Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1852031
TopCat wrote:
Rob P wrote:But WTF is this for?

Not overly bothered about the occasional WTF like that.

But I would really, really, really REALLY like to be able to suppress the Obstacle Erected ones.

There are so many that I genuinely believe it compromises safety to have them in there, as they make it more likely to miss something important amongst all the bloody cranes that I'm not going to crash into anyway.


There are others for whom these are useful, though.
AlanM liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1852035
It is really important to remember that if there is a risk, that risk lies with somebody.

It is easy to dispel a risk, unless you have accountability for it. I know that it feels for GA particularly that there are excessive risk adverse people or organisations, but most of the time someone has to accept it within their role.

Google Bow Tie risk assessments…… and fall asleep immediately as I do weekly in the Change management workshops.
JonathanB, JAFO liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1852036
JAFO wrote:
TopCat wrote:
Rob P wrote:But WTF is this for?

Not overly bothered about the occasional WTF like that.

But I would really, really, really REALLY like to be able to suppress the Obstacle Erected ones.

There are so many that I genuinely believe it compromises safety to have them in there, as they make it more likely to miss something important amongst all the bloody cranes that I'm not going to crash into anyway.


There are others for whom these are useful, though.


That is correct and very much the point;

“You can please some of the people, all of the time………” [yadda yadda]
JAFO liked this
By callump
#1852065
AlanM wrote:It is really important to remember that if there is a risk, that risk lies with somebody.

It is easy to dispel a risk, unless you have accountability for it. I know that it feels for GA particularly that there are excessive risk adverse people or organisations, but most of the time someone has to accept it within their role.

Google Bow Tie risk assessments…… and fall asleep immediately as I do weekly in the Change management workshops.


That risk presumably lies with the drone operator or is it the airport for approving the drone flight within the ATZ?
User avatar
By AlanM
#1852068
callump wrote:
AlanM wrote:It is really important to remember that if there is a risk, that risk lies with somebody.

It is easy to dispel a risk, unless you have accountability for it. I know that it feels for GA particularly that there are excessive risk adverse people or organisations, but most of the time someone has to accept it within their role.

Google Bow Tie risk assessments…… and fall asleep immediately as I do weekly in the Change management workshops.


That risk presumably lies with the drone operator or is it the airport for approving the drone flight within the ATZ?


The ATZ has in many ways (like CAS) been entrusted to an organisation by the government. The risk for avoiding collision would probably fall with that organisation.

The risk for the drone pilot is his, as per his Operations Manual.
callump liked this
By TopCat
#1852075
JAFO wrote:
TopCat wrote:
Rob P wrote:But WTF is this for?

Not overly bothered about the occasional WTF like that.

But I would really, really, really REALLY like to be able to suppress the Obstacle Erected ones.

There are so many that I genuinely believe it compromises safety to have them in there, as they make it more likely to miss something important amongst all the bloody cranes that I'm not going to crash into anyway.


There are others for whom these are useful, though.

Fine. I didn't say these NOTAMs should be removed for everyone. I would like the option to suppress them, that's all.

Who needs crane NOTAMs, though, out of interest? Helicopters at night, perhaps?
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
#1852081
TopCat wrote:Who needs crane NOTAMs, though, out of interest? Helicopters at night, perhaps?


Or anyone taking off or landing close to such a crane.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1852087
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
1. I bet that crane was Notamed.
2. The collision was not caused by the crane but the helicopter flying in IMC into it.


1. Not as I recall
2. True
AlanM liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1852098
JAFO wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
1. I bet that crane was Notamed.
2. The collision was not caused by the crane but the helicopter flying in IMC into it.


1. Not as I recall
2. True


No it was NOT NOTAMd - having worked that airspace it would not even have been info’d to the controllers.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1852107
I can see 2 reasons for the notam that might not have been mentioned
1- so a certain person on duty doesn't go mad on his 100th received call saying "I don'tknow if you know but I've just seen...."
And
2- so the same person, on receiving 1-99 of the above, can reply "no notam checking today then?"
AlanM, lobstaboy, townleyc and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By akg1486
#1852110
Morten wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:Well if I was in the circuit at Duxford and I saw the blessed thing, having read the notam I would be reassured that it was going to stay below 100' agl and not get in my way.
That's useful, surely?

That makes it a lot better! Having had no need to know about it but having been told about it, I can be reassured that it is not, in fact, something I need to know about, because I have been told about it. :scratch: :lol:
Straight out of Yes (Prime) Minster.

The equivalent of a CAT captain turning on the intercom to tell the passengers "There's absolutely no reason to worry". :D
TopCat liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1852193
Irv Lee wrote:I can see 2 reasons for the notam that might not have been mentioned
1- so a certain person on duty doesn't go mad on his 100th received call saying "I don'tknow if you know but I've just seen...."
"


Well I did sorta say that, actually!
Irv Lee liked this