Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1705914
A bit like PPR and Strictly PPR.....
#1705921
It says 'helicopters only' and drones are - mini helicopters!!Seems to be adjacent to where the old Fairey Aviation hangar (where they assembled Gannets) used to be .
Last edited by chevvron on Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Cub
#1705927
townleyc wrote:Seems a valid NOTAM to me, and sensible - no Ground to FL999

KE


I thought only the Secretary of State had the power to say ‘no flying’ but I may be wrong. Surely this a temporary navigation warning not a restriction of flying?
#1705998
That’s just a nav warning. Hardly a RA(T). I agree, I wonder how this got through. Makes you wonder if NATS are checking the proposals sent their way.
Cub liked this
#1706017
I can offer a little background to this.
1) Anyone can apply for a NOTAM to be issued - particularly where the purpose is to minimise the risk of an aviation incident or accident. Every day you see NOTAM’s notifying Drone activity and warning aircraft to avoid that area.

If you’ve been to Waltham recently, you may have noticed that helicopter activity has increased significantly at Waltham, and that the helicopter activity is centred around the black hangar just east of the 03 T/hold.

However about 300m west of the 03 T/hold (just outside the airfield boundary), there is a business that manufactures professional drones. AIUI, They may carry out drone tests within their business compound at any time, and without warning. (Not over the airfield).

The NOTAM is therefore to pre-warn visiting helicopter pilots, that drones may be operating in that area from surface to 400’ agl (without prior notice) - and they must therefore not try approaching the airfield from that sector at low level.

Hope this helps.
chevvron liked this
User avatar
By Rob L
#1706021
chevvron wrote:It says 'helicopters only' and drones are - mini helicopters!!Seems to be adjacent to where the old Fairey Aviation hangar (where they assembled Gannets) used to be .


Not all drones are helicopter-types (although I suspect this fixed-wing type is not involved in this instance! :D )


Image
User avatar
By Cub
#1706055
Lefty wrote:I can offer a little background to this.
1) Anyone can apply for a NOTAM to be issued - particularly where the purpose is to minimise the risk of an aviation incident or accident. Every day you see NOTAM’s notifying Drone activity and warning aircraft to avoid that area.


Well actually, no you don't. That is kind of the point. You can warn about the activity to assist safe integration or you can request people avoid overflight, in certain circumstances but an individual cannot and should not IMHO suppress flight. That is a 'state' function. There are several residents in Cox Green who would be applying for their own No-Fly Zones if they found out about this.
JAFO liked this
#1706062
I think there needs to be a much tighter process of declaring no fly zones.
Not sure how it made it into the NOTAM system.

Airspace needs to be shared as much as possible, ideally.
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1706095
James Chan wrote:I think there needs to be a much tighter process of declaring no fly zones.
Not sure how it made it into the NOTAM system.


There is an existing, very tight procedure for the establishment of Restricted Airspace and preventing this sort of poorly crafted text entering the NOTAM system appears to be the procedure that is failing.
A le Ron, Flyin'Dutch' liked this