Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Dominie
#1840447
David Wood wrote:When calling the Ops unit on the RT the unit will advise whether the DA is Active or Not Active (CAP413 uses those terms, not Inactive, Hot or Cold). As an aside, the guy I was talking to on the RT used the term Inactive which was very difficult to distinguish from 'active' in an open cockpit. I had to ask him to repeat it three times. Hot and Cold, whilst non-standard, are less easily muddled, I suggest.

The words Hot and Cold have a different meaning, surely, to military pilots (not that I was one). IIRC, Cold means that no-one is using it at the moment, but it might be used in a few minutes (not that it is closed).
User avatar
By Rob P
#1840453
Lakenheath use 'cold' for D208. Whether this means 'at the moment' or 'today' I have no idea, the net effect is that you can plough across it.

Rob P
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840470
James Chan wrote:
if the Danger Area is notam'd as Active then it's Active unless it's Inactive in which case, whilst it is still technically a Danger Area and is still notam'd as active it's actually not active at that particular moment and so you may cross without a clearance as if it isn't there. Although it is. Okaaaay.


Why can't they just keep it simple and stupid:
- If it's active then you must ask if you can enter.
- If it's inactive then you must be able to use the airspace without asking.


I think it is fairly simple. But your binary choice doesn’t address the OPs question or all of the possible states of the DA.

If it is NOTAMed Active then you must ask if you can enter.
If it is NOT NOTAMed Active then it is safe to assume that it is inactive and there should be no need to ask permission.

But the OPs point was that it was NOTAMed Active but he decided to call the number and check if that was still the case. He was given fairly clear advice that it was NOTAMed Active but give them a call when nearby. Which he did and was told it was inactive (should have been “not active”) but as they said it was inactive they couldn’t give a crossing service, as there was nothing to cross.

Had it been Active they could have then checked if it was safe to cross and provided a crossing service.

Once it is NOTAMed as Active the only way you will find out if it is actually not active is to ask when in the vicinity.

Be careful about asking for simplicity - the simplest solution for all parties would be to NOTAM it as active. And then do nothing else, and provide no opportunity for crossing/checking etc. Regardless of whether it was actually being used or not. I’m often amazed this doesn’t happen now considering how risk averse we are becoming as a nation.
By allout
#1840472
I think Lewis Carroll/ Douglas Adams would have stood in awe at the invention of such nonsense.
Terry Pratchet would have rejected it as too far fetched for the Disc World.
MattL liked this
By Ibra
#1840484
Still very complicated, all a pilot flying is if it's active or not active when he is crossing, how DA state is managed is not my business :D

The NOTAM is useful for planning but in the air it's whatever FIS or ATC says (just like weather forcast)

Apparently the main risk these days is losing your licenece with DA(*) (after a safe flight & landing), that comes from entring "bye-laws DA without authorisation" rather than the "underlying danger activity"....
Last edited by Ibra on Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:05 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1840485
If it doesn't have bye-laws, doesn't it have the same status as a MATZ? ie - you ought to get permission to cross, but you've not broken a law if you don't?

If you disagree, tell me what law you've broken. I couldn't find one. And if there IS one, what's the point of distinguishing between DAs with and without byelaws?

PS - I'm not asking how wise, or inconsiderate, it is to cross a DA without permission, only how legal it is. Because it has to be illegal for you to risk losing your licence.
User avatar
By Ben K
#1840488
matthew_w100 wrote:If it doesn't have bye-laws, doesn't it have the same status as a MATZ? ie - you ought to get permission to cross, but you've not broken a law if you don't?

If you disagree, tell me what law you've broken. I couldn't find one. And if there IS one, what's the point of distinguishing between DAs with and without byelaws?



Apart from the ANO?
By Ibra
#1840489
matthew_w100 wrote:If it doesn't have bye-laws, doesn't it have the same status as a MATZ? ie - you ought to get permission to cross, but you've not broken a law if you don't?

If you disagree, tell me what law you've broken. I couldn't find one. And if there IS one, what's the point of distinguishing between DAs with and without byelaws?

PS - I'm not asking how wise, or inconsiderate, it is to cross a DA without permission, only how legal it is. Because it has to be illegal for you to risk losing your licence.



Yes only for bye-laws, I was referring to DA(*) in my comments, AFAIK the (*) is how these are shown on the map? other ones you can always cross legally irrespective of their status (and even in reckless way :D ) if you wish
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1840498
allout wrote:I think Lewis Carroll/ Douglas Adams would have stood in awe at the invention of such nonsense.
Terry Pratchet would have rejected it as too far fetched for the Disc World.

Thank you ;) I knew there was a third author I needed to mention, but I couldn't dredge it up when I posted. Terry Pratchett, of course!
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1840500
Ben K wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote:If it doesn't have bye-laws, doesn't it have the same status as a MATZ? ie - you ought to get permission to cross, but you've not broken a law if you don't?

If you disagree, tell me what law you've broken. I couldn't find one. And if there IS one, what's the point of distinguishing between DAs with and without byelaws?



Apart from the ANO?


No. Unless there's a bye-law a DA is literally what it says - a dangerous place to be. As pilot in command it's your call as to whether or not to expose yourself and passengers to that danger. Obviously being reckless would count against you in terms of insurance claims and so on, but simply being there isn't itself unlawful.
IANAL mind you.
matthew_w100 liked this
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1840510
Ben K wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote:If it doesn't have bye-laws, doesn't it have the same status as a MATZ? ie - you ought to get permission to cross, but you've not broken a law if you don't?

If you disagree, tell me what law you've broken. I couldn't find one. And if there IS one, what's the point of distinguishing between DAs with and without byelaws?



Apart from the ANO?


Where in the ANO? Give me the section/paragraph.
User avatar
By Ben K
#1840511
lobstaboy wrote:. Obviously being reckless would count against you in terms of insurance claims and so on, but simply being there isn't itself unlawful.
IANAL mind you.


Well this from the ANO;

A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.


From this webpage;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/part/10/made/data.xht?wrap=true

Would seem to indicate that being reckless in charge of an aircraft is in fact illegal! :thumright: (if not specifically about the DA).

However, I really couldn't be bothered to trawl through the entire ANO to see if there was a specific bit to allow matthew_w100 to be in fact totally legal as he flies across a DA without permission :wink:

So there may be some bit of legislation somewhere that explicitly states 'Thou Shalt Not Cross A Danger Area Unless Authorised', but to me it makes no practical difference, because unless I've got positive assurance that a Danger area is not currently dangerous, I'll not risk it.
User avatar
By Ben K
#1840512
matthew_w100 wrote:
Ben K wrote:
matthew_w100 wrote:If it doesn't have bye-laws, doesn't it have the same status as a MATZ? ie - you ought to get permission to cross, but you've not broken a law if you don't?

If you disagree, tell me what law you've broken. I couldn't find one. And if there IS one, what's the point of distinguishing between DAs with and without byelaws?



Apart from the ANO?


Where in the ANO? Give me the section/paragraph.


My point was, if you're in a DA because you were treating it like a MATZ (i.e. just blatting across) the bit in the ANO about not being reckless is probably enough to make what you're doing illegal - thus breaking a law.
By Ibra
#1840523
Ben K wrote:My point was, if you're in a DA because you were treating it like a MATZ (i.e. just blatting across) the bit in the ANO about not being reckless is probably enough to make what you're doing illegal - thus breaking a law.


The "ANO reckless clause" also applies to MATZ, it actually applies to everything legal or illegal and will materialize if things go badly with poor airmanship to blame, you go inside MATZ without calling and you kill someone or yourself may appear as reckless, no? why it's not applicable to an accident during MATZ transit radio off?

Has been any case of "Danger Area crossing incidents" in UK since 1930?
User avatar
By Rob P
#1840534
Ibra wrote:Has been any case of "Danger Area crossing incidents" in UK since 1930?


Norseman 70285, 15/12/44

Rob P