Yesterday a local aerial photographer came in just fuming. Apparently he was
working within the Seattle Class B and called FSS to get an update. He had a
squawk and was in touch with Approach, of course. Anyway, FSS told him that
they could not find his flight plan and that he was required to have a
flight plan for aerial photography. The operator really chewed him out for
it, saying that there was a NOTAM requiring this flight plan and that it was
filed in the extended edition of the NOTAMs. The operator basically refused
to help the pilot.

I am reminded of the 'public notice' that Arthur Dent's house would be
demolished in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:" It was kept in a locked
drawer in a disused basement behind a door marked "Beware of the Leopard."

Anyway, since I also do a fair amount of aerial photography and had not
heard of this NOTAM I called FSS this morning for clarification. It seems
that there is no NOTAM, but some sort of "Notice of Public Interest" that
FSS briefers get, hence pilots have no access to it. If the pilot tells FSS
that they are doing an aerial photography mission, then FSS is supposed to
tell the pilot to coordinate the flight with the Seattle Military Desk at
(253) 352-3523. This requirement is supposedly imposed on aerial photography
only, but the briefer thought it might be a good idea to call this number
any time you are loitering over industrial or other areas. He called it the
"Little Old Lady" rule. If it might frighten the "Little Old Lady" into
calling the police, then talk to the Seattle Military Desk.

I suggested that it might be better to just tell the "Little Old Lady" to
stuff it, which is what used to happen. Nowadays, though, I guess that just
is not possible.

I have no idea whether this applies to any flights outside of the Seattle
area. I also asked if there were any other "Notices of Public Interest" like
this and the briefer said he could not tell me. The briefer allowed that
since there was no way for pilots to know about this he could not see how
any enforcement action could be brought against a pilot that did not comply.
He also thought that the operator's attitude yesterday was improper. While
it is not yet a requirement that pilots tell Flight Service the reason for
their flight it looks like things are headed that way. I am also sending the
text of this to AOPA.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


Ne Obliviscaris