:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

see and avoid?
 

A few years back, returning from a NOTAM'd gliding regional competition at Booker, I had turned the penultimate turning point down at Henley, and was heading for the last little turning point that would keep gliders clear of the Wycombe Air Park traffic......when I saw ahead of me a black and yellow Pitts special doing a falling leaf.

How does a glider give way to somebody doing aerobatics? I had no way of deciding the best way to dodge the display, suffice it to say I flapped about and managed to avoid the self-absorbed pillock, and finished having slipped even further down the list of competitors than usual.....

I was, to put it mildly, seriously annoyed. Marched into the Booker office, spoke to the CFI who said Oh yes, that's probably the Pitts Special from White Waltham.

So still steaming, I rang the tower at White Waltham. Conversation went as follows: "I would like to speak to the pilot of a black and yellow Pitts Special that was flying north of Henley twenty minutes ago"......

WW Tower "I am sorry, we are not allowed to give out that information"

"O well," I replied "In that case I will have to file an airmiss......"

WW Tower "I'll just see if he's in the bar!....."

Fifteen minutes later I had the satisfaction of a discussion with the Pitts Pilot, who swore he had seen my glider and had never come anywhere near me, and yes, he read the notams, and no he would never do it again......."

I felt much better. It is wonderful how the other party in an airprox (as we term it these days) will stick to his story regardless of how many witnesses I have to his/or hers idiotic behavior! Always pays to get in touch with the offending pilot and discuss.

A quick look in the VFR flight guide will tell you that there is FREQUENT aerobatic activity at Breighton. Notam or no Notam. NO EXCUSE.
There will be ample time to argue the legalities while the pieces are being picked up.

Is that really true? How could checking airspace restrictions only be regarded as checking the notams? I've always understood the telephone line to be a last minute update for important stuff rather than an alternative to a proper and full brief.

Have I missunderstood?

“A quick look in the VFR flight guide will tell you that there is FREQUENT aerobatic activity at Breighton. Notam or no Notam. NO EXCUSE.”

That is true. However the last time I flew from the midlands to Wick did I look up every unlicensed strip I was flying near in a flight guide, no. Do I know anyone who does, no. Did I call up every unlicensed strip on the radio, no, it would be impractical to do so.

"I would want a risk assessment :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:"

I know what you are saying, but that is the only way you are going to cover your rear end in this wonderful world.

Please understand I am not defending the flying of the three, I have no idea if the Notam line was used or not, but;

There was no restricted or controlled airspace around the event. There was a note to airman that you might choose to read which would tell you to be extra vigilant as there may be aerobatics taking place. I would like to see all such events protected by an RA(T), but this is not the case.

There was no reasonable expectation that an over flying aircraft would call up an unlicensed strip in the vicinity.

The Organisers would have been fully aware of this, and that an aerobatic event is a threat to other airspace users in class G airspace. Having taken part in such an event in the past the standard of organisation is good and the safety record first class.

The original post asked if the pilots were Criminally Negligent. Obviously we cannot know if the pilots were, but I have attempted to put the question in context. If you do not like the system, join a representative body like the LAA/AOPA and work to improve it.

Rod1

Cows getting bigger wrote:
Thank you for your kind words. Let's not trade insults.

You say that the Notam system isn't perfect. We're agreed on that.

You say that the less-than perfect Notam system is not a valid defence for not checking. We're agreed on that too.

Notwithstanding the second point, I'm merely pointing out that the poor Notam system leads to errors (I've certainly found cases where I've misread the lat/long in a Notam, even after double-checking) and it encourages laziness.

The problem I have with posts like this is that it seems that by filing a NOTAM, than some people think that actually establishes protected airspace. Unless it is an RA(T) then the airspace remains class G and ALL pilots, including though involved in aero's are allowed acces and are required to see and avoid and comply with the rules of the air. There is no requirement to contact anyone, and being VFR *visual* flight rules *ensure* separation. So as far as I can see, no rules have actually been broken and no action could be taken.

Maybe on the other side of the coin perhaps there should be a requirement that ALL aerobatics should be Notamed and protected airspace established as an RA(T) or dedicated aerobatic boxes established? - That is overkill IMHO but could be the result of too much complaining or too many "busts"? In the USA you often find dedicated aerobatics areas on the charts.

However, it is stupid to not check your Notams, or not understand them and one would be prudent to keep well clear, but I don't think it is criminal negligence. The phone number is just "airspace upgrades" and RA(T)'s and won't list an aero's comp. A useful graphical tool like Skydemon shows notams very well, something which AIS should consider.

Rod1

I think we are saying the same thing: WTF has common sense gone ? :mad:

I concur. Many folk think they "claim" an airspace reservation by the filing of a NOTAM. They do not. In Class G the normal rules of the air apply. Perhaps Breighton is an inappropriate venue for such an activity?

I had a telephone conversation with a man who has a permanent NOTAM in the system. He is a kite flyer. I rang him to ask what he was up to because the published details were scanty and it encompassed a route I sometimes use, near one of our landing sites. He told me that no pilot was allowed to fly through "his" airspace and it would be "obvious" when he was operating because he usually put the hazard warning flashers on his 4x4!

"His" airspace was actually bigger than the regional airport's CTR....

I didn't realise that anyone could file a NOTAM, isn't there any kind of check for "mischief" NOTAMs like the kite-flying one? All they do is clog up the system and obscure the ones that really matter.

Of the six fliers based at our strip only two have the faintest idea how to look at the Notams.

Is the system wrong or are the pilots? Discuss.

A few things work against private pilots checking notams:

1) pilot age distribution (many never got to grips with basic IT)

2) historically crap PPL training in this area of the syllabus (NO notams taught where I was in 2000/2001)

3) lack of internet access (or publicly accessible internet access) in many places that people fly from

4) "flying should be like our fathers did it" attitude

I'd say all the above are equally widespread.

Since most new PPLs drop out fast, most of the long-term crowd has been flying for years, and these people will not be hanging about within any school/club environment. So, the only opportunity for education is the 2-yearly flight with an instructor, but the syllabus for this flight doesn't cover internet usage ;)

Also, most people who don't want to get into new knowledge areas will choose an instructor who they know is not going to cause them trouble. Certainly, that's what I would do.

The present internet notam system has been about for only about 6-7 years (in a usable form) which is far less than most old-timers have been flying.

The comprehensive solution - a laptop with mobile internet access - is far too esoteric for the vast majority of pilots.

The pilots are wrong, no question.




But...

We could try to round up all these evil pilots and water-board them until they beg for mercy, and it won't solve the problem. People always make mistakes, and a smaller number don't know how to (or can't be bothered to) check Notams.

We could also ask, beg, plead, cajole, petition... NATS to provide a sensible interface to the Notam system. We know it can be done, and we know it wouldn't cost much, as people have demonstrated it. I'm rather afraid we'd be wasting our time there, too.

“The comprehensive solution - a laptop with mobile internet access - is far too esoteric for the vast majority of pilots.”

That is what I do (a netbook), but in a remote location you will not get a signal.

The by-annual review instructors have been asked to push notam checking, but all the ones I know push the telephone solution. I have spent many hours teaching people to use the internet solution, but occasional pilots who are retired and never used IT soon forget.

Rod1

Yep Notams are crap. Just barely usable and requiring a lot of hardware which is not available in many places.

And then we have people who post fairly provocative threads who obviously do not understand the process behind them either!

Ignorance is bliss - until some beggar puts a RA(T) in the way!

The big sky principle applies. Yes you can NOTAM - no you can not ensure that it will be read.

I've been in the "box" competing and doing well and come close to a glider at Fenland and an Agusta 109 at the NAtionals at Peterboro'. Yes I saw them and the latter was called to me as I saw it. It is still my responsibility to avoid and that comes as a higher priority than than winning.

The judging line do a really good job - they judge they help out with infringement sightings but ultimately it's the bloke in the cockpit who has to look out.

I think the OP is slightly over the top and possibly under the weather.

I do recall a gaggle of microlights bursting the box at the Nationals five years ago and myself getting a little worked up - but only because it disadvantaged me and improved someone else's score:}

.
IMHO the post by stiknruda puts this 'incident' into sensible perspective - as some others have earlier. :ok:

GBOACdave I agree.
The term is much over-used - and almost always misused.

Cows getting bigger Articles 73 and 74 used to be the law. The equivalent articles of the 2009 ANO are 137 and 138.
NB: I'm simply correcting your errors re the law - not agreeing that either 137 or 138 would be appropriate in circumstances such as those alleged by the OP.

Overkill.
A bargain price moderately experienced aviation barrister could do the job perfectly adequately if (which I doubt) the Regulator was silly enough to prosecute pilots for Endangering in circumstances such as those alleged by the OP.

FL
(Formerly a 'highly paid suit' from the Temple - who used to do this sort of case for fellow aviators for a modest fee or FOC.)

So does anybody know why the BAeA doesn't request a RA(T) for their competitions? VINK (the Dutch BAeA) does it for the annual Dutch Aeros contest.

(And yes, that RA(T) gets ignored by people too. But at least you are in a position then to give those pilots a seriously hard time over it.)