Rob
I think we, once again, missed a great opportunity. These should be renamed “Notices of Pilot Exclusion” or “NoPEs”.
Can I land on that runway? “NoPE!”
Can I fly near the President? “NoPE!”
Does this impact safety? “NoPE!”
I think we, once again, missed a great opportunity. These should be renamed “Notices of Pilot Exclusion” or “NoPEs”.
Can I land on that runway? “NoPE!”
Can I fly near the President? “NoPE!”
Does this impact safety? “NoPE!”
Paleeze tell me we occupy ‘cockpits’ again, too ??
Notice to Airmen is fine with me. But the following is absolutely not:
"The FAA is not commenting on the change, instead referring inquiries to the notice itself, which does not include any rationale.’
Why not? It’s imperative we always question everything and demand answers from our government - Unfortunately, political tribalism with short-term emotionally satisfying victories has distracted many to forgo the importance of government accountability. Hopfully, we can regain that very important action, but I’m not holding my breath.
My light-sport aircraft’s plans use the term cabin for where the people sit, so do I and nearly everyone I know whether a Mooney or RV. It’s not a competition - but it’s also not a culture war battle. Unless of course one wishes to make it one.
I’m stuck here thinking about the FAA’s decision to ditch “Notice to Air Missions” and go back to “Notice to Airmen.” On paper, it’s just a name change, but beneath the surface, it’s a political gut punch. This isn’t about aviation terminology, it’s a reminder that the fight over inclusivity, gender, and progress is alive and well, and right now, tradition is throwing punches.
For pilots, this debate has little to do with acronyms and everything to do with perception. The original change was a signal that Aviation is evolving, and everyone, regardless of gender or identity, has a place in the cockpit. Reversing it says something louder. To many, it’s a nod to the old boys’ club, a quiet way of saying, “Don’t get too comfortable.”
Functionally, I’m fine with it. The NOTAM system won’t miss a beat. But symbols matter, and this one sends a clear message. To some, it’s a win against what they see as bureaucratic nonsense. To others, it’s a reminder that progress in aviation, or anywhere, is never guaranteed.
The turbulence isn’t over. Those who feel shut out will make noise. But for now, all they can do is bitch about it, because in this round, tradition got the upper hand. The only comfort? Winds shift, and the next round is never far off.
1 reply
More interested in the same amount of effort being put into making NOTAM system actually useful.
Current output is like reading the 10 pages of a website small print user agreement. Also doesn’t help that multiple ATC entities will post their own NOTAM of the same event…how about one NOTAM that instead has a listing of impacted entities.
Confidence in system is not helped by the FAA TFR webpage randomly deciding which DC associated airspaces should listed there…sometimes FRZ, SFRA are depicted, sometimes not at all, other times SFRA or FRZ.
…and my EFB app doesn’t help with the ridiculous number of NOTAMs ref’d in a 50 nm VFR flt outside DC airspaces filling 5-10 pages of briefing, 90% of which are dupes.
It was a typical communist m.o. to change it in the first place, equal to the whole latinx bs.
Revise history, destroy norms of culture, foment discord, then march in and implement a Marxist regime.
Want to change a language or a culture? Let it happen organically, from the bottom up.
Let it happen organically, from the bottom up.
Like with the workers at Amazon wanting to create a union? They got stamped on.
It was a typical communist m.o. to change it in the first place
How is it communist? How does a change from airmen to air missions fit in with a communist ideology?
How is this a “return to sensibilities”? It seems like the opposite and when this change was made under the previous admin and the complaint was about “government meddling in day to day matters” how is this not the same?
Finally, what about the cost in the changes? Couldn’t that money go towards making air safety better? Something the USA desperately needs given the recent incidents.
Does this mean women don’t have to pay attention to them now.