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

: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.)