks Mike for your input
WH