Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1784554
Brooklands wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Westcott would be a better name to use - much closer and the VOR means that most pilots know where that is.

G

Errrr, isn't Wescott an NDB, not a VOR?

Brooklands


Fair point, well made - but we still all know where it is!

G
#1784584
Longfinal wrote:It’s quite a large chunk of airspace to commandeer .

It's only an advisory warning of meat bombs, not RA(T) or CAS. I presume it's so big in order to allow for them to exit the drop aircraft some distance upwind from the DZ.
#1784597
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Fair point, well made - but we still all know where it is!

Not me. Don't have any need or interest in where NDBs live.

This isn't just snark; it's to point out that not everybody knows what somebody else knows which is why Aylesbury (or whatever town) is a better initial point of reference than what justifiably to many is an obscure location.

I'd have to look it up, which defeats the object somewhat.
#1784602
Westcott is a disused airfield marked on the chart, and a waypoint as WCO on pretty much any aviation GPS.

Aylesbury is on the chart, but isn't on most GPS systems as a waypoint.

I suppose you can't win with verbal descriptions, and that's why graphical representation of NOTAMs is the most useful form.

G
Dusty_B, chevvron liked this
#1784668
RisePilot wrote:It’s military. Being only to 10,000 feet is the clue. It’s a large area because it’s probably a multi-aircraft training drop.

Chiltern Park is up to FL150 (but only 1.5nm rad) and that's civil; I already explained why the large radius, it's not for 'multiple aircraft'; the CAA aren't bothered with the aircraft, just the meat bombs.
#1784681
chevvron wrote:
Longfinal wrote:It’s quite a large chunk of airspace to commandeer .

It's only an advisory warning of meat bombs, not RA(T) or CAS. I presume it's so big in order to allow for them to exit the drop aircraft some distance upwind from the DZ.


Exactly @chevvron . There does seem a tendency among both the NOTAM initiators and NOTAM recipients to regard a NOTAM like this as in some way taking ownership of a chunk of airspace and thereby closing it off to others. It isn't. It's simply alerting aviators to some aerial activity that is planned at a given location. What you do about that information is entirely up to you.
#1784714
David Wood wrote:
chevvron wrote:
Longfinal wrote:It’s quite a large chunk of airspace to commandeer .

It's only an advisory warning of meat bombs, not RA(T) or CAS. I presume it's so big in order to allow for them to exit the drop aircraft some distance upwind from the DZ.


Exactly @chevvron . There does seem a tendency among both the NOTAM initiators and NOTAM recipients to regard a NOTAM like this as in some way taking ownership of a chunk of airspace and thereby closing it off to others. It isn't. It's simply alerting aviators to some aerial activity that is planned at a given location. What you do about that information is entirely up to you.


There is a world of difference between a NOTAM for something like a fixed balloon or model aircraft and one for a DZ. In effect, if not in law, the airspace does become a restricted zone as you would be extremely foolish to fly through it without contacting the organisers or controlling agency. If someone flies through a NOTAM'ed DZ and comes into conflict or worse, the Authority won't be forgiving.
#1784743
Longfinal wrote: In effect, if not in law, the airspace does become a restricted zone as you would be extremely foolish to fly through it without contacting the organisers or controlling agency. If someone flies through a NOTAM'ed DZ and comes into conflict or worse, the Authority won't be forgiving.


Actually I don't agree. I think that it's too easy to overreact to this sort of thing. Your duty as a pilot is to plan and execute your flight in such a manner that, as far as is reasonable in the circumstances, you are able to ensure the safety of your flight, passengers, third parties etc. There is no absolute prohibition of flying over or near parachuting or gliding or any other NOTAM'd activity (except of course a RA(T) or Temp CAS). But plainly flying recklessly through an active DZ or active gliding site such that you or others were endangered would very probably not meet the standard of doing all that you reasonably could to ensure the safety of your flight.

Clearly if you did fly over it in circumstances that were less clear-cut and that resulted in you having your collar felt then if your response was 'I hadn't bothered to check NOTAMs and so I didn't know it was there' you'd expect a clip round the ear. Rightly so. Likewise if you said 'I did know it was there but actually I couldn't care less'. In those circumstances no-one is likely to be very forgiving.

But if your response was 'I saw it was there and on the basis of my judgement I took appropriate action [whatever that might be] to maintain the safety of my flight taking account of this hazard' then, whilst some might still consider your actions (whatever they were) to be unwise and/or may consider that you as a pilot had demonstrated poor airmanship nonetheless in terms of prosecution it would actually be down to the Authority, if so minded, to prove to the satisfaction of a Court that you were negligent, reckless or stupid in what you did. It will all depend on the circumstances.
#1784795
Longfinal wrote:There is a world of difference between a NOTAM for something like a fixed balloon or model aircraft and one for a DZ. In effect, if not in law, the airspace does become a restricted zone as you would be extremely foolish to fly through it without contacting the organisers or controlling agency.

Don't know where you got that from but I never heard of it in my over 40 odd years as an ATCO, FISO and PPL.
I have however experienced some DZ operators who do seem to think that a notified DZ is effectively prohibited to all other traffic and complain if an aircraft flies through it eg Hibaldstow and Chinnor but like a gliding site, even if it's a permanent one listed in the AIP unless it's within an ATZ it's still not barred to other aircraft.
David Wood liked this
#1784812
But if your response was 'I saw it was there and on the basis of my judgement I took appropriate action [whatever that might be] to maintain the safety of my flight taking account of this hazard' then, whilst some might still consider your actions (whatever they were) to be unwise and/or may consider that you as a pilot had demonstrated poor airmanship nonetheless in terms of prosecution it would actually be down to the Authority, if so minded, to prove to the satisfaction of a Court that you were negligent, reckless or stupid in what you did. It will all depend on the circumstances.


There might even be an argument that if the activity was so dangerous, that it was the authority that was being reckless by not creating a restricted area!
Stu B liked this