Nonsense NOTAMs

[hugh flung_dung]

It looks like all the airfields with an AEF/UAS have issued NOTAMS with:

INTENSIVE LIGHT ACFT ACTIVITY WI 15NM RADIUS
...
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: FL100

Presumably this comes from the same ridiculous mindset that leads to packets of peanuts carrying a "may contain nuts" warning; I had expected better of the RAF.

• Airfields are supposed to have aircraft around them.
• AEF flying is not intensive compared to the activity at most GA airfields (will we soon have similar NOTAMS for every airfield?)
• What does the originator of the NOTAM expect recipients to do differently as a result of reading it?

Instructors are always trying to impress on students (and sadly some experienced pilots) the importance of checking NOTAMS before every flight, but it's getting harder to get the message across because of nonsensical items appearing from the CAA and the military. NOTAMS should be limited to things that a pilot can take action on, not someone's amateur idea of liability reduction. Mid-air collisions are every pilot's fear and are desperately tragic when they happen but fluff like this will not help and adds to the pile of irrelevance that may hide the jewel that a pilot needs to find.

C'mon RAF, engage brain please. These NOTAMs will have a negative impact on safety and should not be repeated.

HFD

[Tiger_mate]

These NOTAMs will have a negative impact on safety and should not be repeated.

That is your opinion to which you are entitled, but I am not so sure that I would agree with you.

Cadets embarking on AEF flying are usually given 2 options. "1) Do you want to fly it or 2) Do you want to do aerobatics", and both of these flight profiles differ from any typical GA airfield. If a NotAm puts this on the radar, so to speak, then it cannot do any harm. In fact horse / bolted / lock would be the ingredients of a phrase that I would find some agreement in.

There is a danger that action taken in response to recent tragic events could be over-reaction, but this one appears to bbe reasonable. It will not however change rules of the air or the ever present need to lookout.

My son who is a 14 y/o Cadet informs me that lookout and reporting is included in his AEF preflight briefing but that most cadets would point across the cockpit towards a perceived hazard. Perhaps extending to brief to include verbal clockcode reporting without pointing would be (another) step in the right direction. Few if any people would want AEF flying to cease, and Duty of Care is a feature of life these days that we shouldnt shy away from. Actually 'seeing' other traffic is a skill that comes with experience, a fact that seasoned aviators need to remember.

[StopStart]

Oh good. Can we also get rid of all those annoying notams about gliding competitions, hot air balloons fiestas, men working at height, 100ft cranes, potentially increased bird activity, etc etc etc? I mean, it's all just lookout isn't it?

[hugh flung_dung]

TM

I totally agree that AEF flying should continue. The ATC got me started in aviation, one of my sons did lots of flying and gliding with the ATC, and for several years I was chairman of an air cadet squadron. I don't see how these NOTAMS are relevant to that debate - although it's apparent that they've resulted from the recent tragic accident.

Currently I instruct at several airfields in Hampshire. At Old Sarum we have 400-500 movements on a good summer weekend day, yesterday it was only 234. We also do a lot of aerobatic training. This is typical of an active GA airfield. How does it compare with a typical AEF day?

SS
I agree that there are lots of other useless NOTAMS, but the ones you quote don't all fit into that category. Aircraft are always concentrated near airfields, gliding competitions and balloon fiestas are not regular activites.


HFD

[Talk Reaction]

HFD

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to get worked up so much over this. Perhaps you should use it more profitably. I don't recall ever having to spend more than 4 or 5 minutes looking at NOTAMs, there really aren't that many and whilst yes, some seem to have little impact on how I operate they may be more relevant to other aviators so I'm not as quick as your to refer to them as nonsense.

On the subject of AEF/UAS flying, well it seems plenty of GA aviators see a MATZ as a spare piece of airspace at the weekend when a lot of that kind of flying takes place. Given the tragic recent loss of 6 lives I can't argue with raising awareness of this flying and if your airfield really has a movement every minute or so then yes maybe you should suggest that that is made clear because clearly you are THE busiest airfield in the country (one of the world) and I'm certain people don't realise that.

Get a grip

[Merged]

I'm with HFD. The NOTAM system does need a bit of an overhaul. What about the Warnings out to 5nm radius about u/s obstruction lights on big masts at the moment? That really flashes me up.

[bpster]

In response to your last..

pretty useful actually when flying night low level. Masts dont stand out too well on gogs at 500kts. (Sorry I had to bit on that one!) I do however see your point, there are a lot of useless notams that dilute the pile.

[Pontius]

Hugh,

Whereas I agree with your sentiments regarding sorting the wheat from the chaff in NOTAMs, this is not as silly as it it might at first appear. Not every military airfield has an AEF. AEFs do not fly every day. Most pilots do not know where the AEFs are based. So, when you're planning a cross country flight and checking the NOTAMs, this information is actually quite a relevant and convenient means of familiarising yourself with a military airfield, near your intended route, that has AEF flying going on and is active that day. I know airfields are where aircraft fly from and around and some have more movements than others but increased aerial activity IS of interest to airmen (and airchix) and forewarned is forearmed.

The actual design of the NOTAM system, however, is clumsy and not that intuitive but that is a subject for another thread.

Cheers,

Pontius. Ex-AEF pilot

[Online ACM]

Great NOTAM

Found this completely useless NOTAM at Kabul Int

'A0799/09 - QXXXX AIRCREWS SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ENTER HOLDING AND DIVERT
WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE. WIE UNTIL 31 AUG 23:59 2009. CREATED: 25 MAY 12:14 2009'

No **** sherlock!

[Boatman]

Horses

I am sure there is a standing NOTAM for Disable Horse Riding in shrops.

I was quite perturbed until my instructor clarified that Disabled horses weren't actually being ridden, because that would be cruel. Do I win a Fiver?

[L J R]

Quote:

Masts don't stand out too well on gogs at 500kts.

...500K!!!??? - Why so slow..!

[Peter Carter]

Most AEFs fly 3,000 to 6,000 children a year. In my view, anything we can do to enhance their safety has got to be good, even if it's limited to making GA, and military, aware that it's going on.

[Lima Juliet]

INTENSIVE LIGHT ACFT ACTIVITY WI 15NM RADIUS
...
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: FL100

This made me think "So what?...unless it's an avoid then it's just more noise within the NOTAM system". I look out as much as I can as a GA Pilot and Glider Pilot as I do in my military day/night job in Class G airspace - after all the primary means of collision avoidance in Class G is "see and avoid". Will this save lives? I doubt it. But if it does, then it has been worth it.

Let's get things straight though, the first AEF accident was 2x Grobs from the same airfield and they both new each other were flying - so this "warning" NOTAM would serve no purpose.

The second accident happened South of Abingdon (nr Drayton), which is over 8nm from Benson. I really fail to see how the NOTAM above would have helped again. The fact that it occured between the Brize Norton / Benson gap with the added complexity of Abingdon glider site and the Harwell Nuclear site is the real airspace issue as it tends to bring aircraft into close proximity with or without a "warning" NOTAM.

I am therefore of the opinion that for the 2x AEF accidents then this NOTAM would serve little purpose but for a future accident, waiting to happen, then it might work - I guess they thought there is no harm trying?

I also agree with Hugh Flung Dung - some GA airfields are busier than Linton, Cranwell, Valley put together on a single day. If they were to put similar NOTAMS in for GA airfields then we, the Military, would be the first to complain about "bloody civvies in their puddle-jumpers".

LJ

[gpn01]

Originally Posted by Peter Carter

Most AEFs fly 3,000 to 6,000 children a year. In my view, anything we can do to enhance their safety has got to be good, even if it's limited to making GA, and military, aware that it's going on.

The problem with the block of NOTAM's that were issued for what looks like every AEF/UAS unit this weekend is that they each covered such a wide area that they were completely meaningless. Each one was for a cylinder of airspace 700nm/sq and up to FL100. For many of the locations that meant that not only were they covering most of their surrounding counties but also blocks into controlled airspace (where they're obviously not going to penetrate). Best prize goes to one site which had a NOTAM'd zone even though the airfield was closed.

The problem with NOTAM's of this sort is that they just add to the growing list of other warnings that pilots need to check before flying and they're likely to turn into items that people unconsciously ignore as they flick through. It's a real pity because this means that something that is presumably done to increase safety actually has the opposite effect.

Pilots carry half-mil maps which have airfields marked on them. Busy airfields have their own zones (2-2 1/2nm radius) so pilots know to stay clear of or call on the radio. The AEF's are doing themselves a disservice by NOTAM'ing something as 'intensive' which is probably actually fewer than a hundred or so sorties in a day. Many light airfields have many more than this each day (and yes, they too sometimes carry children). Civilian pilots don't have a need for a NOTAM'd 700nm/sq zone for training purposes. I'm sure the RAF light aircraft don't either. It really smacks more of a kneejerk, backside covering, reaction rather than anything that will genuinely improve aviation safety.

[Meldrew]

gpn.01. In a nut shell.

[Ash679]

Tiger mate,

FYI, clockcode reporting is covered both in (a) Airmanship during 1st Class Cdt training (which has to be passed before they can fly AEF) and (b) on the briefing video/DVD. It is usually also briefed by the AEF staff before flying commences.

The problem is that - unless they are an experienced flyer - once little johnny/jenny gets into the cockpit, they are usually too excited and/or nervous to remember absolutely everything that they are briefed on.

Personally, I always used to quickly recap lookout & clockcode as part of my take-off brief after covering EFATO procedure.

Cheers
Ash679

[hugh flung_dung]

TalkReaction:
I re-checked with the guys in the tower - I should have said "400-500 movements on a very good weekend day", 350-400 is more typical of a "good" summer day and FWIW the annual average (including all the crap weather days with little or no flying and the rather slack weekdays) was 150/day when last calc'd (a couple of years ago). This is typical of an active GA airfield.
Ref the status of a MATZ at the weekend - I'm sure you know it has no legal status as far as the civvie world is concerned at any time. Most civvie pilots will call a MATZ controller during the week but why call when the MATZ is shut?

Pontius and Peter Carter:
I'm in total support of anything that will enhance safety but I can't see how telling pilots that there are aircraft near airfields is going to achieve that.
For many years I was a gliding instructor but now try to be above the Cu whenever possible in the Salisbury-Bournemouth gap because they are so difficult to see and there are so many of them - local instructors often broadcast when a glider is seen. Simple steps like these are likely to have more effect than last weekend's NOTAMS.

HFD

[doubledolphins]

As a chap who has flown many instructional hours at Shobdon I find this all rather amusing. As I am sure you are all aware, over the years we have had many near encounters with military aircraft. (spot the under statement.) All the while I have been flying with some one having a go, or doing aerobatics. Any reminder to pilots of possible dangers is welcome and any one who thinks such a reminder is necceasary is an "accident" waiting to happen.

[ShyTorque]

As an ex-UAS QFI I think it's an over-reaction and a pointless mis-use of the NOTAM system.

[Lima Juliet]

As a chap who has flown many instructional hours at Shobdon I find this all rather amusing. As I am sure you are all aware, over the years we have had many near encounters with military aircraft. (spot the under statement.) All the while I have been flying with some one having a go, or doing aerobatics. Any reminder to pilots of possible dangers is welcome and any one who thinks such a reminder is necceasary is an "accident" waiting to happen.

Double-Dolphins

I'm not too proud to admit that I paid Shobdon a "visit" a few years back chasing down a pair of GR7s (they missed laterally - just!). We new Shobbers was out there somewhere just difficult to spot until last minute - had the same problem going back to land there in a PA28 a few years later at less than 20% of the speed! Praise be for overhead joins

Fortunately, no harm done first time around (apart from my pride!). Lots of sheepish humble pie on the telephone to the FISO for a moment of carelessness - at least the guy on the other end had a sense of humour by asking if I had got the GR7s! (which of course we had ).

See and avoid in Class G is just that - unfortunately I "bonged" the top half of Shobbers' ATZ by just 200ft, which was definately a "no, no"

I take it that you're ex-submariner with your "nome de plume"? You can't get much further away from the sea at Shobdon! Or maybe you keep sea mammals?

Fly safe

LJ