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.
1 reply
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.
4 replies
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.
How is this a “return to sensibilities”? It seems like the opposite and when this change was made under Biden 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 crashes.
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?
2 replies
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.
2 replies
Does this mean women don’t have to pay attention to them now.
Yep, just like Gulf of America.
Hello RAF-
Perhaps we should consider the progress already made in opening our doors to the “Ole Boys Club”? I’m not convinced that history is lauding Amelia Earhart as a pioneer or pacesetter for women in aviation. Instead, I think well meaning people - men and women - have slowly demonstrated the untenablity of gender bias, beginning with the involvement of women pilots delivering combat aircraft to the theater in WWII all the way up to women astronauts today.
Maybe we should glance back at the progress we have made and take pride. And in taking pride in what we have done, we can resolve that it is a good thing and should continue.
John Caulkins
Communist? Marxist? Good grief, hyperbole much?
What always confused me about the NOTAM name change is how the AIM, Airmans Info Manual, escaped the 2021 WOK hatchet.
My mother, a woman, was an airman. She learned to fly during WWII by using her auto gasoline ration stamps to by gas for a T-Craft. My mother built the first civilian airport, and FBO, in Alpena, MI. The airport was dedicated just weeks after the Japanese surrendered aboard the Missouri. She was one of the founders of the Michigan 99’s. My brother and I grew up surrounded by women pilots. All of them wonderful pilots. My first log-book entry is from a female CFI when I was 14. Women pilots make up 7% of the pilot population yet only cause 2% of the accidents. Let that stat sink in. The women pilots I knew were proud to be called Airman, Airmen.
2 replies
Raf, the term "mankind " was always inclusive.
The term “airmen” in our language was similarly inclusive.
Changing traditional language (like from semester to ovester) is not progress, it’s more the stuff of sillyness and a general lack of understanding of the history of language.
1 reply
If it is a culture war, it’s hard, from your comment, to tell where you stand on it. My take is this. It became a culture war when they rename it to “mission”. There was no need, otherwise. On a larger plane, the differentiation between cabin and cockpit is obvious. “Flight attendants,(or Stews) please secure the cabin for landing” doesn’t result in the help running around making sure the pilot’s tray is up. On your tiny light sport, the two merge into the “place where people go sit”.
“mankind” has only been inclusive in the sense that humans have typically been male-dominated, and the male-dominated societies say “mankind” is “inclusive”. But from a logical point of view, shouldn’t “womankind” be the “inclusive” form, since it literally includes “mankind” in it?
Let’s have a show of hands: who cares what terms some politician tell us we must use for this or that reason? NOTAMS (like long-used gender pronouns) are the same now they’ve always been, and most of us just ignored the ridiculous gender affirming name change. Nothing has really changed.
While a controller at ORD, three female AAL pilots came over to the TRACON to take a look. They were all scheduled to fly together as the entire crew. The lady Captain told me that when ever that happens, they don’t call it the cockpit. It is for that flight called the box office. Made me blush. Right.
The term “Air Missions” was rather silly, in that it was clearly meant to keep the acronym “NOTAM” the same while attempting to be literally gender-neutral. But what was also interesting is that “ACS” (Airman’s Certification Standards") was left alone when that could have easily been renamed “Aviator’s Certification Standards”).
But the most ridiculous thing is spending the time and tax-payer money to revert it back to the original name, when the original argument against the change in the first place was that the words didn’t matter. So either the words don’t matter and it should have just stayed as “Air Missions”, or words do matter to some people. It can’t be both ways.
1 reply
you could just say that you don’t either and it’s the herd that’s telling you to say these things.
“How is it communist? How does a change from airmen to air missions fit in with a communist ideology?”
That ideology was based on ripping out existing culture and replacing it with state approved culture. This includes removing history, traditions, sand blasting religious symbols from buildings, removing statues, and even renaming entire segments of society with de-humanizing terms (like latin-x). So YES, there is a lot of similarity to soviet style communism.
1 reply
The takeaway: If the system isn’t helping pilots, air traffic controllers, or passengers, then all this arguing is just BS. BTW: Jack Nisen’s argument holds some water, but it leaks heavily.
The English language has a long history of having formal and colloquial terms for the same thing. So let’s set aside the unfortunate etymology of “cockpit” as a place for wagering on male fighting fowl, and simply adopt “flight deck” as the gender-neutral descriptive term. Let’s also agree that the original last word in “NOTAM” was anachronistic and exclusive, and that the expense of changing it to “Air Missions”, while well-intentioned, will be at least doubled by reverting it to “Airmen”. So I suggest that if it needs to be changed, everyone should accept “Notice To Pilots”, as the more accurate name. But if the current administration is so eager to root out any waste of tax-payer money, it’s more than a little disingenuous to spend more of it on such trivia.
Also, it should be noted that there are 'way more than two gender identities, for which our centuries-old language has failed to accommodate. Statistically, everyone reading this forum has at least one extended-family member in the cohort.
1 reply
It was a waste to change it the first time, and it’s a waste to change it back. Fix the damn NOTAM system already. Changing names instead of solving problems; if there’s a better illustration of the sorry state of our federal government, I haven’t found it yet.
As we can see, the people who are creating these division and distractions in society have done a pretty good job so far.
“How is this not the same?” It is not the same, it is undoing previous government meddling. It is un-meddling.
2 replies
Sorry but this is dumb and a waste of our money.
I don’t really care about the name, although Notices to Air Missions being inclusive of female aviators and unmanned aircraft makes sense. To revert back to something that was dumb in the first place is complete idiocy in action. I don’t know anyone who refers to themselves as an Airman
But if we’re going to waste money we should as least change our pilot certificates to, well PIlot Certificates or Aviator Certificates, because once again nobody uses the term Airman.
Thanks DOGI, Department of Government Inefficiency for wasting tax dollars so efficiently.
That’s because it’s called the “Aeronautical Information Manual.”
I’m not convinced that history is lauding Amelia Earhart as a pioneer or pacesetter for women in aviation. Instead, I think well meaning people […]
‘Instead’ implies that one factor replaces the other. In tis case, the efforts of well meaning people augmented, but did not replace, Earhart’s efforts.
It’s government meddling because it’s focusing on something that ultimately doesn’t matter much, instead of actually trying to fix the NOTAM system that I think we can all agree needs a major overhaul to be useful.
…but your logic is wasted on some egomaniac who has no idea what he is talking about, except to react to some stray thing that ran through his head. This is like the straw thing. Or DEI in air traffic control. Nonsense BS good, anything Biden bad. Nothing better to do with his time and our money.
That’s not either reasonable, nor sensible. Expensive BS for no reason.
Wasting money and other resources on this stupid BS is hardly cost and waste cutting.
Okay but isn’t this change just another form of state approved culture? The state wants to focus on the masculine over the inclusive?
With traditions, I seem to recall it was tradition for all stores to close on the holiday so why is it acceptable for that tradition to have ended when it’s not acceptable the NOTAM acronym to be modified?
This change feels a lot like meddling while rome burns.
1 reply
It’s unmedelling? You mean it’s meddling to roll back a previous change? It’s still big government telling you how to think.
"That’s one small step for man… BTW, what are those round cast iron things in the road?
1 reply
It has long been an acceptable convention in English to use male terminology when referring to people of both genders. One simply has to read anything printed more than about 20 years ago to learn that. The problem is our current generation isn’t well-read and is too sensitive to having hurt feelings to understand.
So the word “airmen” is in fact inclusive. As is “human” and “mankind.”
“Okay but isn’t this change just another form of state approved culture?”
When the state is actively driving language changes and cultural changes; it’s out of line. That’s when the state is no longer a servant of the people.
1 reply
When the state is actively driving language changes and cultural changes; it’s out of line. That’s when the state is no longer a servant of the people.
Isn’t that exactly what big government is doing right here?
I mean if the problem is the government directing changes to language then shouldn’t trump have said it’s totally up to individuals what its called rather than big government actively driving a language change here?
Does that mean that trump is no longer a servant of the people because he has pushed for multiple language changes?
1 reply
Though even Neil said he had intended to say “That’s one small step for a man…”. And yes, the rest of that quote was “one giant leap for mankind”, but the culture was more male-dominated back then with less consideration paid to terminology.
Like it or not, culture as a whole is changing to be more inclusive, regardless of how much or little “the state” or others want that to happen.
1 reply
Indeed. That was 55 years ago. Do people really want to go back to living in 1969? If so, give up your phones, your GPS navigation, the internet and most modern conveniences.
So much silliness -
We have mankind and notices to airmen
For those offended by cockpit it, like port and starboard came from the sea - The term “cockpit” originated in the nautical world . It originally referred to a sunken pit or well in the deck of a sailing ship, usually near the stern, where the ship’s steering wheel and controls were located.
Thus the cockpit is where those who operate the vessel work
and the cabin is where the non cockpit crew are carried as oxygen depleting passengers
We have enough problems to not need to fabricate more.
Undoing “state defined” language and culture is a good thing; quite the reverse of defining them. So no, freedom is not slavery, lol.
1 reply
Sadly, the lack of flying weather has been a persistent issue in my location for much of this winter.
So “long accepted” that it goes back well-before the origin of the English language. It reflects the societal insignificance of females historically, to the extent that when it became necessary to have a term for the other gender, it was always by something concatenated to the term for “man”. This reflected the fact that social power in those days was predominately a function of muscle mass. We are centuries removed from muscle being the determinant of power in society, but our language has not kept up.
This not about “hurt feelings”, any more than giving a freed slave “40 acres and a mule” made him an equal member of 19th century society. It has long been established that a society’s language both reflects and affects it. As long as its language describes more than half of its members using adjectival forms of “man”, there is the implication that they are a subgroup, not an equal party.
It’s high time that we eschew gender implications where none exists. We have perfectly good gender-free nouns for nearly every job in aviation. Our federal documents should reflect that.
As a European looking across the pond, this debate is very insightful of the USA mindset just now.
I don’t have any skin in this game and nothing to add on the rights and wrongs of the changes.
But… it is interesting to note that this thread had generated as much or more interest than any other subject recently. If I had started a thread on what could be done to improve the NOTAM system it might have got half a dozen replies…
What a strange state of affairs that culture wars have outstripped real life-changing events in the consciousness of the nation.
It won’t end well.
P
Undoing “state defined” language and culture is a good thing; quite the reverse of defining them. So no, freedom is not slavery, lol.
How is mandating NOTICE TO AIRMEN not state defined? It is the state (Big Government) defining the terminology.
If Notice to Air Missions is state defined then notice to airmen must be as well? You can’t have it one way but not the other otherwise you’re just being hypocritical.
1 reply
Go flying and enjoy being a pilot! Don’t waste time with those “wars”. They (the “gods” of war) don’t really understand the joy of flying. They just love the million they receive in every year and the photos when they wave in SAFR Washington DC.
"How is mandating NOTICE TO AIRMEN not state defined? "
Because the common parlance in use was “airmen”; well before the FAA formed in 1957. The FAA used the common term to notify people who flew. The term “air missions” is just asinine because no one tells their family “see you in a few hours, I’m going on an air mission”.
2 replies
Arthur, I see what you’re getting at, but I think ovester although witty, is a bad example. Semester comes from Latin and just refers to a six-month period, it was never about gender. Words like mankind and airmen do have gendered roots, but they’ve long been understood as inclusive. Language does change over time, but those changes should make sense and add clarity, not just replace words for the sake of it.
No AJ, but very few young girls, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, reply, “I want to be an airMAN.” There is a cognitive dissonance caused by an inappropriate noun. No wonder we are woefully behind in recruiting many capable women into the aviation profession. Also, I have no doubt that you have never felt it, but if you have daughters, I’ll bet they have.
1 reply
The term “air missions” is just asinine because no one tells their family “see you in a few hours, I’m going on an air mission”.
Oh right!!! so the VP and other dignitaties are in the wrong?
Special Air Mission provides air transportation for the president of the United States (POTUS), vice president of the United States (VPOTUS), first lady of the United States (FLOTUS), presidential Cabinet, U.S. congressional delegations (CODELs), and other high-ranking American and foreign dignitaries.
this service was renamed in 1991. Did you protest the renaming as government interference?
well before the FAA formed in 1957
Do you want to go back to 1957 then?
…very few young girls, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, reply, “I want to be an airMAN.”
And how many young boys would give that reply? How many guys here dreamt of being an “airman” - as opposed to being a PILOT?
There was no need to change the name in the first place so there should be little opposition to changing it back.
Yes, yes, yes, common sense back in and idiocy out. We are not out of the woods yet after 4 years of lunacy, but it’s looking good.
Finally! I don’t think I know anyone who hasn’t cringed every time they heard an ATIS recording intone, “Notice to Air Missions.”
What we really need is a federal law forbidding politically or ideologically-motivated terminology and name changes across the federal government. It’s good to see Ft Bragg back, because everyone knows where and what it is, and everyone just looked puzzled every time they heard “Ft Liberty.” No different from tearing down all those statues a few years ago - history was what it was, and no tantrums will change that. Learn from it as necessary and move on.
Rep Jan Schakowski speculated on the floor of Congress that women are deterred from jobs in manufacturing because the word contains “man.” Notices to Air Missions reflected the same ridiculous mind set.
This shouldn’t even be political. I think “Gulf of America” for something that has been the Gulf of Mexico for 400+ years is beyond silly, too.
Buttigieg probably didn’t know there was an AIM, so they missed it. Every enlisted E-1 through E-3 in the Air Force is an Airman, too.