No-hope or no-point NOTAMS?

[ShyTorque]

The AIS website shows some NOTAMS that make me think..... why, or what...?

Here's the latest "no-hoper":

Q) EGTT/QROXX/IV/NBO/W/000/025/5118N00027W002
B) FROM: 10/09/28 13:25C) TO: 10/10/13 23:59

E) PILOTS ARE REQUESTED NOT TO OVERFLY. FILMING WI 2NM RADIUS
5118N 00027W (WISLEY DISUSED AD, OCKHAM, SURREY).
10-09-0663/AS 2.

LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 2200FT AMSL
SCHEDULE: SEP 28-30 AND OCT 01-13 HJ

It's the location of a navigation beacon for goodness' sake....! :ugh:

[NorthSouth]

Presumably that's why they've asked pilots to avoid it - because they know there's lots of traffic. Seems logical to me. Anyway isn't everyone always saying these days that they never use NDBs, how useless they are etc?
NS

[eharding]

Presumably that's why they've asked pilots to avoid it - because they know there's lots of traffic. Seems logical to me. Anyway isn't everyone always saying these days that they never use NDBs, how useless they are etc?
NS

Umm....well, yes. The Ockham NDB is particularly useless. :E

[doubledolphins]

Well you should not realy be navigating by ADF at that sort of hight any way. But thanks for pointing that one out. Made me laugh any way. Every flight I do the company briefing system has pages of that sort of notam. Totally irelevant to our flight. I'll start reading them now looking for classics like that. (After I've finished the papers.:cool:)

[Whirlygig]

Must be due to Ockham's Razor. :}

Cheers

Whirls

[IO540]

If you are looking for classics, plot a route around Greece/Turkey and read the reams of territorial disputes, citing treaties dating back to 1952 :)

UK pilots like to whinge but in reality they have it easy...

[BackPacker]

Well you should not realy be navigating by ADF at that sort of hight any way.

Actually OCK is a VOR but I guess that doesn't alter the meaning of your statement. So I have to ask - why not?

OCK is conveniently located in the tight squeeze between the London CTR and the Gatwick CTR. By dialing the appropriate heading on the OBS you have one additional gross error check (in addition to following the M25) that you're not straying into someones airspace.

Places like that, I tend to use all the nav tools that are available to me. The Mk.1 eyeball, map, compass & timer, radio nav, GPS. Regardless of my altitude.

[ShyTorque]

Anyway isn't everyone always saying these days that they never use NDBs, how useless they are etc?
NS

Hope you're not teaching your students that the Ockham is a useless NDB :rolleyes: !

doubledolphins: Well you should not realy be navigating by ADF at that sort of hight any way.

No-one is dialling their ADF to the OCK. The OCK NDB doesn't exist. :=

It's a VOR/DME, on a busy GA route.

[Captain Smithy]

Is this not an abuse of the NOTAM system?

I thought NOTAMs were meant to be for informing us pilots of matters of genuine importance, e.g. TRAs, U/S Nav beacons/Radar, ATC issues, Mil activity, Danger Area (de)activation etc.

Asking (not instructing) pilots to avoid overflying a VOR because someone's filming something for telly is neither reasonable nor an issue to be NOTAMed... :zzz:

Smithy

[BackPacker]

Q) Egtt/qroxx/iv/nbo/w/000/025/5118n00027w002
B) From: 10/09/28 13:25c) To: 10/10/13 23:59

E) Pilots Are Invited To Practice Visual And Vor/dme Approaches At Wisley Disused Ad 5118n 00027w (ockham, Surrey). Min Altitude Of Overflying The Runway 500ft Agl. Noise Augmentation Procedures In Effect: Aircraft Are Requested To Maintain Runway Centerline At Lowest Permitted Height With Max Throttle And Rpm. All Aircraft Overflying Wisley At Or Below 1000ft Agl Will Feature In Tv Show.

Lower: Sfc
Upper: 2200ft Amsl
Schedule: Sep 28-30 And Oct 01-13 Hj

(Edited: If you post an all-caps post in PPRuNe it automatically converts it to the above...:ugh:)

[gpn01]

Is this not an abuse of the NOTAM system?

I thought NOTAMs were meant to be for informing us pilots of matters of genuine importance, e.g. TRAs, U/S Nav beacons/Radar, ATC issues, Mil activity, Danger Area (de)activation etc.

Asking (not instructing) pilots to avoid overflying a VOR because someone's filming something for telly is neither reasonable nor an issue to be NOTAMed... :zzz:

Smithy

It does raise the question about who has the authority to sanction or reject NOTAM requests. I can appreciate the position of the people who are doing the filming - must cost a bomb in reshooting scenes set in the 18th century becasue a Cessna suddenly appears in shot! Meanwhile I was thinking of having a quiet day on Saturday and have some friends around to a barbeque in the garden but the aeroplanes sometimes fly quite low over my house. Maybe I could NOTAM my garden for the afternoon?

[Captain Smithy]

Very witty BP ;)

I was thinking the same gpn01. Does the CAA not have to approve NOTAMs for publication before they are issued? Or as you say can any munchkin apply for a NOTAM for whatever reason willy-nilly?

What a load of pish.

Smithy

[mad_jock]

Nope anyone once they find out how the system works can submit NOTAMS.

I was asked by a white settler how to get a NOTAM in stating that there was kites on cables up to 500ft on his croft that he had just bought.

Some nimby BB had recommend it as a method to stop low level jets overflying properties.

To be honest I don't really mind the Telly folk doing an occassional one like the example. It pisses me off way more when they block roads and other such antics with no warning.

[Mike Cross]

Not an unreasonable request IMHO. I appreciate that we are all Sky Gods determined to exercise our inalienable rights to fly where and when we want within the legal envelope, however a little courtesy to others goes a long way.

FYI most NOTAM requests are handled by AUS (Airspace Utilisation Section) of the CAA whose job it is to try and deconflict stuff.

A word of warning:- Matt Lee has recently transferred from AUS to a new Role as Head of Enforcement at the CAA. Ignore those RA(T) at your peril!:E
CAA appoints new Enforcement head | CAA Newsroom | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=1910)

[ShyTorque]

Not an unreasonable request IMHO. I appreciate that we are all Sky Gods determined to exercise our inalienable rights to fly where and when we want within the legal envelope, however a little courtesy to others goes a long way.

Mike, the place in question (OCK) is in the middle of a busy funnel/corridor. It's not reasonable to expect pilots to instead either risk flying into LHR airspace to the north or to fly over the higher ground to the south, especially in the present poor weather and low cloud we are "enjoying". Wisley is a good VFR route check point; in worse conditions the beacon is used by aircraft flying just beneath the London CTA.

The point of this thread is not to be discourteous to others. However, this and other NOTAMs are of no real use to pilots or are unreasonable. I can give more examples!

[Captain Smithy]

Fair point Mike, although I think it misses the issue somewhat.

The NOTAM system is purely for important notices to pilots relating to safety. Issuing NOTAMs to ask people to keep clear of a VOR because filming for a gogglebox programme is happening is not a safety issue, therefore it is not a constructive nor correct use of the NOTAM system.

Smithy

[chevvron]

I wonder if the sponsor of this NOTAM is aware that Fairoaks arrivals/ departures route via OCK often at 1500ft (1400ft if there's class A airspace round Farnborough); hopefully they're aware of the helipad just outside the airfield boundary too.

[ShyTorque]

SoCal App,

Class A controlled airspace (London TCA) begins at 2400 feet above this area. The cloudbase in UK at this time of year is often well below 2200 feet.

This 2nm avoid effectively "plugs" a funnel feature in a busy transit route for VFR only traffic routing south of the Heathrow Control Zone. Fairoaks ATZ is emebedded in that same conrol zone immediately adjacent to this area. So yes, it can be a problem to avoid it either by altitude or laterally.

At another location it would be far less of an issue. It's a bad place to go filming if they don't want disturbance by aircraft.

[NorthSouth]

It's a bad place to go filming if they don't want disturbance by aircraft.Indeed. But it is only a REQUEST. Safety of flight in this Class G airspace is entirely up to the pilot so if you're there VFR with a cloudbase of 2100ft you are unlikely to be able to comply if for some reason you are unable to go 2nm south. So you then do your best, which might be crossing at 1900ft. I don't expect an overflight at 1900ft has much difference noise-wise to one at 2201ft. As I said they're only asking you to be nice. If being nice would result in your or someone else's death I suspect they might forgive you not complying.
NS

[eharding]

Well, while we're on the subject of NOTAMs due filming, if anyone is planning on visiting White Waltham on Friday 8th October I gather that the place will be NOTAM'd closed to visiting traffic owing to a film shoot - apparently, the clubhouse is going to be transformed into Heathrow circa 1956.

I can see it now though. The Director screaming "CUT!!!!! - sorry Kenneth, darling.....no.....no your lines were perfect....but we're doing 1950's England, not sodding Star Wars - but will somebody get that bloody great Wookie out of the background...please...."

[ShyTorque]

Indeed. But it is only a REQUEST. Safety of flight in this Class G airspace is entirely up to the pilot so if you're there VFR with a cloudbase of 2100ft you are unlikely to be able to comply if for some reason you are unable to go 2nm south.

N-S; thanks for the lesson in pilot responsibility. I'd be more likely to go over at 2400 feet IMC with a radar service if necessary. However, there are many that would be unable to do so. If you know the AIS definition of a NOTAM, it seems well outside the scope to put out a non-essential request such as this.

To save folks looking it up, here it is, quoted verbatim from the AIS website list of abbreviations:

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

[eharding]

N-S; thanks for the lesson in pilot responsibility. I'd be more likely to go over at 2400 feet IMC with a radar service if necessary. However, there are many that would be unable to do so. If you know the AIS definition of a NOTAM, it seems well outside the scope to put out a non-essential request such as this.

To save folks looking it up, here it is, quoted verbatim from the AIS website list of abbreviations:

Hmmm....interesting.

NOTAMs requesting..or indeed demanding..pilot avoiding action to aid commercial media interests are hardly a new thing.

I'm intrigued to know why this particular example possessed you to get such a monk on.

After all, if you're upset about that, your urine should be boiling over a RA(T) for a simple game of golf (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Fmetutil.appspot.com%2FNotamData%3Ftype%3DKML%26 ids%3DEGTT-J6096%2F10++&sll=51.488271,-0.778424&sspn=0.168671,0.308647&ie=UTF8&z=12)

On the other hand, this piece of blatant advertising via the NOTAM channel got my attention:

Free Pizza (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Fmetutil.appspot.com%2FNotamData%3Ftype%3DKML%26 ids%3DEGTT-H4642%2F10&sll=51.488271,-0.778424&sspn=0.168671,0.308647&ie=UTF8&ll=54.521081,-1.702881&spn=5.032229,9.876709&z=7)

[ShyTorque]

I'm only making a point using a particular example, that one has nothing to do with flight safety. ;)

Here's another: Why should pilots be informed about the details of Sqn Ldr Hooton's dedicated transponder codes for exercises? A pilot cannot see what code is being squawked by another aircraft. What's essential to safety about them?

Or another..I rang a contact phone number mentioned in a "permanent" NOTAM about kites being flown up to 1000ft amsl from a location on a choke point on one of my regular routes. The phone was answered by a woman who told me knew nothing about NOTAMs, or even what a NOTAM was. She said I would have to speak to her partner, who did have a kite but flew it very infrequently and he was at work.

[gg190]

Here's another: Why should pilots be informed about the details of Sqn Ldr Hooton's dedicated transponder codes for exercises? A pilot cannot see what code is being squawked by another aircraft. What's essential to safety about them?

Maybe this is in case you are getting service from a radar unit, if the traffic appears on the controllers screen they might say something like 'unknown traffic in your 12 o'clock squawking ****'. If you remember the code from the NOTAM you may realise it's military and on excercises, so you know it might be carrying out some unusual manouveres not just routing in a straight line.

[Katamarino]

In my 500+ hours of flying, I have NEVER had ATC tell me the transponder code of a traffic call.

[10W]

In my 29 years of controlling, I've never given a pilot the SSR code of conflicting traffic either :O

[ShyTorque]

I've been flying since 1973 and since 1977 for a living and ditto, it's not done, to the best of my knowledge.

[chevvron]

Controllers providing LARS often give traffic 'showing 7000 squawk with no altitude' or (for example) 'showing 7000 squawk indicating alt 2000ft unverified' on the assumption that pilots will know what a 7000 squawk means. But this is off the subject.

[hugh flung_dung]

FYI, in an earlier discussion someone said that Sqn Ldr Hooton was a role, rather than a person: "High-energy Operations Oversight / Telephone Operators / Notams".

HFD

[ShyTorque]

In which case is should be written Sqn Ldr, HOOTON (in accordance with service writing). Also, military protocol is never to use an abbreviation to someone who might not know what it means, without also writing it out in full. :)

But it's still a meaningless NOTAM.

[hugh flung_dung]

"meaningless NOTAM" - quite agree!

And the permanent kites of Blandford (1300ft!!!):
Q) EGTT/QWCLW/IV/M/W/000/015/5052N00211W001
B) FROM: 10/09/24 10:45C) TO: 10/12/24 23:59
E) KITE FLYING 1NM RADIUS 5052N 00211W (BLANDFORD FORUM).
ON-SITE CTC, TEL 01258 452411. 10-09-0534/AS 5.
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 1300FT AMSL
SCHEDULE: 1045-SS PLUS30

Whilst rant mode is switched-on, here is a selection of useless NOTAMs from today's VFR brief:

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.

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.

Q) EGXX/QPFCH/IV/NBO/E/000/500/5441N00219W999
B) FROM: 10/09/30 00:00C) TO: 10/10/01 23:59
E) 30 SEP AND 01 OCT, 'FLIGHT LEVEL ADHERENCE DAYS'. TRIAL TO BE RUN
BY EUROCONTROL AND THE CENTRAL FLOW MANAGEMENT UNIT (CFMU). FOR MORE
INFORMATION, PILOTS AND AIR OPERATORS SHOULD CONSULT THE WEBSITES
www.adherencedays.eu (http://WWW.ADHERENCEDAYS.EU) (LOWER CASE) OR WWW.EUROCONTROL.INT/ADHERENCE
(LOWER CASE), SFC/FL500.

[Mike Cross]

Captain Smithy
Fair point Mike, although I think it misses the issue somewhat.

The NOTAM system is purely for important notices to pilots relating to safety.

Hmmm....... You are exposing your own ignorance I fear, never mind you are not alone.

A NOTAM 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"

Try as I might I can't make that match your definition and I can't see the word "Pilot" in it.

Re squawks, I'd suggest that Radar Controllers fall into the category of "personnel concerned with flight operations" who need to know what units squawks have been allocated to so they know who the person on their screen is working.

I dare say a kite at 1300 ft has to be fairly large to lift the weight of its string and also be possessed of a fairly substantial string or wire to cope with the load. Wrapping it round a tail rotor might spoil a helo-jock's day.

It is of course possible for those who want to to tailor briefs to their own particular operations by filtering out NOTAM codes concerning things they feel are irrelevant. Not something that AIS will do though because they have no knowledge of your ops.

That said, I concur that there are things that get issued that have no relevance. They appear to be there for the purpose of backside protection rather than passing on any information that might make it possible for "personnel concerned with flight operations" to make things safer by modifying their behaviour.

[hugh flung_dung]

If you don't believe that fact is often stranger than fiction ... read on.

I just rang the number in the kites NOTAM and spoke to the estates office of Bryanston school. The kite is flown (occasionally!) in order to train birds of prey to take food from the kite as an extra-curricula activity for the kids. Why in :mad: does this infrequent activity justify a permanent NOTAM?

HFD

[24Carrot]

FYI, in an earlier discussion someone said that Sqn Ldr Hooton was a role, rather than a person: "High-energy Operations Oversight / Telephone Operators / Notams".I did.

I also made it up, it was an attempt at humour!

I must remember the smilies next time...:ugh:

[hugh flung_dung]

bah!
It looked believable:D

[niknak]

Mike is correct - there's an extremely high degree of lack of appreciation (or you could say ignorance) being displayed on this pointless post.

NOTAMS are for pilots, ATCOs, Operations staff planning on behalf of operators and there are others.

Notams for filming are frequent and, given the costs and logistics of filming outdoors, its a perfectly reasonable request to make.

As for the rest, if you don't understand ask someone who knows, if its not relevant to you, disregard it.

[ShyTorque]

NOTAMS are for pilots, ATCOs, Operations staff planning on behalf of operators and there are others.

Notams for filming are frequent and, given the costs and logistics of filming outdoors, its a perfectly reasonable request to make.

Read the definition of a NOTAM again. Regardless of the cost, it's an abuse of the system, because it has absolutely nothing to do with safety of aircraft operations, nor is it essential.

BTW, I'm fully aware of the potential danger of kites. I was in a close formation when the aircraft next to me wound up a very long nylon kite line around his tail rotor pitch change links, which bent inwards. Thankfully, there was no-one on the end of it and no-one was reported missing.

However, HFD has discovered something similar to me - birds of prey being flown from kites doesn't happen anything like every day at many of these "permanent" sites. I also rang one such contact number a while back because the area was on a regular route I was required to fly along and also land inside. The person involved told me he trained birds of prey and that I must avoid him by 3 nm. But he went on to say that he flew his kite anywhere within "his" 3 nm NOTAMed area (making it a 6 nm radius / 113 square nm "avoid"). I explained that pilots couldn't possibly avoid all that airspace (it was also in an LFA). I also explained that the airport I operated from (as did scheduled airline flights) only had a 2.5nm ATZ, let alone 6nm. He said that he would put on his Landrover's hazard warning flashers so pilots could see him. I left him to it at that point.

[znww5]

Rather a cunning stunt for the dyed-in-the-wool NIMBY, buy a kite/bird and NOTAM your very own no fly zone! The common theme here is that all the NOTAM dross serves not only to clutter up the system, but also allows important information to become buried in the noise.

A quick search on the internet turned up very little regarding the criteria for issuing a NOTAM, other than a page on the UK Rocketry Association web site. There they recommend using the following e-mail address or phone number - so it seems logical that this is the contact point for 'feed-back' regarding abuse of what is, after all, a safety system.

I have contacted them by e-mail this morning requesting a copy of their guidelines for accepting a NOTAM request - we'll see what happens.

The UKRA info is as follows, maybe other forumites have alternative/better contact routes?


[From UKRA site]

[email protected] and titled "NOTAM Request". If you want to talk to the cell for advice telephone 020 7453 6589

[Edited to compensate for my inability to spell on a Saturday]

[Sky blue and black]

The criteria for issuing a Notam is defined in ICAO Annex 15, chapter 5.

[IO540]

I think the problem is that the need to cover one's 6 o'clock (the biggest irritation of the 21st century) results in almost no notam proposal being refused.

Still, skim-reading the E) lines on a typical narrow route briefing takes only 1-2 minutes, max. Most of the stuff is garbage.

[hugh flung_dung]

Perhaps we should request that there be a NOTAM issued, notifying the squawk to be used by the bird of prey :E