0

Is it legal (as in "is there international agreements not do so") for country A to issue NOTAMs about some territories in country B. Does it matter both A and B recognize each other?.How such things are handled? Does such NOTAMs were issued in reality?

Like:

  • FAA declares NOTAM about Heatrow airport in UK
  • Argentina's equivalent of FAA issues NOTAMs about Falkland Islands.
  • PRC issues NOTAMs about Taiwan.
Tauri
  • 111
  • 4
  • 1
    Never heard of international agreements on that subject, but I would say, yes. If an NOTAM about another nation is pertinent to pilots traveling there, or means to alert pilots of hazards associated with nations unfriendly to your state, a NOTAM makes sense.. – Romeo_4808N Mar 01 '23 at 14:16
  • This might be a better fit on Law SE. But really, why might it not be legal? It is a notice, just a possibly useful piece of information. There’s no jurisdiction implied, and they are really just relaying information that’s already out there. – Michael Hall Mar 01 '23 at 16:09
  • 1
    @MichaelHall notams have legally binding status. If the FAA issues a NOTAM declaring a no-fly zone, anyone violating that will be in serious trouble. Now consider China declaring a no-fly zone over all of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan and setting out to enforce it with their armed forces. If the NOTAM were legal, them flying their jets over Japan and shooting down Japanese and other airliners on the way to Tokyo would in your world be perfectly fine as they were just enforcing the NOTAM they created. – jwenting Mar 02 '23 at 10:28
  • I think Cyprus is a perfect example. The border dispute there also shows in an ongoing NOTAM battle, each issuing NOTAMs over what they consider their own airspace. – Sanchises Mar 02 '23 at 11:37
  • @jwenting, I’ve enforced no fly zones, they aren’t created or promulgated by NOTAM! No fly zones are created by UN Security Council resolution, or state department/ congress. Armed enforcement over sovereign territory is WAY out of the scope and intent of FAA jurisdiction and the NOTAM system. You’re comparing “fyi, taxiway B is out of service for construction…” with overt acts of war. – Michael Hall Mar 02 '23 at 15:35
  • 2
    @MichaelHall This issue came up after the shootdown of MH17 over Ukraine. The FAA NOTAM A0004/22 bans flights in Ukraine and says "THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHEN THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER." These are who the FAA has authority over. – user71659 Mar 03 '23 at 00:52
  • @user71659, That would have been an excellent example to include in the question, and I might later address it in my answer. However, it neither negates the basic truth of my answer in 99%+ of NOTAMS, nor does it bolster jwenting's comparison. Yes, the FAA does have jurisdiction over US Carriers and crews operating overseas, and it makes sense to prohibit them from flying into active combat zones. But they cannot issue a blanket no fly zone of the sort that has persisted over Northern and Southern Iraq which most people are familiar with. – Michael Hall Mar 03 '23 at 02:45
  • @MichaelHall the FAA constantly created temporary no fly zones through NOTAMs for things like presidential visits, major sporting events, and things like that. – jwenting Mar 03 '23 at 09:54
  • @user71659 mind that that's a restriction applying only to aircraft under FAA regulations, so US registered aircraft. The FAA can't tell say Japanese aircraft that they aren't allowed to fly over Japan (or over Ukraine), only that they can't fly over the US. – jwenting Mar 03 '23 at 09:56
  • @jwenting, those are called TFRs, (temporary flight restrictions) they are not no fly zones. You may fly through them under certain conditions. Pilots are informed of TFRs through the NOTAM system, but don’t confuse the two - an OTS is as much a NOTAM as a TFR. And the question wasn’t about TFRs, or FAA restriction on US carriers and crews flying over combat zones. It was a generic question about generic NOTAMS which overwhelmingly consist of mundane airport information. If you want to presume otherwise you are welcome to provide an answer based on your interpretation of the OP's intent. – Michael Hall Mar 03 '23 at 18:40

1 Answers1

2

Yes, it is perfectly legal for one nation to “publish” a NOTAM for territories in another nation.

(I changed your wording from “issue” on purpose, I will explain at the end once I have established the basis for it…)

First, let’s define what a NOTAM IS:

From the FAA:

A NOTAM is a notice containing information essential to personnel concerned with flight operations but not known far enough in advance to be publicized by other means. It states the abnormal status of a component of the National Airspace System (NAS) – not the normal status.

More information can be found on the FAA website here: FAA NOTAMS

Another good definition from Theconversation.com:

The NOTAM system is a computer network run by the Federal Aviation Administration that provides real-time updates to crews about situations relating to weather, infrastructure, ground conditions or anything else that may affect the safety of flight.

To summarize, the NOTAM system is means for dissemination of information in a positive and collaborative manner for the purpose of enhancing awareness and safety for flight crews and passengers. It is managed between friendly nations in a cooperative way.

Next, let’s define what a NOTAM is NOT:
An instrument of foreign policy or means to impose political will over a sovereign nation. Nor is it a means for the FAA to impose regulations domestically, that's what the FARs are for.

Finally, let's discuss how it works: (disclaimer – I have never participated in the creation or distribution of NOTAMS, but have been a user of the output for years and have an educated feel for how things work)

  1. Local airport authorities and ATC have information that is useful.
  2. They enter the information into a database of some sort.
  3. The NOTAM system provides the means of distribution.
  4. Users extract this information as needed.

To expand on your Heathrow UK example, let's say a maintenance worker driving around the airfield notices a pothole that needs fixing on taxiway B. He/she would notify their supervisor who would notify the airport manager. The airport manager would then coordinate with ATC as well as maintenance to decide on the best time to close that taxiway to fix the pothole. Once a decision is made, that information would be uploaded into a database so that the FAA can disseminate it through the NOTAM system. Any crews going to Heathrow during that time would then know what to expect.

For another example touching on "no-fly zones" mentioned in a comment, let's say local ATC decided to issue a TFR (temporary flight restriction) because King Charles scheduled a PR Tea visit to the controllers in the tower. Same thing, this local TFR would be uploaded into a database for the FAA to extract and publish as a NOTAM.

In other words, the information published in NOTAMS is "grassroots", meaning it originates locally and is pushed up to a central location. The FAA knows nothing of detailed ground operations at Heathrow or the King's tea schedule, so they would not, and could not actually create anything. It isn't their jurisdiction, they have no authority.

Getting back to your word "issue"; if you meant simply that they distribute the information then you could say they issue a NOTAM. But they aren't the originators, they simply publish them using the NOTAM system as a conduit, and this is totally legal. It is likely even required in some cases per IACO agreements.

Questions about how nations deal with border disputes is outside the scope of aviation, and is probably a better fit on Politics or Law SE.

Michael Hall
  • 25,964
  • 2
  • 62
  • 99