[dylan604]

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, but as a pilot (even a commercial pilot about to be instructed by ATC) are you not still expected to look up conditions in the area of your flight? I would expect NOTAMs to be a part of that check of the conditions. If you know of the restrictions and ATC instructs you into that area, a quick confirm request about the NOTAM conflict does not seem out of place.

[_s]

Yes & no, definitely more no for practical reasons. Let me explain;

ATC are ultimately expected to know about restrictions and keep traffic away from them.

NOTAM's are a notorious pain point for nearly all pilots. Modern EFB's make that easier, but in the 121 world - the ops folks handle your routing and plan for that stuff - as a pilot you "trust but verify", and most skim through the all the things (routing, fuels, weather, pax/cargo, notams, SIDS/STARS etc) to make sure that the flight is doable, it's doable safely, and it's "legal".

What you're expecting is a pilot to have a read a NOTAM, memorised all the latitude / longitude co-ordinates that are in the NOTAM for the "grid" that's off limits, and the associated altitudes, know exactly where that is in relation to where they are, and then be able to ask ATC about it a few hours into their flight, when the instruction could be as benign as "Delta 100, turn right heading 040".

Chances are the original routing for the flight kept them safely out of the TFR, but the ATC instruction for whatever sent them through it, even briefly. That instruction could've been for any number of reasons, from weather to traffic, to sequencing to even sidestepping a different restriction of some kind.

Here's a NOTAM for a Starship launch (I don't know if it was for this one specifically, I don't want to use my limited brain cells right now):

  B0995/24 NOTAMN MMFR/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/ MMFR 2411181300 2411262300 18-22 25 26 1300-1500 2100-2300, 23 24 1300-1400 2100-2300 DANGEROUS AREA FOR LAUNCHING OF ROCKET STARSHIP SUPER HEAVY ORBITAL TEST FLIGHT 6 LATERAL LIMIT AREA FORMED BY THE UNION OF THE FLW POINTS: 25 52 0.00N 097 11 0.00W 25 18 0.00N 096 30 0.00W 24 39 0.00N 093 13 0.00W 24 10 0.00N 090 17 0.00W 24 57 0.00N 089 36 0.00W 24 27 0.00N 085 58 0.00W 24 09 0.00N 084 11 0.00W 23 39 0.00N 081 10 0.00W 23 07 0.00N 078 45 0.00W 23 35 0.00N 078 36 0.00W 24 19 0.00N 082 13 0.00W 24 50 0.00N 084 33 0.00W 25 20 0.00N 087 20 0.00W 26 47 0.00N 092 60 0.00W 26 38 0.00N 095 39 0.00W 26 27 0.00N 096 32 0.00W 26 10 0.00N 097 11 0.00W 26 00 0.00N 097 14 0.00W 25 52 0.00N 097 11 0.00W MMFR SFC UNL

[stouset]

To underscore your point, the original flight plan almost certainly did not transit that region. So the pilot likely wouldn’t have even been aware that there’s a TFR somewhere vaguely adjacent to their intended path.

ATC issues minor deviations all the time and for a plethora of reasons as you mentioned. And those instructions are expected to be followed promptly, not “after I’ve spent a half hour re-reviewing hundreds of possible NOTAMs along the new course”.

[NikkiA]

> Here's a NOTAM for a Starship launch (I don't know if it was for this one specifically, I don't want to use my limited brain cells right now):

2411 sticks out from the datestamp, so no, not this one unless the news article is 2 months late.