Plain Stupid or Criminally Negligent?
 

I have just spent a very pleasant couple of days at Breighton helping at the BAeA Aerobatics Competition. An event which was, as is customary with all BAeA events - NOTAMed. Lots of aircraft came and went without causing any problems to the competitors as they had obviously all read their NOTAMs, contacted the airfield prior to departure, or by radio when en-route for the current airfield information. There was even a PA28 happily doing circuits without causing any problems. There is however always the exception to the rule and today it came as a threesome. One of the competitors was just about to commence his sequence when one aircraft was spotted flying towards the box followed by two others. Three aircraft all playing Follow-My-Leader. Three mechanical contraptions with wings and engines and apparently brainless pilots all strung out in line astern. Without making a single contact call on the radio (and the airfield was busy not just with our aerobatic aircraft) they flew straight through the centre of the box apparently completely oblivious to what was going on. The pilots had clearly not read their NOTAMs, or, if they had, had decided they didn't apply to them. All three apparently did not possess a radio or chose not to use them as no calls were made by them and nobody seemed to be listening out. I know it is perfectly legal to fly without a radio but if you are going to do so then surely it is prudent to check the NOTAMs first and preferably also call the airfield for any specific instructions? Those pilots are very fortunate that they didn't cause an accident. What they did is, to my mind, criminally stupid, selfish, atrocious airmanship and downright dangerous. If it wasn't for the sharp eyes of the Judging Team on the ground then the outcome could have been very nasty indeed. If any one, or all, of those pilots is reading this I have but two things more to say to you:
1 Send an apology to the pilot and the BAeA - the people there go to great pains to make sure their pilots are safe and cause no problems for others.
2 I have your registrations.

I agree with you, but just to put the other side.

It is a requirement to check Notams. The minimum requirement is to phone up and listen to the recording (not all have access to computers). I suspect your Notam was a nav warning, so would not have made the recording.

Your airfiald does not have an ATZ, so no requirement to make a radio call. Our intrepid three may have followed the rules and been totally unaware of your event, and if not local, thought you were just another unlicensed strip.

Rod1

Sorry Rod1, I can't see the other side. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it isn't incredibly stupid.

Cheers

Whirls

I completely agree that this was "...stupid, selfish, atrocious airmanship and downright dangerous", possibly criminally stupid. However, I also agree with Rod1 that the NOTAM system doesn't help.

The Notams system is not fit for purpose. I know people say it's got to be this way because of international standards, and if it was good enough for my father and his father before him then it's good enough for you lad, just get on with it...

But the current text system is error prone. Notams are laced with irrelevant chaff about sites where there might be a baloon launch once a year, phone some number that never answers for details, because the organiser is too lazy to submit a notam for specific launch days. And there are lat/long pairs to identify some 21-sided irregular polygon where something is going to happen...

I didn't see the Breighton one (I've not been flying) and it may well have been completely clear and to the point. But until we have a good graphical (map-based) system that weeds out irrelevant information, occasional GA pilots are going to make mistakes, and lazy ones will be put off looking properly. "stupid, selfish, atrocious airmanship and downright dangerous" - yes, of course it is. It's also human nature, I'm afraid.

We need to keep banging on about it, but until we get a decent Notam system, we may also need "...the sharp eyes of the Judging Team on the ground".

Nonetheless, I do agree with what DX Wombat said.

I was going to post a few words about the NOTAM system being rubbish and how it's easy to miss important stuff for all the clutter, but FREDA and Rod have already contributed along those same lines.

Since you say you have the plane's registrations, surely first thing you did was to contact the owners and get their side of the story before posting your little rant? Did you manage to talk to them? What did they say?

The chickens are coming home to roost from the years of PPL training that uses airfields as enroute waypoints, and peoples' inability to navigate otherwise.

When I wrote last night I was very tired and unwell and as a result I forgot to mention that I am in no way representing the thoughts of the BAeA in what I wrote - I am not a member, simply someone who enjoys being able to go and help from time to time. What I saw yesterday appalled me then and still does today. If the BAeA decides to take action, (and I hope they do) then that will be its decision not mine. Of all the traffic using Breighton yesterday only those three caused a problem, the rest of the traffic appeared to consist of sensible, thoughtful people who behaved impeccably and did as they were asked. Just because something is legal does not mean it is sensible. If you don't have a radio and are planning to visit an airfield which is known to hold quite a few events then it would seem sensible to at least try to discover if there is something planned for the time of your visit.
The BAeA is a great organisation which goes to great lengths to keep people safe and to fit in with the local community so it is a real shame when others fail to take even basic precautions.

No calls please were British
 

The previous remind me of the response received years ago when approaching a popular small airfield North of Biggin where one would have thought that in the interests of safety alone aircraft announcing their approach or intentions to land there would have at the least received a simple- even friendly acknowleldgement -instead of their customary curt -
'No calls allowed' !

By comparison pilots calling up an airfield of similar dispostion - Headcorn
could be assurred of a friendly and welcoming "Join at your discretion" from the late departed Chris - controller and former owner.

ex golf victor india

As a fellow aviator, you could contact the pilots, calmly explain in restrained language what you saw, acknowledge that we can all make mistakes, and urge them to be more careful in future - for the flight safety reasons you mention and to avoid the risk of someone complaining about/reporting them.

I'm sorry you've been unwell. Perhaps it would be better to wait until you've fully recovered and then decide, on calm reflection, whether it still seems worth bothering?
Even if you still think it is, what you say to them then may be more measured. The extravagant adjectives and adverbs you've used here are unlikely to be conducive to productive discussion.

No action is possible IMHO. Class G airspace is Class G airspace and short of an RA(T) there is no ban on flying. A prosecution would make a mockery of ICAO airspace classification.

DX Wombat

The three did not break any laws. Unless you have an RA(T), your were operating an event in Indian country without the protection of an ATZ. I am not saying this is a good thing, it is not, but perhaps you should consider if such an event can be run from a strip without an RA(T) in force? Get an RA(T) and I will come over and help you shoot the B****rds down, but on a Nav warning you have no case.

Rod1

I agree with the OP in as much as this was 'plain stupid' - but criminally negligent I'd think not. Class G is see and avoid - even if the intrepid three were not aware of the NOTAM info it is still their duty to lookout, just as much as it is that of the aerobatics pilot.

Should aerobatics everywhere be NOTAM'ed? I've seen plenty of aircraft practising aerobatics all over the place with no NOTAMs to speak of; is this more dangerous? Should aerobatics with no NOTAM be classed as 'criminally' negligent? What of the pilots who fly through an area where another pilot is doing aerobatics. Are they 'criminally negligent' in the fact that they aren't under a traffic service? What I'm trying to say is, this term 'criminally negligent' seems to be a catch-all these days for anything that could annoy someone else. "Oh my God, I could have been hurt there, now where's the number for my lawyer...? Ah yes, speed-dial 7" (This is not a dig at you, DX Wombat, more at what I think to be the litigous nature of society today)

As for sending an apology to the pilot and BAeA, again why? Class G. I could NOTAM a piece of airspace tomorrow because I want to practise some aerobatics, but I have no legal ability to force people to avoid it. You may have their registrations, but short of creating your own personal 'black book', there's not a great deal more that you can do.

However, I feel that I must add that I do feel that what the intrepid three did was very stupid, and only served to increase the probability of being instantly welded to another aircraft. There is no substitute for proper flight planning and sound airmanship - both of which has not been shown here.

I went for a fly yesterday, and I have to say, having looked at the NOTAM's, I didn't see one for Brighton. Perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough, or maybe I was subconsciously filtering through the amount of 'over engineered' ones.

It wasn't Brighton, it was BrEighton. 'Oop North

Woops. That's probably why then!

If you have registrations, a simple letter to the owner - address on G-INFO would at least get them to consider their actions in future.

We had a microlight guy flying very low around Harrogate a couple of years ago, I got the reg, wrote him a pleasant letter, he stopped.

Flip it the other way round, I departed Breighton some years ago during the week, at around 700', my passenger shouted - Jet ! A Tornado passed close enough for me to hear him and see the pilot.

Yes, he was legal, yes I was legal, but it begs the question of if we had hit, who would have been deemed to be in the right ?

I seem to remember that you had similar problems last year that you posted on here about?

Is it possible to get a temporary ATZ for the event to ensure that anyone passing through at least had to make contact to get info on traffic already in the ATZ?

Then if someone came through without making contact they would have at least broken a rule, and some reeducation could be enforced.

I agree with those suggesting you call the pilots. Posting a rant on here again this year, while ignoring the pilots achieves nothing.

Nobody broke any rules
You 'saw and avoided'

Notams are for Solicitors and Courts not for pilots otherwise they would be graphic, relevant and up to date!

Sorry you are ill , get well soon, then,
call the owners/pilots and ask their side/explain yours, calmly, and we can all learn from it.
T2

From the ANO (which I believe is law :})

and

Of course, it is a rather subjective assessment as to whether these laws were broken and I'm sure some highly paid suit from Holborn could whistfully make a mockery of the Regulator in the courts. However, good airmanship would dictate that pilots shouldn't stumble through an aeros box which was adequately NOTAMed.

As for the 'unfit for purpose' chestnut - so what? We all know it isn't perfect but to wheel out the same old mantra every time someone misses or doesn't even bother to check NOTAMs is not really a valid defence amongst pilots. The argument is almost as infantile as naughty school kids pointing the finger at each other. :)

“doesn't even bother to check NOTAMs is not really a valid defence amongst pilots”

Just to clarify. It is compulsory to check Notams. There is a Tel number with a recorded message, which is accepted as “having checked Notams”. The aero event was not considered important (no RA(T)) so was not included in the message. Our three may have checked Notams and been totally unaware of the aeros event. The airfield is an unlicensed strip so no ATZ and no requirement to call them.

If I was holding an event in class G airspace with no ATZ I would want a RA(T) or I would be very nervous indeed. I would want a risk assessment, and I would probably put observers around the area to spot and report traffic to the competition. Otherwise I would run the risk of “endangering an aircraft”.

That is the way the system works, we may all think it is broken, but that is another story.

Rod1