GA Pilot busts Red Arrows at Eastbourne

[drambuster]

Coming back from Germany yesterday and while crossing the Channel at Lydd (about 16.30hrs), it was sad to hear Red Leader getting quite upset over the RT while talking to Farnborough South . . . . he was demanding the registration of a light aircraft that had popped up into their flight path while on the run-in to display at Eastbourne. He was not a happy bunny so it must have been quite a hairy situation. I don't know if the display was aborted or not.

After 15 minutes trying to trace the offending aircraft Farnborough eventually came back to the Reds to advise the culprit seemed to have landed in the nearest available field (presumably to do a runner!). I don't know if they were able to obtain the callsign or to run the radar trace back to the place of departure.

Anyway . . .. . he's probably still hiding in the woods somewhere :ugh:

[Pilot DAR]

Sorry to sound unsympathetic, but aren't the Red Arrows a part of the RAF? Isn't the RAF the air force, who are supposed to be able to intercept intruding aircraft?

It seems odd to me that the interception job would be left to the Farnborough air traffic controller, to phone the local constable, to drive to the airport, to look for a plane off the side of the runway with the door open...

[jollyrog]

he was demanding the registration of a light aircraft that had popped up into their flight path

... and what was he planning to do with it, once obtained? Do the RAF prosecute these days?

[OA32]

It is the CAA that prosecute if an infringement of a restricted area has occurred, there was a Dutch pilot who got fined £4000 for interrupting one of the Red's Displays in the last couple of years.

[Torque Tonight]

I expect he would be planning to file an airprox report. The more details that can be provided, the more likely a successful investigation. Any action taken would be subject to the outcome of the independent investigation. It would certainly not be a case of the RAF prosecuting.

The Airprox Process | UK Airprox Board (http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagetype=90&pageid=5636)

PilotDAR, perhaps they should fit the cannons to the Hawks for displays and just shoot down any infringers. Might need E-3 Sentry cover for displays as well.:ok:

[MIKECR]

It would be interesting to know how many people do actually face prosecution for airspace busts etc. I dont know if people just cant be bothered to read things like notams or whether they just carry on flying regardless. Only yesterday did I witness another n*b jockey.....not talking to anyone, completely oblivious to his surroundings, fly straight through the ILS at an international airport with commercial arrivals and departures.

[jollyrog]

According to several on-line reviews and various photographs, the Red Arrows did display at Eastbourne yesterday.

[Pilot DAR]

they should fit the cannons to the Hawks for displays and just shoot down any infringers. Might need E-3 Sentry cover for displays as well

Oh yeah, the show would be even better then!

[englishal]

Only yesterday did I witness another n*b jockey.....not talking to anyone, completely oblivious to his surroundings, fly straight through the ILS at an international airport with commercial arrivals and departures.
Was this in controlled airpspace? Was this VFR? Were the weather conditions VMC? What altitude was the bandit? Perhaps he was talking to someone else?

[MIKECR]

No, yes and 'barely' yes. Low cloudbase, scattered below 500 feet, poor viz due rain. Aircraft was somewhere between 500 and 1000 feet, trying to scrape its way through the murk. Wasnt talking to either approach radar or tower.

[IO540]

Was this in controlled airpspace?

No

That old chestnut, again :)

A PPL holder who has learnt exactly the PPL syllabus will not even know what an "ILS" is. He will not have heard of any of these, either:

"AIP"
"Jeppesen"
"Aerad"

There is no easy solution to this.

Well, you could have controlled airspace, but then you need ATC to run it, which will cost around £600,000/year in ATC salaries (and overheads) just for daytime cover. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, "do you think you really want this"?

[MIKECR]

Agreed...however no excuses for not knowing what the markings on a half/quarter mil chart are. Given the weather conditions and wind direction, it wouldnt have taken rocket science to work out which runway was in use and the likelihood of instrument approaches being in progress. To go bumbling through the final approach track at such close range was just down right bloody dangerous.

[englishal]

Was there anything actually on approach? Secondly as the airfield has approach control, they would have been in contact with the IFR traffic. If so the IFR traffic would have been seperated from the VFR and no danger existed.

But you are right to the extent that I'd have been talking to approach assuming there was no one else to talk to (E.g. Plymouth I'd opt for plymouth Mil rather than Plymouth approach as they have radar). MInd you even the chart makers can't get the chevrons right at Newquay!!

[Fuji Abound]

Have I missed something?

We are talking about Eastbourne?

There is not even a runway, the nearest is a good ten miles away (Deanland), and beyond that Lydd and Shoreham at 20 miles +.

What there is, is some temporary restricted airspace. There might even be an air to ground with the show organiser but nothing is mentioned on the NOTAM.

All that said, the area is clearly NOTAM'ed, and would be known to Farnborough East or London info.

No excuses for infringing, VFR, IFR or whatever. No excuses what so ever.

Oh, and there is no Farnborough South either!

Other than that the thread is either a complete wind up or .. .. ..

[JW411]

Unlikely to happen next year; I would imagine that the Dead Sparrows are on short finals due to the impending defence cuts.

[A and C]

THe key phrase hear seems to be "on the run in to the display".

Was this pilot inside the TRA ? If not then the standard rules of the air apply.

I think we should wait for the Airprox report.................. hell no! hanging the guy on these forums without ALL the evidence is far more fun.

[bingoboy]

Fun though the Reds are I do wonder whether as we approach an age of austerity such a large and dedicated team is really affordable.
I would love to see a squadron based team of say 4 Typhoons.

[Torque Tonight]

I don't think 4 Typhoons would offer a saving over 9 Hawks - quite the opposite! I think the Reds have probably paid for themselves many times over as a result of defence exports and international trade that they promote.

[NorthSouth]

I think the Reds have probably paid for themselves many times over as a result of defence exports and international trade that they promote.Completely unquantifiable of course, but at least if it was 4 Typhoons (a) it would be 4 more Typhoons that us taxpayers bought which might actually fly instead of spending their entire career in a hangar at Shawbury, (b) the pilots concerned would be doing a legitimate job in addition to practising aeros and (c) we could close Scampton at last.
That's of course if you buy the line that the people responsible for bankers wrecking the economy are the public sector....
NS

[drambuster]

Fuji: "Have I missed something? We are talking about Eastbourne?"

Yes Fuji - you have missed post no.6 where MIKECR referred to an incident at another location altogether.

I do agree that my reference to Farnborough South was incorrect - I should have said 'Farnborough East' (123.225)

(However NATS describe it as the sector covering most of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, including the airspace around Gatwick, London City and Biggin Hill, hence my inadvertent reference to 'south'.)

The original post was certainly no 'wind up' !

[niknak]

THe key phrase hear seems to be "on the run in to the display".

Was this pilot inside the TRA ? If not then the standard rules of the air apply.


All Red Arrows displays start and finish within the published TRA, including the "run in".
Anything outwith the TRA is perfectly entitled to be there subject to the existing type of airspace, anything inside it without permission risks thumscrews being applied.

The pilot of the infringing aircraft should have had the balls to hold his/her hands up, by not doing so they will be chased and traced by the CAA.
Assuming it was a genuine error and they come clean when they find out about this, or have another reasonable excuse, all they'll get a stiff letter reminding them of their responsibilities.
If they hide, deny it, stick their fingers in their ears there is a high possiblity of extremely expensive court action being taken by the CAA.

[Roffa]

...the culprit seemed to have landed in the nearest available field...

There wasn't a tree in the field with an aeroplane stuck in it, was there?

[drambuster]

Was this pilot inside the TRA ?

During the RT exchange there was no direct comment made as to whether the GA pilot was in the TRA or not. However, judging by the barely suppressed seething anger of Red Leader I would say he probably was !

We had initially been talking to Manston Radar as we crossed the Channel at 4500' and the Arrows were on that same frequency as I believe they took off from RAF Manston. We were both asked to transfer to Farnborough Radar at the same time and as we crossed the coast at Lydd we were asked to watch out for the Arrows below (but being in IMC at the time there was no chance of any eyeball contact). The NOTAM had stated they would be at 2000' AGL (but subject to weather so I reckon prevailing conditions would have pushed them well below that) so we knew the previous day there would be no conflict with us even though our flight plan was going to coincide at Lydd with their transit from east to west.

I would say the incident kicked off about three minutes after we crossed paths so I am pretty sure they would have been in the TRA by then, but that is only a guess . . . not a fact. No doubt we will hear more in due course as Farnborough seemed to be throwing every resource at tracking this guy down and had even pinpointed the field where he was lying low ! (though I don't know how effective their radar is below 500' - I guess he could have hedge-hopped all the way home).

And to clarify: when I used the term "run-in" it would probably have been clearer if I had said "transit" as it is not clear whether the conflict was, or was not, in the TRA.

Best to keep that TRA number handy : 0500 354 802

[flybymike]

Why do Red Arrows displays get an RA(T) and civilian displays do not? Is it just because the military are more important people who sound impressively cross on the radio?
(And why do the Royal Family get chased by class A wherever they go?)

[Intercepted]

And why do the Royal Family get chased by class A wherever they go?

To make you and me to understand where we belong in the hierarchy.

[IO540]

To make you and me to understand where we belong in the hierarchy.

And quite right too!

We are her "subjects" after all.

The trouble with people these days is that they just don't know how to show proper deference.

The other thing about the royal airspace is that if you wanted to blow them up, all you need is a free login to the NATS website, and a suitable shoulder-launched "appliance" which, according to the Sunday Sport, you can pick up anywhere east of Israel for US$950 and that is still in the original shrink wrapped package. Evidently, some people in the establishment are somewhat less than bright but, hey, they are only Arts graduates and degrees these days are not what they used to be, either...

[englishal]

Can't you buy them on eBay these days from ex-paras :}

I would love to see a squadron based team of say 4 Typhoons.
I saw the US Blue Angels at the Miramar airshow (you know, where Maverick and Goose trained) a few years ago. Despite being supersonic, superdupa jet fighters I have got to say the Reds were FAR better in their Hawks. The reason for this is that the Reds kept their display close to the crowd, the Blue Angels, quite impressive though they were, were zooming all over the place and half the time you couldn't see them as they were over downtown San Diego at mach 0.99. After burners were nice for take off but I also thought they looked prats the way they saluted and all marched out to their aeroplanes looking like a bunch of automated Joe 90's in perfect step with the shades and matching harcuts :)

I think the Reds should definitely stay, (as should the Royal Family), they are British and something to be proud of and in the grand scheme of things they don't cost very much to operate.

If this person did bust the TRA and then landed in a field to try to get away then their license should be revoked until they have carried out remedial training with an examiner (rather than an expensive prosecution).

[Mike Cross]

It would be interesting to know how many people do actually face prosecution for airspace busts etc.
Seek and ye shall find. (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484) (Well almost, that only lists successful prosecutions)

Looks like another one of these
Article 63 & Article 85 (2), ANO 2000
Endangering/Temporary Restricted Area Infringement
Eastbourne Magistrates Court
Guilty plea
Fine £2000 Endangering
Fine £1000 Infringement

From the 2005/6 stats. ISTR he was Belgian rather than Dutch.

Mike

[IO540]

Yes, the Belgian pilot. He even came back to the UK afterwards so he could get done.

I vaguely recall he did get notams but then he went off his planned route.

[Fuji Abound]

as I believe they took off from RAF Manston.


being pedantic, it is a long time since it was anything to do with the RAF.

[Steve N]

englishal said:
I think the Reds should definitely stay, (as should the Royal Family), they are British and something to be proud of and in the grand scheme of things they don't cost very much to operateI agree but I wonder if that same level of talent was put into a squadron of Extras wouldn't that be more entertaining? (the Reds not the Royal family ;) ) I bet the pilots would enjoy it more too. Also they could do the whole display in the space of a ATZ so no need for RA/Ts thereby reducing the infringement rates.

Steve

[VictorGolf]

This is pretty much what you have already got in the "Blades". There are at least four ex Red Arrows flying these Extras in RAFA colours this year and good though they are, the real thing is a lot better show on the big stage.

[Rod1]

I think the Reads should stay, but I wish they would stop transiting at 2000ft at high speed on days when the sky if full of GA. Very dangerous and unnecessary.

Rod1

[stevelup]

They did a very nice flypast of EGBJ last weekend not much above circuit height :)

[pulse1]

Rod1,

I've got to agree with you. I didn't realise how fast they transit until I checked the NOTAM today and analysed the times (10 minutes from Worthing to Corfe Castle). They must do 360 kts which, with a 10 ship formation and only one pair of eyes looking out, is too fast at that altitude IMO.
What happened to the old adage that military flew very low or very high?

[Echo Romeo]

I think the Reads should stay, but I wish they would stop transiting at 2000ft at high speed on days when the sky if full of GA. Very dangerous and unnecessary.

Rod1 E]

Agree, They notam that their transit altitude may vary, but I have seen them on three occasions this summer down at nearer a 1000ft.

[IO540]

A notam is going to do a whole lot of good if they are doing 360kt at 2000ft.

[codemonkey]

i imagine the red arrows find it easy to get upset when somebody busts their temporary airspace. but just to play devils advocate let's not forget that these guys are flying on taxpayers money. one way to look at things would be that we all pay through the nose for avgas so that the exchequer can fund this type of thing, while airspace that would normally be at the disposal of you and i is gifted to them at will. no doubt the ga guy was in the wrong but it would be easy for a ga pilot to get upset as well.

[IO540]

From a purely risk management POV, I would not fly at 2000ft (or anywhere near that low) especially if flying (as they do - saw them today) in a formation.

They probably do it out of tradition, and to be maximally visible to the public while transiting.

They probably also cannot transit IMC while in a formation ;) - I wonder what their procedure for that is?

It would be really interesting to know if they can get a popup clearance for IFR in CAS, because I sure as hell can't :)

[NigelOnDraft]

Well, what height / format would you have them transit at?

The majority of shows / flypasts they need to do (NB their transits often include 1 or 2 flypasts which clearly need to be done at/below 2000') are away from major airfields with Inst Approaches. Bit silly, as with Eastbourne, for the venue to be in clear good weather, and the Reds stuck above cloud / unable to get down. The routes / timings are planned well ahead. A VMC transit below, with IMC a backup option, will see the greatest number of displays made.

Any GA pilot concerned for their safety has the NOTAMs to keep well clear - the timings/routes are well laid out (when compared to most NOTAMs). Either avoid laterally, timing, or >3000'.

360K would be minimum sensible to fly a Hawk at these sort of levels, less than that formation becomes difficult, and options after a birdstrike / surge fairly limited.

but I wish they would stop transiting at 2000ft at high speed on days when the sky if full of GAWell, I suppose we could restrict Red Arrow displays to winter / midweek only :{

Why do Red Arrows displays get an RA(T) and civilian displays do not? Is it just because the military are more important people who sound impressively cross on the radio?Maybe read the NOTAMs one day... B) FROM: 10/08/12 12:00C) TO: 10/08/15 17:00
E) RESTRICTED AREA TEMPORARY FOR EASTBOURNE AIRSHOW AIC M 46/2010
REFERS. RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS MADE UNDER ARTICLE 161 OF
ANO 2009 (MIL ACFT SHOULD COMPLY WITH JSP552 201.135.9). NO ACFT IS
TO FLY WI AREA BOUNDED BY STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 504211N
0001738E-504706N 0002333E-504955N 0001724E-504512N 0001133E-504211N
0001738E UNLESS FLYING WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF EASTBOURNE
AIRSHOW FLYING DISPLAY DIRECTOR.
SEE SEPARATE NOTAM FOR RED ARROWS DISPLAYS AND THEIR
ASSOCIATED RESTRICTED AREA (TEMPORARY) ON 12, 13 AND 14 AUG.
110-08-0013 AS 6LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 5500FT AMSL Seems to apply to more than just the Reds ;)

NoD

[drambuster]

They probably also cannot transit IMC while in a formation

While flying past RAF Scampton a couple of years ago I did watch with some amazement the Arrows practicing formation loops . . . with the bottom half of the manoeuvre completely immersed in cloud. We were on top at about 6000' with cloud tops around 5000' or so. They seemed completely relaxed diving in standard formation straight into the clag and then re-appearing with perfection some seconds later heading up-hill !

So I reckon they would have no problem transiting in IMC conditions if they chose to . . .. . . . it just wouldn't look quite so impressive to the tax payers !!

[Pilot DAR]

A notam is going to do a whole lot of good if they are doing 360kt at 2000ft

Nigel has mentioned what would concern me: Are your birds respecting notams too? In Canada we have a 250KT speed limt below 10,000 feet. I understand it is there primarily from a birdstrike hazard point of view.

I propose that it is irresponsible to endanger an aircraft and crew, who are on nothing more than a demonstration flight, with an increased birdstrike hazard, let alone the danger to those on the ground of a striken aircraft coming down upon them!

[S-Works]

So I reckon they would have no problem transiting in IMC conditions if they chose to . . .. . . . it just wouldn't look quite so impressive to the tax payers !!

I should imagine so, these are the cream of the RAF, all with massive operational and instructional experience. These guys and gal are trained to fly at several hundred kts 200ft off the deck in IMC.

[englishal]

360K would be minimum sensible to fly a Hawk at these sort of levels, less than that formation becomes difficult, and options after a birdstrike / surge fairly limited.
That may be so, but to fly from Worthing to Corfe Castle at 360 kts at 2000' is suicidal...especially seeing as underneath solent airspace ever other bugger is flying over the solent at 1900' to remain clear. I know people who fly that route in Turbo Props VFR when they are repositioning them from Southampton - 250kt at 2000' which is the max speed allowed. Meet a Red at 360 kts coming the other way and I make that 610 kt closing speed - you'd never see and avoid. They'd be better off flying at 500'.

These guys and gal are trained to fly at several hundred kts 200ft off the deck in IMC.
Hmm....Maybe in VMC but I very much doubt in IMC unless they are suicidal....

[IO540]

In Canada we have a 250KT speed limt below 10,000 feet.

That is ICAO; true in the UK too. But the military are probably exempt.

[kharmael]

The Reds' transit route, including timings for each leg/ sector are published in NOTAMs, so anyone with enough airmanship to read them should know when they are due through any given area of airspace and look out/ avoid accordingly.

As long as aircraft are squawking then hopefully the Reds will pick them up on TCAS before anything untoward happens.

WRT birdstrikes. 2000ft is plenty of height to deal with a birdstrike! Especially considering all military pilots are trained to deal with birdstrikes tooling around at 500/ 250ft!

[Megaton]

They don't transit at 2000'. Transits are normally at 1000' to avoid light aircraft pottering around at 3000' and allow those on the ground a better view as they fly to and from display sites.

The Reds are considerably cheaper than many other forms of advertising (cf a series of adverts run by the Army during prime time tv) and have generated considerable goodwill and income for UK plc since their formation.

[IO540]

pick them up on TCAS

They have TCAS???

[Megaton]

No but they do have SIFF.

[c53204]

Assuming SIFF was working and they found him, they could have covered the 'intruder' in red, white and blue diesel. ;-)

[NigelOnDraft]

Nigel has mentioned what would concern me: Are your birds respecting notams too? In Canada we have a 250KT speed limt below 10,000 feet. I understand it is there primarily from a birdstrike hazard point of view.
WRT birdstrikes. 2000ft is plenty of height to deal with a birdstrike! Especially considering all military pilots are trained to deal with birdstrikes tooling around at 500/ 250ft!
You are somewhat missing my point ;) 360K is a realistic minimum... the birdstrike hazard in a jet is not (airframe) "damage" but the typical surge needing a relight... which takes time / energy. 420K, typical low level speed, gives that time, 250K does not.

NoD

[Megaton]

And 360 kt is very convenient for the mental arithmetic required for LL nav!

[NigelOnDraft]

And 360 kt is very convenient for the mental arithmetic required for LL nav!and plenty of "oh *** we're late" potential :ok:

NoD

[Megaton]

They're never late.......every one else might be early though!

[BEagle]

NO ACFT IS TO FLY WI AREA BOUNDED BY STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 504211N0001738E-504706N 0002333E-504955N 0001724E-504512N 0001133E-504211N 0001738E

Yet again a plea for AIS to upgrade their software to show an actual chart of the relevant NOTAM.... Before anyone says that there are alternatives available, the requirement should be for the official source to include graphic on-chart NOTAM displays. No whingeing from AIS apologists please, this is the 21st century - sort it!

I agree that 360KIAS is somewhat pedestrian for transiting in Class G - but 1000 ft seems quite reasonable.

[Mike Cross]

The official source has to comply with ICAO Standards & Recommended Practice. You are welcome to use (and pay for) an alternative if it is not to your taste.

The ICAO NOTAM system does not at present have the capability of transmitting graphical information. You may not like that but that's the way it is. You can fulminate to your heart's content but the UK does not have the competence to unilaterally alter ICAO standards.

[Human Factor]

The official source has to comply with ICAO Standards & Recommended Practice. You are welcome to use (and pay for) an alternative if it is not to your taste.

The ICAO NOTAM system does not at present have the capability of transmitting graphical information. You may not like that but that's the way it is. You can fulminate to your heart's content but the UK does not have the competence to unilaterally alter ICAO standards.

The official source would comply with those exact same ICAO Standards & Recommended Practices perfectly well by publishing a graphical representation in addition to the ICAO standard format.

[pulse1]

They don't transit at 2000'. Transits are normally at 1000' to avoid light aircraft pottering around at 3000' and allow those on the ground a better view as they fly to and from display sites.


The NOTAM says 2000'.

[englishal]

The ICAO NOTAM system does not at present have the capability of transmitting graphical information. You may not like that but that's the way it is. You can fulminate to your heart's content but the UK does not have the competence to unilaterally alter ICAO standards.
Well every other person who writes flight planning software seems quite capable of translating the "official" notam to a graphical representation. In the USA DUATS shows TFRs on a map. Skydemon shows Notams on a map. SkybookGA shows notams on a map. Notamplot shows notams on a map....etc etc etc..... You are using an excuse Mike because they are too lazy / not technically expert enough to implement graphical Notams in addition to the official notams, on the AIS website.

If I am honest, as long as my Skydemon Notams look ok, I don't bother going to the AIS website. Oh but of course AIS is the ONLY official source......

[Johnm]

Those whinging about the co-ordinates in the NOTAMs should be aware that they are merely a reminder of the AIC that contains a very clear and simple chart. It might be good for the NOTAM to cross reference the AIC and I think it usually does.

[IO540]

The international notam feed is simply not going to include pictures. There is no way around this. This has been done to death, and sometimes it is better to just accept how things are.

And nobody is going to sit there drawing pictures from the notam feed, because of a) liability b) who pays their wages c) GA under 2000kg (most GA) doesn't pay route charges d) aviation regulation is run totally by accountants and lawyers.

What the notam originator should have done, very easily, was to put up a map on some website, and put the URL in the notam. This is a piece of cake. Why not? Laziness, stupidity, narrow mindedness, unwillingness to embrace anything since WW2. And maybe NATS funding politics... hey a domain name costs all of a tenner and then needs some awfully expensive hosting... all of another tenner, on some NATS server, but NATS internal accounting would probably charge out the hosting service at £100,000/year. IOW, all good standard aviation reasons... This one has been done to death too but it is valid.

The 3rd party software tools will never be 100% reliable because they cannot handle every possible inconsistency in the way the lat/long coordinates are laid out, so reliable parsing cannot be guaranteed. That's why I never use them; I use only the NATS site.

[Mike Cross]

You are using an excuse Mike because they are too lazy / not technically expert enough to implement graphical Notams in addition to the official notams, on the AIS website.

You're confusing a reason with an excuse.

1. NATS are the contractor. DfT in the form of CAA are the people who tell them what to do. You are however right in saying that AIS is "not technically expert enough to implement graphical Notams in addition to the official notams, on the AIS website". They are not programmers, they are in the main ATC experts. The website design and implementation is contracted out.
2. Like TAF and METAR NOTAM have a standard format worldwide so that the information is presented consistently. This is important for those people who are not native english speakers.
3. As HF says, graphical presentation would need to be in addition. It would also need to be funded. Personally I don't want to pay a levy to fund graphical presentation, which is why I suggested that those who are not happy with the free service are at liberty to use and pay for an alternative.
4. The ICAO NOTAM format is not designed for machine interpretation of the E line, which is free-form text. The Q line by contrast is designed for machine interpretation but is not designed to convey graphical information other than a vertical cylinder containing the activity. While a number of very clever people have written software to parse the E line and provide a graphical representation none of them can provide a reliable quality assured plot that works in all circumstances. The only way to do that would be to hire additional staff to provide the graphical plot. It is done where the plot is complex e.g. the Farnborough Air Show RA(T) but the Reds' RA(T) are not complex, 6nm radius round a point, to a given height.
5. In addition to the NOTAM AIC: M 054/2010 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2010_M_054_en.pdf) lists all of the Reds RA(T) for 5 Aug to 19 Sept including
Eastbourne 504535N 0001723E 8100 ft 13 August
Eastbourne 504535N 0001723E 8100 ft 14 August

For those who find the concept of Eastbourne too mentally challenging the co-ordinates are also provided so that they can ask a small child to locate it on the chart for them.

What sort of "navigator" can't work out where Eastbourne is?

[NigelOnDraft]

IO540

What the notam originator should have done, very easily, was to put up a map on some websiteGood idea...

and put the URL in the notam ... sometimes they do, but often refer to the AIC anyway. As does the 0500 tel #.

hey a domain name costs all of a tenner We could call it, errr, "AIS.Org.UK" ?

Looks like they listened to you ;) See AIC Link with a pretty picture (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_Circ_2010_M_046_en.pdf)

NoD

[IO540]

Nigel - I am aware the AIC is online, and the airshow TRAs usually come with pics.

But this is OK for "locals". (but even then it can take a while to find the pink/mauve/violet/white/whatever AIC with the pic in it, and I think you still need to create a login to the website if coming in at the root).

Internationally, almost nobody reads the AIP/AICs. Most pilots file IFR, brief using their own services, use Jepp in-flight data, and expect an ATC service even if going to a field which is OCAS. In the UK this doesn't happen (another long debate why, but it is pointless) so it should be the duty of the notam originator to provide a pointer to the website.

Sometimes they do, but in this case they don't (as of yesterday, when I flew in the area).

The basic issue, which surfaces at some many levels in light aviation (see e.g. the interminable AFPEx debates) is a lack of acceptance of the internet. Nearly every excuse for not doing something comes down to this.

The 0500 # probably cannot be dialed from many countries. This issue arises with fax2email services using non-geographical numbers (eg. using 0870 to finance the service) and is well established. Aviation is international and 0500 was a stupid idea.

[pembroke]

A few comments on the above:
Farnborough East "officially" has cover of approx. west of a line from Hastings to Isle of Grain. I'm suprised Manston opted to suggest that as a useful frequency after the channel crossing.
I was flying over Kent and elsewhere prior to the airshow(s), ie Eastborne , Headcorn and other events. It is very difficult to decide which frequency to monitor, particularly re the Red Arrows and the BBMF.
The timing of arrival and departures is variable but the transit altitude is the most worrying aspect.
I asked a student to check the NOTAMs for a Lydd-Shoreham flight and he pointed out that the AIC which stood proudly on the club wall was not the whole story. The 6nm radius should have been included.
I asked our local ATC if the Eastborne show had a frequency to monitor, but apparently one wasn't published. That would have provided a good idea of any possible conflicts. For our flight we routed well to the North, used mode S and talked to Farnborough.
Finally there are a small minority of pilots who are oblivious to all said in this thread and will bumble on, occaisionally getting caught out. It's the others who with the best will in the world will be knocked out of the air during one of these transits.

[Fuji Abound]

How does London Info deal with NOTAMs?

They appear to know of all navigationally significant NOTAMs.

Do they have someone / a team that plot the NOTAMs on a dialy basis?

and if they do, you can guess where this is leading.

I do sense this is a problem. On the one hand we have Mike wringing his hands telling us that is the way it is, while accepting with funding it would be possible, but advising that he would not be willing to pay.

On the other I sense over the years talking to pilots and reading the pilot forum there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction. A few years ago a few would post in favour of some form of official graphical representation - now I see more and more names adding their support to the ground swell.

I wonder at what point NATS / CAA have to recognise it is in the minority in failing to provide a service that the majority want. Will it take a serious airspace bust for a clever lawyer to argue the present service is not fit for purpose, referring to the endless stream of posts and comments. Certainly any system that is patently not working for the vast majority, whatever the rational, is on very dangerous ground whether it be in the litigeous times in which we live or in past times.

[JTN]

Saw the reds yesterday at Ashton Court - superb as usual. My vantage point was not the best, but the last manoeuvre I saw was a seven-ship - ie no fly-by at the end by the whole team. Did I just miss it? Anybody know if this is how the 2010 display ends or was there something else?

[Mike Cross]

But this is OK for "locals". (but even then it can take a while to find the pink/mauve/violet/white/whatever AIC with the pic in it, and I think you still need to create a login to the website if coming in at the root).


You think wrong. No login required to view AIC's

it should be the duty of the notam originator to provide a pointer to the website.

Which they do, however most URL's use characters that are not within the ITA-2 character set used and therefore cannot be transmitted over AFTN, which usually prevents a URL being provided.

The 0500 # probably cannot be dialed from many countries.
Which is why they helpfully publish
AIS Information Line on tel: 0500 354802 or +44(0)20 8750 3939.

I confess to some stupefaction at the efforts being made to suggest that the bust was the fault of someone other than the numpty PIC.:ugh:

Reliable graphical automated presentations will become possible with the implementation of xNOTAM, however all of the indications in this case are that the miscreant did not read the information, not that it was unintellegible or ambiguous. Horse - water - drink.

[IO540]

How does London Info deal with NOTAMs?

They appear to know of all navigationally significant NOTAMs.

Do they have someone / a team that plot the NOTAMs on a dialy basis?

Yes, according to an ATCO working there.

I have no idea what the actual implementation is. It used to be a board on the wall but now it may be a digital representation (because London Info now have radar, even though - not being radar qualified i.e. the correct pay grade - they are not allowed to talk about it).

[Redbird72]

Nope, not digital, still (very effective) pins in a board. I suppose you could get one of them to photograph the pin board?:E

[hatzflyer]

Virtually every conversation about notams ( and god knows there are plenty of them) seems to end up talking about " the reds".
Same with infringements, air misses etc " the reds always seem to come up as a special case.
So it seems that "the reds" are the common factor.In any other risk management it would be the common factor that is removed.
Just food for thought!:)

[Roffa]

It's nothing to do with pay grades IO540, as you well know. It's to do with licensing. Go and snipe at the CAA or whoever it is now that regulates European ATC licensing.

I do wish you'd give up your mind numbingly and mis-directed repetitive petty digs.


FA,

I wonder at what point NATS / CAA have to recognise it is in the minority in failing to provide a service that the majority want. Will it take a serious airspace bust for a clever lawyer to argue the present service is not fit for purpose, referring to the endless stream of posts and comments. Certainly any system that is patently not working for the vast majority, whatever the rational, is on very dangerous ground whether it be in the litigeous times in which we live or in past times.

The NOTAM system is perfectly fit for purpose.

What is not fit for purpose is the attitude/mind set of too many in the amateur flying community. I use the word amateur deliberately, thinking along the lines of the following definition "a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity".

I highlight unskilled deliberately because that's what I see on a daily basis.

It's always someone else's fault and all the effort is aimed at shifting collective responsibility for the group's inadequacies onto someone else.

Well sorry, it's not someone else's fault. Flying carries some responsibilities though unfortunately not all who participate seem to see it that way. Rather than directing ire at NATS or whoever, GA should be looking inwards and addressing the far too high number of participants who, for reasons that are poor to say the least, are doing a great disservice to those that may operate to a higher standard.

People who are intelligent enough to be able to fly an aeroplane are supposedly unable to create and interpret a simple narrow route brief from the AIS site? Or pick up the phone instead? Sorry, it doesn't wash. Stop the hand wringing about the system and instead first get the GA house in order.

You are your own worst enemies.

[BEagle]

It doesn't really insire much confidence when even the rare chart in an AIC contains the words NOT FOR OPERATIONAL USE - PLANNING PURPOSES ONLYSome CMA text with little regard for user interpretation.

Quite agree that the NOTAM should, at the very least, include a URL link to a chart showing the area in question.

A digital version of the dear old pin board used by London Information is long overdue....

Yes, I'm sure that the miscreant wouldn't have read/understood the NOTAM in this particular case. But making it easier for him/her to do so should be a safety aim. It took a while to bludgeon the Met Office into providing a freely accessible user-friendly website and it's now high time that DfT/NATS were required to do the same.

[DX Wombat]

Hatz, the Red Arrows are NOT the common factor for infringements I have posted several times in here about twits who fly through the NOTAMed aerobatics' box at competitions. The Reds' situation is slightly different in that they are flying at speeds which most GA pilots can never hope to achieve in their aircraft. Look at the number of times and miles they fly without being the cause of an incident. Having your own NOTAMed area doesn't make you the cause of an incident it makes you the victim. Now look at who actually causes these incidents - NOT the Reds but (usually) GA pilots who either think the NOTAMs do not apply to them or who don't bother, or know how, to check them. There will always be the (very) odd one who may be lost or in difficulties.
Roffa, I agree with much of what you say. It is not too long since that I asked someone at the club if they had seen the NOTAMs for the day. I was pointed in the direction of the notice board and the alleged document was indicated to me. It was a longstanding notice regarding kite flying. When I repeated my request for the NOTAMs of the day I was told that that was it - a statement which (when I checked the website for myself) turned out to be far from the truth. I usually do my own checking but on this ocasion had asked as I was there much later in the day than I would normally be and thought someone might have posted them on the board.
I am not at home at the moment and when I am I have serious problems with my computer so I cannot check that my next bit of information is absolutely correct. In the past I have used a site called "SPINE". I believe it was originally designed for Glider pilots, but from what I remember, it will give you a pictorial image of the location of any NOTAMed area in your requested zones. It is, or was, free to use.

[IO540]

Roffa - I am sure you could make a lot of good "insider" contributions here but instead you rarely do but, whenever I write anything on any "ATC political" subject, you pop up like that kids' toy with a spring up its underside, and have a go. Rarely with any detail.

The police, the military, ATC, etc all close ranks the instant anybody even remotely suggests picking holes in certain areas. I rarely read the ATC forum on pprune but one doesn't have to read it often to get the same message....

Back to other stuff... yeah, there is a lot of really crap pilot behaviour which nobody who flies for real can deny because one can see it daily, but nobody wants to tackle this because it all starts with the PPL training system and nobody wants to tackle that because it is tightly tied in with ATPL hour building and general inertia at the CAA which for example has spent a couple of decades slagging off GPS and now they (and others) wonder what can be done about the few hundred CAS busts every year.

A major issue is that the 2-yearly flight with an instructor is practically meaningless when it comes to dragging old-time (by which I mean ones who have been flying for many years) pilots into the age of the internet, so they can get notams, weather, etc.

It's no use having a go at pilots.

[Zulu Alpha]

I highly recomend this site for checking NOTAMs (with all the usual warnings)

UK 48-Hour Notams : Warnings and Restrictions (http://metutil.appspot.com/static/maps/48HourWarningRestrictionMap.htm)

Takes about 30 secs and is much better than not checking.

Personally I find the AIS site very user aggressive (ie opposite of user friendly)

Is there no filtering of NOTAMS? it seems there is a neighbour of mine that has a kite flying NOTAM for 3 months and I've never seen a kite.

Start : 2010-08-10T10:45:00
End : 2010-11-10T16:30:00
Schedule : 1045-SS PLUS30
Lower : 0
Upper : 15
Location : Suffolk(52.283,0.933) - Radius 1nm

Code : QWCLW
Traffic : IV

E) KITE FLYING 1NM RADIUS 5217N 00056E (BADWELL ASH).
ON-SITE CTC, TEL 07767 243148. 10-08-0223/AS 5.

Whereas when I've submitted NOTAMS for an airshow I have had to chase them as they got lost on someones desk!!

[Fuji Abound]

The NOTAM system is perfectly fit for purpose.

What is not fit for purpose is the attitude/mind set of too many in the amateur flying community. I use the word amateur deliberately, thinking along the lines of the following definition "a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity".

I think this demonstrates well the dichotomy.

You, I and Mike may think it works well - but that is not the acid test.

However well conceived, however simple, however apparently obvious, however long the system has been in place it is not enough to argue it is fit for purpose if patently it is not serving the purpose for which it was created.

You can bet that if the great flying GA community were directly paying for the service many of its shortcomings would have been "fixed" a long time ago or the organisation would have gone bust.

[1800ed]

I don't understand why NOTAMs aren't published in a standardised XML format, then you could use some kind of reader to access them. I guess I'm too young to have my head stuck in ways of old, but some things in aviation absolutely perplex me sometimes.

[gasax]

You have to remember that many of the 'systems' we are supposed to use come from the era when they were simply designed to filter out the 'sort of people we do not want'.

Roffa's response beautifully illustrates the point. Here is someone inside 'the system' basically saying either you do it our way or you should not be allowed to play the game. A wonderful 1950's approach to the problem - rather like shouting at people who do not speak English - it is soo much more intelligble at high volume!

DX then muddies the water with actually wanting an exclusive sterile bit of airspace but only being allowed an advisory warning and having to depend upon the good nature of people and the NOTAM system.

The system is just about workable - but stuffed with information of no use to the majority of GA flights. The important stuff is completely swamped by the trivia - anyone with the most modest understanding of human factors will tell you that the best place to hide things is in 'plain sight' - and that is exactly what the present NOTAM system does.

Whilst it remains somewhat impenetrable to many people this situation will continue. People inside 'the system' need to understand that the users amount to 700 CAT aircraft and their drivers and aroundabout 14,000 plus GA pilots. Designing a system for CAT and their briefing assistants is not actually addressing the consumer...................

[eharding]

I don't understand why NOTAMs aren't published in a standardised XML format, then you could use some kind of reader to access them. I guess I'm too young to have my head stuck in ways of old, but some things in aviation absolutely perplex me sometimes.

This is is AIXM project that Mike Cross has referred to. AIXM is is the grand-unified Airspace model, expressed as XML. In theory, any airspace-related organisation or activity can be expressed in AIXM, and a "digital NOTAM" is a packaged chunk of AIXM describing a specific change or event affecting an volume of airspace or ground facility.

The devil, as ever, is in the detail - there are several different versions of AIXM floating around, and as yet the FAA and Eurocontrol haven't settled on a standard for the digital NOTAM format - the FAA are already publishing some NOTAMS as AIXM, but Eurocontrol are still discussing design proposals.

[mm_flynn]

In global standard setting it always takes a very long time for everyone to compromise their 'critical but incompatible requirements', and this one is the same. In particular agreeing a coding structure for locations is going to be very tough. Here are just a couple of different ways that location is currently encoded (there are also different ways of defining arcs and boundary lines like rivers or national boarders)

NO ACFT IS TO FLY WI AREA BOUNDED BY STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 504211N
0001738E-504706N 0002333E-504955N 0001724E-504512N 0001133E-504211N
0001738E

ZONE R139 CHER
0830-1000: ACTIVE

HEL UNDERSLUNG LOAD OPR WI 2NM RADIUS 5118N 00114W (KINGSCLERE).
10-08-0429/AS 2. LOWER: SFC UPPER: 2800FT AMSL SCHEDULE: HJ


Q) EGTT/QWVLW/IV/M/W/000/030/5115N00120W020
B) FROM: 10/06/19 10:57C) TO: 10/06/19 11:52
E) FORMATION TRANSIT BY RED ARROWS ACFT ROUTING:
5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1107 HR
5114N 00118E (BETTESHANGER, KENT) 1109 HR
5114N 00108E (BISHOPSBOURNE, KENT) 1110 HR
5107N 00114E (WEST HOUGHAM, KENT) 1112 HR
5112N 00123E (KINGSDOWN, KENT) 1113 HR
5124N 00125E (MARGATE, KENT) DISPLAY 1115-1139 HR
5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1142 HR
FORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 2000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE ARE

The last one is from an Eharding post and I included it because it is an example that even the Reds don't always get it right. The Q line shows this transit occurring within a 20 mile radius of that well known Kentish village - - - Basingstoke. So even if you diligently got a narrow route brief you would get this for your Blackbush to Popham flight but nor for your Manston/Margate day out !!!.

A system that plotted the human readable part and the Q line together would help both the originators define it correctly and the users understand it.

However, So long at the Q line is right a graphical presentation and quick read of those near your intended operation should be within the skills of anyone flying.

(PS most of the graphical tools allow a reasonable amount of filtering)

[AdamFrisch]

How about this radical idea:

Anyone wanting to do airshows in formation, hire another body at Farnborough Radar for 2 hours, who's only jobs is to watch the screens and advises them if anyone is approaching. Problem solved.

In fact, let's take this further. Anytime I want Deconfliction Service, I as GA pilot can pay a small sum for it. I'd be happy to do that on certain days rather than getting the haphazard stuff we get today.

[hatzflyer]

They employed people to decode stuff like that when I was a boy!

I wonder how much time the reds leader's rant on the radio took up and how many others using the service had to wait?

[eharding]

How about this radical idea:

Anyone wanting to do airshows in formation, hire another body at Farnborough Radar for 2 hours, who's only jobs is to watch the screens and advises them if anyone is approaching. Problem solved.

Hmmmm......Amazon Mechanical Turk (http://aws.amazon.com/mturk/)

You could tap into a huge pool worldwide ATC talent, on demand.

Just make sure you don't tick the checkbox marked 'Spain' when you select the geographical regions you want to use as the ATC resource pool, or Amazon will make your credit card evaporate in a couple of seconds.

[Neptunus Rex]

So, after all that, did they catch the errant puddlejumper?

[IO540]

Roffa's response beautifully illustrates the point. Here is someone inside 'the system' basically saying either you do it our way or you should not be allowed to play the game. A wonderful 1950's approach to the problem - rather like shouting at people who do not speak English - it is soo much more intelligble at high volume!

I don't know where Roffa works - presumably within London Control, or is a controller at LHR - but unfortunately this is a not uncommon attitude among those ATCOs who spend their day dealing with commercial traffic and to whom GA is just a nuisance.

I like saying this bit even less but I never get as depressed in aviation as when sitting in a presentation by a bunch of "high up" ATC people. The most depressing of all were certain former ATCOs working at Eurocontrol (Brussels) - pompous, high handed, 8.33 must be mandatory, PRNAV must be mandatory, and so on. Totally out of touch.

Against this, I find individual IFR controllers (well, in northern Europe, anyway ;) ) universally competent, and they never show any sign of any dislike of GA or any sign of GA traffic causing them the slightest trouble.

The IFR GA community is tiny anyway, so if ATC get upset about something, it must be CAS busts.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, according to an ATCO working there.

I have no idea what the actual implementation is. It used to be a board on the wall but now it may be a digital representation


In which case if London Info go to the trouble of plotting all the NOTAMs manually, lets get their plot into the public domain so we are all singing from the same sheet.

[24Carrot]

In which case if London Info go to the trouble of plotting all the NOTAMs manually, lets get their plot into the public domain so we are all singing from the same sheet.It would be good for London Info too. On the "many eyes" principle it would be checked by more people, and so would be more accurate for everybody, as well as easier to use.

[WorkingHard]

OK here is the NRB for a very short flight up the east coast of Lincolnshire/Humberside up to 5000ft. What is ACTUALLY relevant and noteworthy and what content will just turn people off from deciphering it? I was going to colour what I consider useless for a VFR flight but will be interested in what you all think.

En-Route Information
EGTT: LONDON FIR
Q) EGXX/QXXXX/IV/M/E/000/100/5441N00219W999
B) FROM: 10/07/29 15:23C) TO: PERM
E) THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ATOTN (AIR TRAFFIC OPR TEL NETWORK)
DIRECTORY. LONDON MIL LJAO (LONDON JOINT AREA ORGANISATION) NUMBERS
DO NOT BEGIN WITH 7590. LONDON MIL LJAO NUMBERS BEGIN
7500, CONSOLE NUMBERS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
LJAO NORTH SUPERVISOR 2408
LJAO NORTH EAST 5291
LJAO EAST 5292
LJAO NORTH WEST 5299
LJAO SOUTH SUPERVISOR 2417
LJAO CENTRAL 5298
LJAO WEST 5296
LJAO SOUTH WEST 5296
LJAO SOUTH EAST 5997
LJAO OVERLOAD 1 5294
LJAO OVERLOAD 2 5293 U2179/10

Q) EGXX/QNVTT/IV/BO/E/000/999/5441N00219W999
B) FROM: 10/01/19 11:30C) TO: 10/11/24 13:30
E) TRIGGER NOTAM. NAV AID OUTAGES JAN-DEC 2010. SUP 043/2009 REFERS B0002/10

Q) EGXX/QCSCS/IV/B/E/000/999/5441N00219W999
B) FROM: 10/07/26 00:00C) TO: 10/10/24 23:59
E) SSR CODE 7013 WILL BE ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
ACFT PERFORMING FLYING TRAINING AND OPS OUTSIDE OF CONTROLLED
AIRSPACE (EITHER IN FORMATION OR AS SINGLE ACFT) AND NOT RECEIVING
AN AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE. THE CODE WILL BE UNVALIDATED AND UNVERIFIED.
OPS CTC 01407 766623. AUS 10-07-0757 AS 2. B1735/10

Q) EGXX/QCSCS/IV/B/E/000/999/5441N00219W999
B) FROM: 10/07/26 00:00C) TO: 10/10/24 23:59
E) SSR CODE 4574 WILL BE ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
ACFT PERFORMING FLYING TRAINING AND OPS OUTSIDE OF CONTROLLED
AIRSPACE (EITHER IN FORMATION OR AS SINGLE ACFT) AND NOT RECEIVING
AN AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE. THE CODE WILL BE UNVALIDATED AND
UNVERIFIED. OPS CTC 01264 784456.
AUS 10-07-0757. B1736/10


Q) EGTT/QSEAH/IV/B/E/000/065/5327N00018W250
B) FROM: 10/06/07 10:40C) TO: PERM
E) AMEND ANGLIA RADAR OPR HR TO:
0630-2200 DAILY WINTER (SUMMER 1HR EARLIER)
AIP ENR 1-15-1 REFERS B1248/10

Nav Warnings
EGTT: LONDON FIR

Q) EGTT/QWELW/IV/BO/W/000/195/5343N00034W002
B) FROM: 10/06/30 11:11C) TO: 11/01/04 23:59 EST
E) BROUGH AD. OCCASIONAL RE-ACTIVATION. AD WILL OPERATE AT IRREGULAR
HR. WI 2NM RADIUS 5343N 00034W (BROUGH, LINCOLNSHIRE). (AD-HOC FAST
JET DEP ONLY EST 2 ACFT PER MONTH). OPS INFO VIA WARTON OPS 01772
856470. AUS 10-06-0744/AS2LOWER: SFC
UPPER: FL195
SCHEDULE: HJ H2591/10

Q) EGTT/QRTCH/IV/BO/AW/000/085/5318N00033W006
A) EGXP B) FROM: 10/08/05 07:00C) TO: 10/09/15 22:00
E) AMEND AIC M054/2010 (RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS - JET
FORMATION DISPLAY SITES 5 AUGUST TO 19 SEPTEMBER 2010 AS FOLLOWS:
DELETE
SCAMPTON 531812N 0003300W 8200FT 5 AUGUST 0700-2200
SCAMPTON 531812N 0003300W 8200FT 9 AUGUST 0700-2200
SCAMPTON 531812N 0003300W 8200FT 15 SEPTEMBER 0700-2200
THE RED ARROWS WILL CONTAIN THEIR ACTIVITIES WITHIN EG R313.
10-08-0041/AS 1LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 8200FT AMSL J5805/10

END.

[IO540]

You just scan the E) lines.

I timed it. It took me 12 seconds to decide it was all garbage.

There was a thread on this quite recently.

[JW411]

I was mildly surprised to read earlier on "that the Red Arrows cannot transit IMC while in formation".

I thought the Red Arrows were part of the Royal Air Force?

I certainly was taught by the RAF (when necessary) to fly through cloud in formation by reference to my next door neighbour's navigation light (it was really good when you could see the fuselage as well)!

[pulse1]

You just scan the E) lines.


The CAA rightly demand that, as a PPL, I need to check NOTAMS as part of my flight planning. Nowhere do they stipulate that I should understand, and I have never been trained to understand that I only need to read E) lines, whatever they might be.

So please do not try to make Working Hard, or me, look stupid when faced with masses of apparently useless information. I realise that GA is rapidly becoming dominated by IT people, soon the only people with the time and money to do it, but the quality of safety critical information should not be dependent on computer literacy.

[WorkingHard]

IO540 yes I understand about scanning the E line, the point I was making was that it is nearly completely irrelevant to a vfr flight so what is the point of the filters if they simply do not work?

[Johnm]

Roffa's attitude is understandable, but irritating.

The world of aviation regulation revolves around CAT, but we live in a free continent, therefore "amateur" pilots are just as entitled to exercise the rights (I refuse to acknowledge that it's a privilege) conferred by their licences as anyone else.

Controlled airspace is a nuisance imposed for the benefit of CAT and since the bulk of the economic resources are there for CAT it behoves them to make it as easy as possible for non CAT traffic to play the game properly.

NATS with the development of LARS from Farnborough have shown the way and deserve our thanks and support, but let's not pin the responsibility on those of us who spend our hard earned enjoying the "freedom" of the skies.

Most ATCOs are very helpful and supportive of GA and so they should be if they want us to co-operate with their known environment.

[biscuit74]

Well said Gasax. Nicely encapsulated the whole issue, in a nutshell.

Clear, crisp, understandable communication.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I timed it. It took me 12 seconds to decide it was all garbage.
I sometimes plan to use navaids. So I have been known to look up TRIGGER NOTAM. NAV AID OUTAGES.

However it would be rather more helpful if they'd just list the navaids that fall within my NRB that will be out during my flight, wouldn't it.

[IO540]

Well, yes, one could improve a lot of things.

But when one looks at these interminable debates, one loses the will to live.

This system has been there since at least 2003.

It doesn't take hours to discard the dross. Even when I used to fly VFR from UK, on a single leg through Belgium, Lux, Germany, Austria, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia... a 6-7hr flight, and then another 6hr flight through Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece... and used the old ais.org.uk for notams for the whole route, I did not spend hours reading notams. For the average UK PPL, the time overhead as a % of preflight activities (I assume they do some preflight activities) is negligible. And if you think the UK notams contain garbage, you want to see the Greek/Turkish airspace arguments, running to page after page, citing some 1952 treaty, etc. The Greek pilots just smile and get on with it. Anybody with the "technology" to get onto pprune.org or flyer.co.uk and moan about it can do this easily.

They can also fill in the flight plan form in AFPEx just as easily.

So, what has really happened recently?

That's the big question.

[WorkingHard]

IO540, you are correct in many ways particularly "discard the dross". But surely that is the precise point everyone is making. There is SO MUCH DROSS in there that many will lose the will to live or at the very least the will to actually read the notams. It seems to be what is happening now and the "fault" lies with whoever is responsible for the promulgation of the notams. Pilots have a duty to find the relevant information so there should be an equal duty to ensure the information is readily available (which it is) and the information is relevant to what is being searched (which it is not). It may be that Mike Cross and others are finding a lot of entrenched opposition to getting rid of the dross and if so please tell us about it and why. For example on the notam I listed earlier the first third and fourth items are totally irrelevant for a short vfr flight up the coast at a max 5000ft so why was it not filtered properly? Did I miss a tick box somewhere?

[IO540]

OK, if your main issue is with why we have the dross, yeah this is irritating, but on the scale of aviation irritation of 0 to 10 it ranks only at about #1.

Well above that, in pure irritation value, are

- airports which close at 6pm
- airports with no avgas
- PPR
- PNR
- Customs PNR
- airports which do not return emails
- airports which do not return faxes
- airports which you phone up and when they hear English they put the phone down
- airports which have "no parking" unless you pay the handler 200 quid
- bent maintenance companies
- potholes
- taxiways covered in stones
- having to park in mud

And there used to be some 24 carat stuff like working out Eurocontrol routings, but that is now solved.

Well, you get the idea. Running off an NRB and having to skip yet another briefing about General Hooton flying a kite at 150ft AGL is not really an issue. Sure the system is crap but it is not really worth fighting this one battle.

If you want to pick battles to fight, pick ones which truly cripple usefulness of GA in the UK.

[Johnm]

I'm an old fart not a young turk with a lively mind. However I routinely take a narrow route brief with both IFR and VFR info when I fly. There's a great deal of dross to do with admin in airways that isn't relevant to class G IFR but I can EASILY and QUICKLY read through it all pick out what I need to understand in detail.

If I can do it so can anyone else, constant demands to be spoon fed with graphics are not helpful, the international standard format is actually quite efficient at passing info and the plotting of a relevant few isn't really anymore of a burden that the rest of the detailed VFR flight plan that you produce (you do produce that don't you?).

[englishal]

The ones I really hate are the ones that last for months and go on about stuff like

"jet training exercise in <list of coordinates> (Bristol Channel), aircraft may make high energy manouvres and may not be able to comply with the rules of the air"....

Especially when we all know a) the Navy don't work weekends, b) you never meet any of these phantom planes (because they rarely seem to be flying) and c) they cover such a large area, what are you meant to do about it anyway??? The Notam is for a long period and hence becomes irrelevant.

What they should do is notam exactly when these mysterious planes will be doing their exercises.

[hatzflyer]

I'm with Pulse1 . Good post!
What all you IT gurus overlook is nowhere in the ANO does it say you have to have a radio to fly a plane.
You technofiles are so wrapped up in the latest technology that you won't fly if the radio brakes , and would certainly abort a foreign trip if you couldn't talk to all and sundry on the way.
Well , suprise suprise, when I learnt to fly a lot of my trips were right across europe and I didn't even have a radio in the plane!
So are you lot that rely on having a virtual pilot in the cockpit with you saying that old fogeys have no right to fly anymore?
At no point in my training, or in the written part of my licence does it say that I have to be IT literate or own a computer to hold a licence.

[Roffa]

IO540,

Okay, here's a little detail.

Way back in the dim and distant past, probably now some 20 plus years ago, it was controllers that manned the FIR (London and Scottish Information) positions. But then as now qualified controllers are a finite resource and given the nature of the position/service, it's not a control service, it was decided that it could be better staffed by our assistants. So, the controllers went back to "controlling" positions where their training was far better utilised and suitably qualified assistants took over the FIR positions.

Now London and Scottish Information never have and never will be control positions. Some seem to think they should be LARS or something like that, but they're not. They are far more akin to a FSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_service_station) in the States. Note also not 'control' positions and not staffed by controllers.

Why can't a FISO (Area), the qualification of the folks who staff the London and Scottish FIR positions, use radar? Well that's down to the regulator and what they lay down in CAP 653 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP653.pdf) and probably some of CAP 427 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP427.PDF) and CAP 410 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP410__PARTA.PDF) amongst others. It's not part of some Machiavellian plot by controllers, if it was surely the supposedly omnipotent union (unions actually, there's more than one represents UK controllers) would be ensuring that every controller had to be radar qualified to supposedly get the highest salary? Yet if you happen to look at CAP 744 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP744.PDF) you'll find that some controllers aren't allowed to use radar either! The regulator decides who can do what, not the union nor Tom, nor Dick or Harry. And controller regulation and licensing, like the same for flying, is now driven from Europe.

So when you regularly write comments such as...

(because London Info now have radar, even though - not being radar qualified i.e. the correct pay grade - they are not allowed to talk about it).

The things which are worth banging on about are some details which appear to be the way they are due to outdated working practices, and those could presumably be improved.

but NATS internal accounting would probably charge out the hosting service at £100,000/year.

Or having a go at unions for supposedly blocking IAPs to non-ATC airfields.

Etc, etc, etc.

I get irritated because it's a bit of a trait that you routinely make such statements up about NATS/ATC to somehow justify whatever argument you're trying to make at the time. And that's all they generally are, made up statements with no basis in facts. It all appears a bit of a dogma and because of that...

...I am sure you could make a lot of good "insider" contributions here but instead you rarely do...

It's not particularly attractive to engage further. Though I would rather there is a balance when some of the more outrageous statements are made.

Anyway, enough of that and back to NOTAMs.

When the AIS NOTAM site first went live, however many years ago it was now, there is no doubt that there were significant issues. Thanks however to not insignificant input from the likes of Mike Cross, who deserves far more recognition from you all than he ever gets for the work he's done on your behalf, I don't believe the AIS web site can be called in any way unfit for purpose as it may have justifiably been in its earliest days. And as an aside, lord knows Mike Cross has tried to explain often enough that there's more to the NOTAM system and AIS than just the needs of the parochial UK centric private pilot. This may be of interest. (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-9610B195B64EC6D9999B4CE468D538C7/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/GEN/EG_GEN_3_1_en_2010-07-01.pdf)

How is it that some pilots can say they use it with no problem and others say it produces War and Peace quantities of garbage every time they try to go for a 10nm local bimble?

Is it more down to the user or the system?

I fly. I use the AIS web site and I also use one of the available programs that interprets AIS data into graphical representation. I am pretty happy with the results. I can produce a brief that does not overload me with 'rubbish' and I can cross refer between the AIS produced brief and the graphical one and thus pretty much cover all my bases in a short period of time.

Yes, there will be some NOTAMs that may not be relevant to my VFR flight but they are not many and I don't lose any sleep over it. I certainly lose less sleep than the time it takes me to scan and disregard them and I'm certainly not going to turn a mole hill into a mountain. Also, knowing some of the folk in AIS I'm sure they will continue to work with Mike Cross and others to continue to try to refine and improve what we have.

Yes I'm within the system but yes I also use the system. I've also taken the time to understand it so that I can get the best out of it. I of course look forward to future improvements but I also struggle to recognise what some post here with my own experiences. I don't accept that the NOTAM system itself is an excuse for not pre-flight briefing accurately or, because of its perceived problems, at all. Therefore I'm sorry if I'm not an apologist for anyone busting a TR(A) or similar and then trying to use their preconceived problems with the NOTAM system as an excuse when in reality the real problem is likely with the pilot themselves. It's not always somebody else's fault, just sometimes one has to take responsibility for one's own actions, or inactions.

[Fuji Abound]

Yawn,

so would London Info like to share their graphical plot of the NOTAMs?

Who does one ask?

[Roffa]

Yawn,

so would London Info like to share their graphical plot of the NOTAMs?

Who does one ask?

A) What makes you think they have one?

B) Anything further I write would obviously be too tiresome for you.

[Fuji Abound]

Yawn - was not directed at you :) but everyone going over the same old ground since I last posted on this thread.


A) What makes you think they have one?



Someone earlier suggested they had - with authority I dont know?

Do they?

If they dont, I wonder how they go about co-ordinating the information with the traffic?

[Roffa]

If they dont, I wonder how they go about co-ordinating the information with the traffic?

Last time I walked past, big maps with lots of pins stuck in them.

I suppose they could always set up a webcam...

[Mark1234]

Hmm. I'm not with pulse1 at all, it has very little to do with IT, nor whether you're radio equipped or not:

However you get them, there's a requirement to read NOTAMS. For good reason too. There is a lot of cruft, yes, however it's not rocket science to skim read and pick out what's relevant for closer examination - I assume that's what IO540 means by scan the E lines, it's not a technology solution, just a commonsense approach. For example:

Q) EGTT/QSEAH/IV/B/E/000/065/5327N00018W250
B) FROM: 10/06/07 10:40C) TO: PERM
E) AMEND ANGLIA RADAR OPR HR TO:
0630-2200 DAILY WINTER (SUMMER 1HR EARLIER)
AIP ENR 1-15-1 REFERS B1248/10

I get as far as 'ANGLIA RADAR', and realise I don't care. No need to decode the rest, move on to the next block. Surely you don't need to be 'trained to understand'; that IS the attitude of the spoonfed IT geekery. I flew saturday, it took me 5 mins give or take to skim through a hardcopy(luddite!) of the FIR notams... and know I wasn't going to go anywhere near Eastbourne under any circumstances. I guess if I'd wanted to go that way I'd have had to get the map out and plot, but in this case it was easier to go the other way.

I do agree that presenting a bunch of lat/long pairs is a pretty poor way to convey information, a picture would be a lot nicer.. but I don't have a solution, so I'll put up!

[IO540]

Nevertheless Roffa the lack of a proper radar service is due to funding issues.

And nobody in today's privatised system is going employ a radar qualified controller where a non radar qualified one will "do".

The CAA controller licensing system is just a redherring.

In France, I am told, every ATCO is radar qualified, and since there is no "NATS" there charging approx £100,000/year for a radar feed (which can go over the internet and costs them approximately zilch, zero, nothing to distribute) you can have a radar screen in some sleepy airport tower.

All down to money, really.

Back to notams, mark 1234 above has it exactly right. I see the 2 words ANGLIA RADAR and the whole rest of that item is skipped.

[oversteer]

I didn't realise you could get international NOTAMs on the AIS site.

I ran one for LEMG - their NOTAMS are far more fun than ours e.g.

LECM/QXXXX/IV/BO/W/000/020/3603N00533W041
NATO WARSHIPS ARE CONDUCTING ESCORT OPERATIONS IN THE STRAIT OF
GIBRALTAR IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SECURITY IN THE AREA AND TO ENSURE
THE SAFE TRANSIT OF DESIGNATED SHIPPING. .. AN APPROACH WITHOUT ESTABLISHING RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING POTENTIALLY HOSTILE INTENTIONS

Admiral Hooton? Did I miss a war starting?

[IO540]

Yes the NATS website is good for worldwide.

Officially, you are supposed to brief using the facilities provided by the State of departure, or whatever.

But this ignores two small things: a) the internet, and b) the obvious fact that an aircraft with sufficient range could fly anywhere in the world, so a route briefing taken in the UK must be good.

It used to be the case that, due to some practices in notam distribution, airfield notams for non-international French airfields were not sent to the UK, but since the UK notam feed now comes from Eurocontrol, this is no longer the case and the NATS site can be used for briefings from anywhere to anywhere. I use the site for all foreign flights.

[Fuji Abound]

In France, I am told, every ATCO is radar qualified


I wonder how this actually works.

Calais is a good example. Calais - a sleepy seaside airport with no commercial traffic of any consequence - in fact not much traffic at all. However if you go up the tower the ATCO has a radar feed. I am not sure how far his authority extends. If you wish to fly the approach you talk to Lille who hand you over to the tower after establishing but I have certainly heard the ATCO pass information he can only derive from radar.

I agree with you with regards the radar feeds however. There are places like Southend and Manston stuggling to fund the cost of having their own radar head and willing to provide a LARS service. They could of course derive the same information from NATS but I gather the cost of the feed alone is £100+ K a year, whereas in fact the true cost is negligble.

[IO540]

Distributing radar data is trivial. In the 1980s I knew somebody who was working on the systems, and that was way pre-internet. They used dedicated lines. But it doesn't take much; a 9.6k RS232 data link (about 1/4 of the bandwidth of a BT analog phone line) is enough for a radar screen. ADSL makes it a piece of cake; in fact you could run one over a remote desktop session, encrypted if you like, or over a VPN. Trivial.

Technology is nothing to do with it.

It is politics and accounting practices.

[Mike Cross]

It may be that Mike Cross and others are finding a lot of entrenched opposition to getting rid of the dross and if so please tell us about it and why.

I agree re dross, however it's not as black and white as one might imagine.

First there is an assumption by pilots that NOTAM are there for the information of pilots. The actual definition is:-

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

As pilots we're probably not at all concerned with allocation of transponder codes but a radar controller (who is certainly "concerned with flight operations") will want to know which unit to contact if a bandit wearing the squawk is causing him concern.

Every year I attend the AIS consultation as AOPA rep on AIS matters (this year I was also covering it for BGA). This year's meeting was on 14 July and was attended by AIS, their regulator from CAA, AUS, No 1 AIDU, the MAISO (Mil AIS liaison), BA, Navtech, and EAD among others.

At the meeting I raised my concerns regarding "dross" with particular reference to the type of Nav Warnings that will not result in any change in pilot actions such as mil navexes in the Western Approaches.

AIS do not in the main originate NOTAM. They will do when a change to the AIP results in an ICAO requirement for a trigger NOTAM to be issued but most of the stuff is originated by others and promulgated by AIS.

The things that concern most of us are Nav Warnings. In the main they are produced by AUS (Airspace Utilisation Section of the CAA). Their job is to deconflict activities, which they do with a small team of people based at CAA in Kingsway, London. You'll usually find AUS in a NOTAM and the letters AS followed by a number indicate which of their airspace specialists was responsible for the NOTAM, example below
Q) EGTT/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/999/5134N00005W001
B) FROM: 10/08/02 08:03C) TO: 11/06/18 23:59
E) HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION SITE CRANE OPR WI 1NM 5134N 00005W (HACKNEY,
LONDON). LIT AT NIGHT, HGT 500FT AGL. CONTACT 07764650298.
AUS 10-06-0660/AS2. C3598/10

I've also made the point that this stuff is principally targetted at GA because most of the activities take place outside CAT and that they need to tailor what they do to their target audience. Changes made as a result include the use of geographical identifiers alongside co-ordinates (HACKNEY, LONDON above) and the promulgation of Red's Transit Routes and timings, which never used to be promulgated.

I've also suggested that they should have a graphical tool that works like Ed Harding's Google app to perform a reality check before the NOTAM is issued. (Paste the NOTAM into an app and have it draw a circle, plot the co-ordinates it finds and provide a count, so if the app says it plotted 5 sets of co-ordinates and there's only three visible inside the circle then there's something wrong). Checking AUS NOTAM by any other means is a mind-numbingly boring process which is just asking for trouble. As a matter of interest I understand that one of the more recent errors was the old chestnut of getting the longitude the wrong side of the meridian. How many of us with hand on heart can say we've never done that?

At the moment the reliance is on the skill of the person drafting the NOTAM, it's time we deskilled that process where possible to reduce the risk of human error.

Re Filtering
When filtering out stuff it is essential that the user understands EXACTLY what is being filtered out. There is a total lack of knowledge on the part of most pilots regarding NOTAM coding, which in turn means they do not understand filtering.

Here's a quick tutorial
In the NOTAM example above the letters QOBCE appear in the Q line. The source for this coding is ICAO Doc 8126

The initial letter Q indicates it's the NOTAM Code
OB indicates it's an obstacle
CE means "erected"
At the end of the line we have the co-ordinates and the radius of influence.

I will agree that the height band shown (000/999) is a nonsense but AIS have no choice in that, it's a Eurocontrol requirement under OPADD (Operating Procedures for AIS Dynamic Data) that obstacles within an ATZ are given that height band for some reason.

Now it's perfectly feasible for filters to be built but the codes to be filtered need to be clearly understood by the user and there will be a lot of them.

For example I could filter out Q codes beginning
NT (VORTAC)
NV (VOR)
NN (TACAN)
NM (VOR/DME)
ND (DME)
ID (DME associated with ILS)
II (Inner Marker ILS)
IM (Middle Marker ILS)
IN (Localizer (not asociate with ILS)

and so on ad nauseam because I don't have the equipment in my aircraft to make use of them. And of course were I to jump into a different aircraft that did have the equipment I'd need the nous to understand that I have to re-instate the filtered out stuff.

It is less work simply to do the visual scan than it is to acquire the skills and knowledge to implement and maintain filters.

[Miroku]

So, returning to the original thread, has the erring pilot been located?

[Roffa]

IO540,

The CAA controller licensing system is just a redherring.

Followed up by facts and figures I assume plucked out of the air/internet.

Wha'ever.

I'm obviously wasting my time as your views are obviously pretty entrenched. I'll just say to anyone else, as you see them repeated in the future, bring your own bucket of salt.

As far as NOTAMs go, please keep checking them. There's no real excuse not to.

[Fuji Abound]

Assuming GA continues the time will come when more and more of us fly with glass. I can already paint weather from the internet on my MFD in real time, I have all the areas of controlled airspace shown, I have every aircraft with a transponder, and I have lightening strikes. It would be a small thing indeed to plug my iphone into the USB (which I can already do) and up load all the NOTAMS and have then plotted on my MFD (aside from the problems with graphically plotting the data at the moment that are well rehearsed.)

Just think I might never infringe anything every again. The MFD might even start talking to me (it already does)

"Warning, you are about to enter a temporary TRA - vertical limit 5,000 feet AGL, Warning" in a very pleasant female voice carefully chosen by Mr Garmin on the basis Mr Darwin has predicted I will comply with her every request.

Ah well, one day maybe.

[IO540]

You should already have terrain warnings in the female voice. Even I have that :)

I hate to think who she is married to.

Followed up by facts and figures I assume plucked out of the air/internet.Where would we be without the internet? No notams for a start :)

[englishal]

and up load all the NOTAMS and have then plotted on my MFD (aside from the problems with graphically plotting the data at the moment that are well rehearsed.)
Nah, just move to America where the datalink displays live TFRs on the MFD, along with Nexrad, Metars, Tafs, weather fronts (a la BBC), all the satellite radio stations you could possibly want.....

When is someone going to release satellite radio in Europe? I did read on the XM site (I think) that it was in progress...??? The NATS can datalink the live radar feed up to us and we don't have to bother them on the radio ;)

[IO540]

NATS could transmit radar images via the Mode S data channel but have decided to not spend the money on the kit.

[Fuji Abound]

Englishal

Yes, I agree, that is one reason I suspect we get so depressed with our version of capitalism this side of the Pond. All of these things are possible, but we manage to find every excuse for not doing any of them.

Funding is often, but not always, at the heart. How often have I heard that GA pays nothing, so should expect nothing.

Quite what GA gets for all the duty paid on Avgas defeats me. Whilst I have fully got to grips with politicans abolishing the hypothecation of specific taxes to specific public utilites (for all the usual cynical reasons) the fact remains the duty on Avgas goes into the central pot for which GA gets zilch.

One way and another GA also supports a raft of businesses that employ people who also one way and another pay corporation or income tax.

Then I get on to the subject of NATS who are majority owned by us (the taxpayer) if you take into account the Golden shares and ultimately beholden to the public regulator. OK we benefit from the corporation tax they pay but they exist by the Grace of God of you and I. Almost every where else in Europe the whole of the profits of organsiations like this benefit the public exchequer.

So all in all guess why I think GA gets a very bad deal - and yet we do nothing about it.

[soaringhigh650]

So all in all guess why I think GA gets a very bad deal - and yet we do nothing about it.

Time to make your views known to AOPA...

[oversteer]

Reds not having a good time of it this year it seems!

[Mike Cross]

Quite what GA gets for all the duty paid on Avgas defeats me.

Mmmm.... remind me

The duty on a litre of Mogas is how much?

57.19 p


and the duty on a litre of Avgas is how much?

38.35 p


That's 18.84 p per litre difference so at 30 lph that's £5.65 an hour. And who do we have to thank for this?

Makes membership of AOPA UK look cheap.;)

[ShyTorque]

Reds not having a good time of it this year it seems!

Maybe the CAA need to take a firmer stance on these apparently increasing numbers of airspace busts.

And publicise the consequences of a lack of basic airmanship!

It's one thing to get lost, but quite another to fail to check and at least be in a position comply with NOTAMS.

[dpo2309j]

> That's 18.84 p per litre difference so at 30 lph that's £5.65 an hour. And who do we have to thank for this?

Good work but the government is still pocketing the rest.

> Quite what GA gets for all the duty paid on Avgas defeats me.

And GA still gets zilch on the 38.35p and VAT paid.

[IO540]

Maybe the CAA need to take a firmer stance on these apparently increasing numbers of airspace busts.

It would be more productive to encourage the use of GPS.

Funny how NATS took matters into their own hands and are now flogging that £150 GPS box running the CAA chart.

The regulators are paying the price for 2 decades of slagging off of appropriate navigation technology, and with most pilots flying being old-timers in this game, this is going to take a long time to unwind.

The training process also need to fully embrace the internet (notams and weather)
because flying A-B without the internet is no longer viable. A lot of people don't like this, which is why we get the interminable "AFPEx=crap" and "the notam system is crap" etc etc etc forum threads (more on Flyer than here I have to say).

[malcolmf]

If I was cynical I may think that the whole purpose of the NOTAM system is to make it easier to prosecute offenders! "We published it so you should have abided by it"
I am coming back into GA from the airlines and it really isn't very user friendly. Take Fairoaks (a licensed aerodrome) as an example. It has many aircraft parked there who aren't members of a flying club or involved in the school. I asked the tower where I could get Notams and Met. The answer was that they didn't supply that information. They also didn't have a computer I could use or a WiFi signal, there are several on the field but they are all password protected.
I am technically literate enough to be able to link my laptop to my mobile and get internet access, but what do others do?
Are licensed airfields supposed to provide rudimentary briefing facilities?

[FREDAcheck]

Funny how NATS took matters into their own hands and are now flogging that £150 GPS box running the CAA chart.Great, isn't it? And I gather that the extension of Farnborough LARS was largely to reduce busts.
The training process also need to fully embrace the internet (notams and weather) because flying A-B without the internet is no longer viable. A lot of people don't like this, which is why we get the interminable "AFPEx=crap" and "the notam system is crap" etc etc etc forum threads (more on Flyer than here I have to say). I agree with that too. The current NOTAM system is what we've got (whether or not it's crap), and we have to use it. No excuses.

However, I do think Notam presentation could be improved, as shown by the many unofficial web sites, plus Notamplot, plus the notam download to the Aware GPS box and others... If that helps reduce infringements (I think it would) then it's much better than prosecutions.