Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 17
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1457090
Moli wrote:That notam doesn't make much sense to me, if I was on a BS with London Info that would qualify as obtaining an Air Traffic Servce, what difference would that make?
Perhaps the issuer meant obtain a radar service?
Moli

I was wondering if it was just me...is it a TRA? Or is it really just a warning that there is a military exercise going on so "just watch out" because it says "requested" not "must" or "required"...I think the latter.

Regards, SD..
#1457140
It was a warning of increased aerial activity associated with, I believe, large formations of Chipmunks for the event this weekend. It wasn't a TRA so traffic was free to fly through the area autonomously keeping good look out and complying with the rules of the air.

As for the comment "If it is the one in question, the request to avoid or obtain an air traffic service puts a different slant on it.",, I'd be interested in what is meant by different slant.

Interestedly if you look at the LARS coverage chart in the UK there is a swathe of airspace where there is no service available which was in that area so one might have struggled to get the ATS.
#1457143
ratman wrote:
As for the comment "If it is the one in question, the request to avoid or obtain an air traffic service puts a different slant on it.",, I'd be interested in what is meant by different slant.
.



I took it to mean " if its only a request and not mandatory then there is no risk of licence suspension" but I bet a few other people have a different slant!
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1457146
I simply meant that the NOTAM originator didn't solely request that everyone kept away, which is what I'd originally taken from what was* described; there was another option suggested which was to have a Service as further protection.

None of that should be construed as me considering it a well worded NOTAM - I don't think it was at all.



*Assuming, of course, that the quoted NOTAM was in fact the one that was being referred to.
#1457147
jollyrog wrote:Two more complaints from Gatwick today that I was too high, when I wasn't. I made it clear that I hadn't infringed and no more said, but it is this kind of thing that troubles me about the new proposal.


It's worth asking ATC some day what altitude your mode C is showing them. Perhaps it's showing a bit too high. It can show up to 200ft higher than you really are, and still be within spec. This would certainly explain the many complaints that you're reporting.
#1457150
There was no possibility of any provisional license suspension for flying through the areas NOTAM'd in that case; it was Class G, no RA(T) and was, for the whole, outside notified airspace structures (ATZs etc). It was an H series NOTAM which is a Navigation Warning; RA(T)s are always J series NOTAM.
Last edited by ratman on Sun May 22, 2016 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1457151
It's a stupid notam. One where the originator is attempting to get people to stay away from a piece of airspace, when they have no authority to do so. If there was sufficient reason for people to stay away, they would have gotten a restricted area. As there wasn't they should have just told people of their intended movements and left it at that.

Ratman, do NOTAMs ever get refused on the basis that they are just notifying of routine activity, and as a result simply add clutter to a NOTAM briefing?
#1457154
Dublinpilot, yes they do get refused and frequently so when there is little to be gained from their promulgation. The CAA has 2 aims in its role as coordinator of unusual aerial activity: to issue relevant NOTAMS in a timely manner and to ensure that NOTAM proliferation is countered. Hence the reason why the V Series NOTAM for overseas warnings has been scaled-back to one or 2 and better use of the UK AIP.

Trust me, not all requests for a NOTAM end up with one; similarly, not all requests for RA(T)s end up being approved.
#1457194
dublinpilot wrote:It's worth asking ATC some day what altitude your mode C is showing them. Perhaps it's showing a bit too high. It can show up to 200ft higher than you really are, and still be within spec. This would certainly explain the many complaints that you're reporting.

I didn't get to speak with the Gatwick, the complaint was relayed via Redhill who don't have RADAR.

Via a friend, I'm on the case now, hopefully this will be looked at in more detail. The avionics installation is new and based on the readings I saw yesterday, I don't think it's over reading.
#1457209
jollyrog wrote:
dublinpilot wrote:It's worth asking ATC some day what altitude your mode C is showing them. Perhaps it's showing a bit too high. It can show up to 200ft higher than you really are, and still be within spec. This would certainly explain the many complaints that you're reporting.

I didn't get to speak with the Gatwick, the complaint was relayed via Redhill who don't have RADAR.

Via a friend, I'm on the case now, hopefully this will be looked at in more detail. The avionics installation is new and based on the readings I saw yesterday, I don't think it's over reading.


when I had a new transponder fitted they didn't bother attaching to the static sorce just put it straight to cabin air. It over read FL dependant on speed. On the flight test ATC thought I was in an airway.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 17