Red Arrows display cancelled due to airspace infringement (merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northampton UK
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
I regularly read the NOTAMS, using a combination of NotamPro and manual sifting through a significant amount (albeit much improved through your intervention) of irrelevant detail.
I certainly don't subscribe to the "too difficult, therefore not my problem" school of thought, not least because I want to do everything I can to protect my own safety and/or bank balance when I'm up there!
What I don't understand, despite reading all of these threads over recent months, is...
From what perspective do the CAA stand behind this policy? The Q line used to be available in the old format NOTAMS ... I have not read anything anywhere that explains the CAA perception of a problem that was solved / an improvement that was introduced when the Q line was removed?
RC
I regularly read the NOTAMS, using a combination of NotamPro and manual sifting through a significant amount (albeit much improved through your intervention) of irrelevant detail.
I certainly don't subscribe to the "too difficult, therefore not my problem" school of thought, not least because I want to do everything I can to protect my own safety and/or bank balance when I'm up there!
What I don't understand, despite reading all of these threads over recent months, is...
...it is the CAA who are deliberately blocking its release, despite requests from myself and others.
RC
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mike Cross said:
Well, "This must be some new meaning of the words "[fail] safe" with which I am not familiar" (correction of quotation welcome if anyone can be bothered to look it up).
UI design is not that easy. It seems to turn out in practice that giving you 71 pages of irrelevant garbage is not "fail safe"; it's just "fail". You can't have some random bod just decide what is going to be "fail safe", you need experience of UI design and you probably then ought to test the results in a usability lab before you have much of a serious clue as to what is going to happen in real life.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that the NOTAM UI went through the UI design and usability testing procedures that one might reasonably hope for these days in a safety critical software system.
[GtW is a software engineer; not a professional UI designer but with enough experience to know a failure when he sees one.]
The whole point of the AIS site tools is to filter the output down to that which is relevant to your intended flight. If you take the trouble to learn how to use the tools you can get good results. If you don't then the system fails safe, i.e. it gives you everything.
UI design is not that easy. It seems to turn out in practice that giving you 71 pages of irrelevant garbage is not "fail safe"; it's just "fail". You can't have some random bod just decide what is going to be "fail safe", you need experience of UI design and you probably then ought to test the results in a usability lab before you have much of a serious clue as to what is going to happen in real life.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that the NOTAM UI went through the UI design and usability testing procedures that one might reasonably hope for these days in a safety critical software system.
[GtW is a software engineer; not a professional UI designer but with enough experience to know a failure when he sees one.]
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude
The system will assume you want NOTAM relevant to VFR and IFR flight. If you are VFR you can change it to VFR only and get less data. If you do not want NAV warnings you can change the setting from General + Misc to General and get less data. You can choose to exclude NOTAM older than x days on the assumption that you have already seen them and get less data. If the defaults were set to return less data then a pilot might not get what he needs. How is this safer?
Agreed about the usability issue. I've always said it's poor, but at least it now works and produces reliable results.
Your "random bod" is the combined expertise of the UK AIS office. You are in danger of living up to your handle if you're not careful.
RC
The CAA's explanation is (in paraphrase):-
"We are considering the desirability of regulating third party suppliers of Aeronautical Data. We do not wish to release this data, only to have to withdraw it should the results of this consideration be that it should be witheld."
This was in April I think, no further news since. I have pointed out that this is not supplying data via third parties, it is supply by the UK AIS office direct to Flight Crew. I have also pointed out that the info is disseminated worldwide to other States' AIS's and that it is freely available from official sites such as this one (Choose RAW as the output format). Regulation would require legislation and would have no effect on suppliers outside the UK. I have suggested a class license licensing the data for use by Flight Crew for the purpose of flight planning their own flights, with all other use (i.e. commercial) requiring a separate license. I have also suggested a voluntary quality scheme, similar to ISO9000 with the right to use a "CAA Recognised" logo on the software.
If you think the CAA should release the data please write to ADAP 1 at the address in my post on this page. A copy of any letter you may write e-mailed to me would be useful ammo.
Bluskis
Glad you got it sorted - spread the word. The incident which started this thread would not have happened if everyone took the trouble to understand how it works and used it
Mike.
PS better mention that I represent AOPA on NOTAM issues, just so you know we are actively working on this.
The system will assume you want NOTAM relevant to VFR and IFR flight. If you are VFR you can change it to VFR only and get less data. If you do not want NAV warnings you can change the setting from General + Misc to General and get less data. You can choose to exclude NOTAM older than x days on the assumption that you have already seen them and get less data. If the defaults were set to return less data then a pilot might not get what he needs. How is this safer?
Agreed about the usability issue. I've always said it's poor, but at least it now works and produces reliable results.
You can't have some random bod just decide what is going to be "fail safe"
RC
The CAA's explanation is (in paraphrase):-
"We are considering the desirability of regulating third party suppliers of Aeronautical Data. We do not wish to release this data, only to have to withdraw it should the results of this consideration be that it should be witheld."
This was in April I think, no further news since. I have pointed out that this is not supplying data via third parties, it is supply by the UK AIS office direct to Flight Crew. I have also pointed out that the info is disseminated worldwide to other States' AIS's and that it is freely available from official sites such as this one (Choose RAW as the output format). Regulation would require legislation and would have no effect on suppliers outside the UK. I have suggested a class license licensing the data for use by Flight Crew for the purpose of flight planning their own flights, with all other use (i.e. commercial) requiring a separate license. I have also suggested a voluntary quality scheme, similar to ISO9000 with the right to use a "CAA Recognised" logo on the software.
If you think the CAA should release the data please write to ADAP 1 at the address in my post on this page. A copy of any letter you may write e-mailed to me would be useful ammo.
Bluskis
Glad you got it sorted - spread the word. The incident which started this thread would not have happened if everyone took the trouble to understand how it works and used it
Mike.
PS better mention that I represent AOPA on NOTAM issues, just so you know we are actively working on this.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I access NOTAMS via Avbrief, and haven't yet ever been confused by the information presented. There are adequate filters for me to be able to choose more or less exactly what I'm interested in, especialy (as has already been said) if you filter out all the IFR stuff and the 100nm+ stuff (OK if you want to go to Latvia or Norway).
I'm no genius, but I do wonder how so many bears with little brain, or impatient plonkers, managed to pass exams and flight tests to get a licence who are subsequently defeated by a relatively simple system.
I'm no genius, but I do wonder how so many bears with little brain, or impatient plonkers, managed to pass exams and flight tests to get a licence who are subsequently defeated by a relatively simple system.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Your "random bod" is the combined expertise of the UK AIS office. You are in danger of living up to your handle if you're not careful.
If the defaults were set to return less data then a pilot might not get what he needs. How is this safer?
If the default were to produce one page of really important stuff plus warnings in big red letters "because you didn't choose the xxx option you might have missed something", or in big red letters "there's only VFR stuff here, if you need IFR stuff as well select the option and re-run the query", or "there some bird-of-prey training around too, click here for details", or whatever, that might end up safer.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G the W,
Get of MC's back, your comments about usability are fair but over the top. MC & other have done a great deal to make the AIS more useable. I myself have gone from being one the first people to say the new site was crap to being a supporter of it.
After 15minutes of reading how to use it & experimenting I can now quickly get all the NOTAMs I need for my flights, and using the narrow route briefing correctly they are now mostly relevant. I particularly like that you can get the briefing the day before and then just updates on the day – this saves a huge amount of time on the day of the flight.
If you want an archaic system try using Minitel in France - it took me 3/4 hour to read the 80 NOTAMs it produced for flight I recently did. (you can only read one NOTAM at a time, and sometimes you have to page down to finish the NOTAM off
)
Sure the UK interface can continue to be improved, I'm also sure MC & others will continue to welcome constructive suggestions to do it - but given the complexity of learning to fly, the exams you have to pass to achieve it - there is now NO excuse for not being able to use the AIS system. Those that don't should not fly.
Get of MC's back, your comments about usability are fair but over the top. MC & other have done a great deal to make the AIS more useable. I myself have gone from being one the first people to say the new site was crap to being a supporter of it.
After 15minutes of reading how to use it & experimenting I can now quickly get all the NOTAMs I need for my flights, and using the narrow route briefing correctly they are now mostly relevant. I particularly like that you can get the briefing the day before and then just updates on the day – this saves a huge amount of time on the day of the flight.
If you want an archaic system try using Minitel in France - it took me 3/4 hour to read the 80 NOTAMs it produced for flight I recently did. (you can only read one NOTAM at a time, and sometimes you have to page down to finish the NOTAM off
)Sure the UK interface can continue to be improved, I'm also sure MC & others will continue to welcome constructive suggestions to do it - but given the complexity of learning to fly, the exams you have to pass to achieve it - there is now NO excuse for not being able to use the AIS system. Those that don't should not fly.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 15minutes of reading how to use it & experimenting I can now quickly get all the NOTAMs I need for my flights, and using the narrow route briefing correctly they are now mostly relevant.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared to this time last year it's much much better, so progress is being made..
Which nicely brings us back (almost) to the topic
Any more news on the (alleged) £2000 fine?
Which nicely brings us back (almost) to the topic
Any more news on the (alleged) £2000 fine?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard on the airwaves that there were no less than 4 infringements ( 2 aircraft, 1 microlight and 1 glider) all between the start time of 13:00hrs and 13:15 when Red 1 gave up and went off with his flock.
Believe 3 have been identified. The Air Show organisers are obviously hoping mad, the Reds have also filed complaints and the CAA are involved, talk of prosecutions and 'throwing the book at them'.
Rumour that one of the culprits when questioned about reading NOTAMS and TSA's claimed he 'was in a hurry' !!!!
Make of that what you will.
Anybody else with info?
Believe 3 have been identified. The Air Show organisers are obviously hoping mad, the Reds have also filed complaints and the CAA are involved, talk of prosecutions and 'throwing the book at them'.
Rumour that one of the culprits when questioned about reading NOTAMS and TSA's claimed he 'was in a hurry' !!!!
Make of that what you will.
Anybody else with info?
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately this doesn’t surprise me at all. Was sat on Southend seafront a few months ago, listening into 128.95 while we waited for the Reds to run in. Finished up shaking my head in disbelief as approach had to explain to a succession of aircraft that no, they couldn’t land just at the moment, as one of the biggest and best publicised airshows in the country was about to start.
The best one was a PA28 from Shoreham who wanted to argue the toss, reckoning he could get across the Thames 1 minute before the TRA came into force. . .
Silly sods.
The best one was a PA28 from Shoreham who wanted to argue the toss, reckoning he could get across the Thames 1 minute before the TRA came into force. . .
Silly sods.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bletchley
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any more news on the (alleged) £2000 fine."
Surely all this talk about the amount of the fine is conjecture, the bench (or his/her worship) will decide the amount.
What does interest me, and the legal beagles may care to consider and comment - what would the situation be if the show organiser, and for the case of argument can we assume that any prosecution mounted were succesful, went after one (or more) guilty party (ies) - in an atttempt to recover any costs associated (refunds from disappointed punters) with the cancellation of the display.
I'll bow to me learned collegues expertise - and go and do some more tugging
Surely all this talk about the amount of the fine is conjecture, the bench (or his/her worship) will decide the amount.
What does interest me, and the legal beagles may care to consider and comment - what would the situation be if the show organiser, and for the case of argument can we assume that any prosecution mounted were succesful, went after one (or more) guilty party (ies) - in an atttempt to recover any costs associated (refunds from disappointed punters) with the cancellation of the display.
I'll bow to me learned collegues expertise - and go and do some more tugging
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does interest me, and the legal beagles may care to consider and comment - what would the situation be if the show organiser, and for the case of argument can we assume that any prosecution mounted were succesful, went after one (or more) guilty party (ies) - in an atttempt to recover any costs associated (refunds from disappointed punters) with the cancellation of the display.
I am not a lawyer but I reckon the organisers could do that, regardless of a successful prosecution. They would have to prove their case to a civil law standard which is a lot less difficult than criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) which is presumably what the CAA would need to do.
But the pilot's insurance ought to cover negligence like this.
I would guess the organisers might find it hard to show actual loss of profits (which is about all you can recover under English law) due to a particular part of the show not being able to go ahead. Especially as by the time the relevant bit was cancelled, most/all of the visitors had already paid for their tickets!
Also, fortunately, not everyone sues everyone else at the drop of a hat (well not yet anyway, though it's slowly getting that way). I could think of certain cases of a poorly maintained airfield resulting in serious aircraft damage when taxiing; if every such pilot spent the required £10k-£50k and sued, and won, a lot of smaller fields would have to close down.
I am not a lawyer but I reckon the organisers could do that, regardless of a successful prosecution. They would have to prove their case to a civil law standard which is a lot less difficult than criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) which is presumably what the CAA would need to do.
But the pilot's insurance ought to cover negligence like this.
I would guess the organisers might find it hard to show actual loss of profits (which is about all you can recover under English law) due to a particular part of the show not being able to go ahead. Especially as by the time the relevant bit was cancelled, most/all of the visitors had already paid for their tickets!
Also, fortunately, not everyone sues everyone else at the drop of a hat (well not yet anyway, though it's slowly getting that way). I could think of certain cases of a poorly maintained airfield resulting in serious aircraft damage when taxiing; if every such pilot spent the required £10k-£50k and sued, and won, a lot of smaller fields would have to close down.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I think the insurance has nowt to do with this.
One can not insure oneself for illegal action. And an infringement under the ANO is just that.
Similar to your car insurance not paying for your speeding tickets.
FD
I think the insurance has nowt to do with this.
One can not insure oneself for illegal action. And an infringement under the ANO is just that.
Similar to your car insurance not paying for your speeding tickets.
FD
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can not insure oneself for illegal action. And an infringement under the ANO is just that.
Similar to your car insurance not paying for your speeding tickets
Um, no it isn't.
That analogy would work if someone suggested your insurance picked up the tab for a fine or penalty from the CAA - which isn't the point here.
"Loss of profits" compensation isn't a fine or penalty, but I doubt your insurance would cover it anyway. Most policies I have seen specifically exclude "loss of profits" from the cover.
It would be ridiculous to claim "loss of profits" if you have not been forced to refund the punter's entry fees anyway... Or is someone suggesting the organisers very generously did this?!
[Cynical mode] Maybe more people went on the Monday (to see the Red's display they missed on the Sunday) so the organisers made more money than projected...[/cynical mode]
Similar to your car insurance not paying for your speeding tickets
Um, no it isn't.
That analogy would work if someone suggested your insurance picked up the tab for a fine or penalty from the CAA - which isn't the point here.
"Loss of profits" compensation isn't a fine or penalty, but I doubt your insurance would cover it anyway. Most policies I have seen specifically exclude "loss of profits" from the cover.
It would be ridiculous to claim "loss of profits" if you have not been forced to refund the punter's entry fees anyway... Or is someone suggesting the organisers very generously did this?!
[Cynical mode] Maybe more people went on the Monday (to see the Red's display they missed on the Sunday) so the organisers made more money than projected...[/cynical mode]
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G SXTY
I did exactly the same as you at Southend. My favorite was the instructor from Biggin Hill who was letting Southend know that he was en-route to do low level training over St Marys Marshes... which were within the TRA
Another good one was the aircraft returning from France, expecting to transit Southend, reporting fast jet traffic over the North Kent Marshes. The traffic in question was a Tornado with wings back and burners on, travelling very fast
On another note, the other thing about airshows is that fast jet traffic will be approaching and leaving the TRA, often at low level. Its worth giving such areas a very wide berth. A friend, in legal airspace, had the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight pass below him en route to Southend. A sight he will never forget, he says.
I did exactly the same as you at Southend. My favorite was the instructor from Biggin Hill who was letting Southend know that he was en-route to do low level training over St Marys Marshes... which were within the TRA
Another good one was the aircraft returning from France, expecting to transit Southend, reporting fast jet traffic over the North Kent Marshes. The traffic in question was a Tornado with wings back and burners on, travelling very fast
On another note, the other thing about airshows is that fast jet traffic will be approaching and leaving the TRA, often at low level. Its worth giving such areas a very wide berth. A friend, in legal airspace, had the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight pass below him en route to Southend. A sight he will never forget, he says.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Hampshire,UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The points about loss of profits are probably well made and it is always going to be difficult to quantify exactly how much money would have been lost etc etc.
However I am sure the organisers will have paid for the display by RAFAT and I would be very surprised if this was refundable - especially since the team had effectively already started the display.
Therefore would it not be legitimate to go after the infringers (is that a word?) to recover these direct costs lost as a result of their complete and utter incompetence.
What is the going rate for a Red Arrows display these days - I had it in my mind form sometime in the past that it was around £20 to £25k?
TZ
However I am sure the organisers will have paid for the display by RAFAT and I would be very surprised if this was refundable - especially since the team had effectively already started the display.
Therefore would it not be legitimate to go after the infringers (is that a word?) to recover these direct costs lost as a result of their complete and utter incompetence.
What is the going rate for a Red Arrows display these days - I had it in my mind form sometime in the past that it was around £20 to £25k?
TZ
