Let's not bother with NOTAMs?

[stiknruda]

It appears that even though they are easier to access, few folk seem to read them!!

Yesterday - en route to Fenland to enjoy the aerobatic competition THAT WAS NOTTAMED... I tuned into Fenland Radio.....

Aircaft #1 calls FENLAND for a transit through the zone. Asked whether he was aware of the current NOTAM, the silence condemned him

15 secs later

A/c #2 calls - scenario very similar

I call and get the numbers.

1 min later an aircraft on quite an impresive x-country speaks to Fenland with a wish to transit through the overhead at 1800'? NOTAM - ah , err....


Lovely day watching my chums loop and swoop...............................



Time for me to go and as I am "advised" that there is no reason why I shouldn't take off, some numpty requests an o/head join.

With increasing incredulity, I depart. I remain on freq for a further 4 mins to hear 2 new callsigns trying to get into or around Fenland and it is obvious that neither of those has read/seen the NOTAM.

Bemused and confused!

Should we abandon NOTTAMing or should we enforce people to read them. Your thoughts?

Stik

[DFC]

Since it is in the past, I can not access the notam at this time.

However, it may be the case that the notam was produced as an aerodrome warning and as such would only appear on briefings for pilots who selected Fenland as a departure, destination or alternate for the flight.

If it was produced as an enroute warning, then as far as I am aware warnings of aerobatics flights are a miscelaneous category and are not required by international standards to be included in pre-floght briefings.

If you look at the Q line of the notam then you will get an idea of who was going to see the NOTAM.

if it does not have "AE" (then a for aerodrome and e for enroute) whichever is missing is not going to get the notam.

the next bit is the "NBO". N immediate notification, B to be inlcuded in briefings and O operationally significant. leave out the B and it may not appear on pre-flight briefings.

Finally, was it a NOTAM about some aero flying or was it a RA(T)?

If not an RA(T) and not controlled airspace then pilots are quite entitled to plan their flights through that area. To think that having a NOTAM issued would in any way "sterilise" the airspace is incorrect. Even with the NOTAM issued, you simply have only an "equal" right to operate in the airspace outside controlledairspace as any other pilot enroute.

You are still required to ensure that the airspace is clear before performing an aerobatic manoeuvre and you are still required to conform with the rules for avoiding collisions (rights of way etc) throughout your sequence.

A/C xy and z could have checked the NOTAM, and since there is not ATC, they do not require permission to enter the ATZ. They obtain information and decide what they want to do. I was not aware that Air Ground Radio operators were in the business of giving advice - it being against the law or of questioning the availability of some NOTAM when they could have simply provided the information allowed by law i.e. aerobatics in progress above the aerodrome and had the exact same effect - pilot x, y and z can decide to either continue as planned and see and avoide the other traffic ( as they will also do) or take the probably more sensible route and avoid the area.

If Fenland was NOTAMed as closed due to the competition then you really do have a valid complaint about the arrivial(s). However, if not and PPR had been obtained the arriving flight was entitled to complete their overhead join - doing aero's over the airfield would take you out of the protection afforded to aircraft "operating in the vicinity of the aerodrome".

Simply remember that having a NOTAM issued does not sterilise the airspace or remove the simple right of everyone to operate in class G.

That is why the reds get a RA(T).

regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

(H0956/07 NOTAMN
Q)EGTT/QWBLW/IV/M/AW/000/040/5244N00002W002
A)EGCL B)0704271200 C)0704291900
D)APR 27 1200-1900, 28 0800-1900, 29 0900-1900
E)AUS 07-04-0022/1014/AS2
AIR DISPLAY/AEROBATICS CONTEST WI 2NM 5244N 00002W (FENLAND AD,
LINCOLNSHIRE).
F)SFC G)4000FT AGL)

No indication that the aerodrome is closed for the period, nor that ATZ transit is impossible. I've seen lots of similiar NOTAMs for events that are not taking place continuously throughout the periods indicated, and I think it's reasonable that others should have expected to operate more or less normally in its vicinity. I don't think there's much excuse for not being aware of the NOTAM though.

[IO540]

In the PPL, 2000/2001, I was never taught anything to do with the internet: weather or notams.

The great majority of active PPLs must be in the same category.

Re this notam (thank you bookworm) is like so many which could occur anywhere without notification. I would have given this one a miss though, transiting above 4000ft if going near.

[stiknruda]

My issue is not with the content of the NOTAM - it is with the fact that so many folk were ignorant of it!

Being aware that something slightly unusual is happening at at a destination or a way-point is surely good airmanship?

The BAeA positively encourages spectators, be it by road or by air and several a/c (including me) flew in to watch, support, etc.

Sadly I feel that something is lacking: the fact that sterile airspace RA(T) often gets bust as highly publicised incursions on the Reds are not in the least uncommon, proves that folk either don't read or misinterpret NOTAMS.

So what do we need to do?


Stik

[Pitts2112]

The first thing we could do is make the information easier to get to. AIS is not the most user-friendly website and the search engine still gives me reams and reams of junk unrelated to my flight (narrow enroute briefing and I still get every NOTAM for the London FIR). Maybe my skills with AIS aren't what they should be but I find it a real pain in the neck to wade through all the crap looking for the one or two things relevant to my flight.

A free website with all the free information available for flight planning in one place would be handy, with it all presented in a useable, easily digestible format - weather, NOTAMS, RA(T)s, royal flights, etc. The info is all available, but each in its own unique location unrelated to each other. "Flight Planning UK" would be a great website and might reduce some of this avoidance of information.

Just my .02 worth. I now stand by and wait for all the reasons why that's not a good idea, wouldn't solve anything, etc., etc., etc.

Pitts2112

[Kaptain Kremen]

NOTAMCHECK depicted it clearly on the enroute map, but of course this service costs somewhere in the region of a one off £10 - £20.

Obviously it is not restricted airspace but the fact that lots of pilots didn't know about the NOTAM makes the pointabout it not being restricted a moot point...it could have been for all they knew. The AIS web site should follow the same lines as NOTAMCHECK or similar sites...ie user friendly, but for FREE. Safety in this sense would be relatively cheap, especially as the CAA are running airspace infringement as a theme at the moment.

I was at Fenland, and the few that stik mentioned were just the tip of the iceberg. Not restricted airspace, but still no knowledge of the NOTAM for them to make good airmanship decisions...several were training flights too....
Entitled to go through? maybe so. Wise(esp as it was on all day continuosly)...no.

[moggiee]

My issue is not with the content of the NOTAM - it is with the fact that so many folk were ignorant of it
Stik
The trouble is that as bookworm points out, there is NOTHING in that NOTAM to suggest restricted access to Fenland. Agreed that common sense should cause people to think:

"aerobatics - -I wonder if there are restrictions?"

but putting a phrase such as "No access to Fenland without prior permission on telephone (01*** *********)" would make it 100% clear, I would have thought.

I'm not defending the non-readers, but to be honest that NOTAM is about as useful as the proverbial choccy teapot.

[englishal]

The first thing we could do is make the information easier to get to.
I totally agree. If NOTAMS were very easy to read and understand - shown graphically even - then I think that many of the infringements could be got rid of.

FOr example, I don't even know where Fenland is, so this Notam means nothing to me. However if in the pre-pre-flight planning stage I can look at a map of the UK and see pertinent notams straight away, then there is no excuse for missing one.

There are many 3rd party products that do this - sort of - but nothing official. What about Notams by phone? Often if you go somewhere for the day it may be impossible to get a proper briefing before you set off home, who knows what has changed in the meantime......?

In the USA I call 1800WXBRIEF before every single leg, mainly to update me on the notams.

[StraightLevel]

Similar thing happened to myself on my CPL X-Country Qualifying flight on 20th August 2005.

My planned route took me overhead Peterborough Conington en-route to Norwich, and I put my entire route into a narrow route brief on ais.org, printed off and studied the Notams the night before and saw nothing that would affect my choice of route. I set off nice and early the following day, got on frequency with Conington Radio, and told the chap that I was intending to transit through his overhead and asked if he had any traffic to affect, only to be told that they had an aero competion on all day that had been notamed.

I meekly aknowleged and routed clear to the south.

Because of the format of inputting info into the ais.org narrow route brief it had not picked up the notams relevent to conington, even though i had inputed my route turning straight overhead.
I would of needed to put conington in as an alternate to get the airfield notams.

I learned a lesson through that and now always put in any airfield that i will transit near to in as an alternate on the brief to make sure that i get all the relevent notams.

StraightLevel.

[DFC]

Thanks for the info Bookworm.

One can not in any way complain about people no being aware of that NOTAM.

It is a miscelaneous warning. It is not required to be included in pre-flight briefings. Thus it is possible to obtain a perfectly valid pre-flight briefing and not to have it included.

This information is in the "nice to know" category rather than the "need to know" category.

I pray that we do not end up with NOTAMs for everything that is hapening in the Class G airspace in VMC on a see and be seen basis.

-------

IO540,

The NOTAMs are explained in the AIP, as well as the Pratt and Thom books. They were also in Campbell as well as Birch and Bramson but they are long before your time.

Regards,

DFC

[chrisN]

Straight and Level, did your narrow route brief include the parameter "general and miscellaneous"?

(I think that is what is needed to pick up aerodrome NOTAMs as well as en route ones relevant to your narrow route - but no doubt some expert will clarify if I am wrong).

Chris N.

[david viewing]

"general and miscellaneous"? (I think that is what is needed to pick up aerodrome NOTAMs

I thought I'd just check this for myself by looking at the "User Guide" on the AIS website. Unfortunately, because of a bureacratic obsession with .pdf (rather than text that anyone can read) the guide takes so long to load that it looks like the site has gone wrong.

I think this is symptomatic of the experience of many pilots who find this amateurish website confusing and frustrating. The very poor quality of this site, which has continued now for so many years, is no excuse for ignoring Notams I know, but typical of the profound disrespect that is extended toward private pilots by our regulatory 'masters'.

When eventually the "User Guide" actually loads, it still appears silent on the issue of whether aerodrome notams that happen to be en-route are included in a "miscellaneous" briefing.

At least the wonderful Notamplot, free and very far from amateur despite being built without a penny of public money, does unambiguously show airfield notams in a graphical way that allows a route to be checked visually. (Provided the Notam originators can be bothered to describe the location in a manner that Notamplot can Parse).

I always check both AIS and Notamplot but still recently managed to miss a Notam at my destination that it was closed on the day of my intended departure. So I have a little sympathy for these erstwhile Fenland crossers who might reasonably have expected an en-route aerobatics display to have turned up on virtually any Notam briefing, however it was obtained.

[Evilbob]

Q)EGTT/QWBLW/IV/M/AW/000/040/5244N00002W002


It would appear as quoted by DFC, it was miscelaneous and therefore anybody who chose not to see those NOTAMS, wouldn't be aware. However, it is worth noting that the default setting on the AIS website is for General+Misc. I guess there is a reason for that.

So those pilots transiting enroute have there excuse, what about those destined for Fenland. The q code mentions AW- Aerodrome and Navigation warning.

So (I assume) anybody who selected Fenland as their destination aerodrome -regardless of whether they chose to disregard the Misc or not- should have been made aware that there was an aeros competition all weekend. If this is the case, it is surely fair to conclude that a lot of arriving pilots hadn't checked NOTAM (like Stik and KK I also heard several such calls).

NOTAM aside, it's not difficult to pick up a phone and call your destination for a briefing before you depart. That it self would solve problems similar to this one.

[Say again s l o w l y]

In reality, the NOTAM system needs completely renewing. It is unwieldy and difficult to get the information in an easy to digest form.

Many have done good things within the limitations (drauk for example) but the fact is that the system is simply not working. I have no idea how to fix it really, but having a centralised body for writing the NOTAMS rather than relying on the originators may help.

Lats and Longs are also not that easy to use in comparison to standard place names.

I use NOTAMS on a daily basis and I still struggle to find the information sometimes. Infact I usually know more about what's going on from just talking to other pilots and keeping up with local events. How daft is that?

[Fuji Abound]

I am surprised Mike has not been along to steer us in the right direction. :)

[Mike Cross]

OK FA, here you are.:)
The AW in the Q Line kindly posted by Bookworm indicates that the originator of this NOTAM has classed it under the ICAO NOTAM system as an Aerodrome NOTAM and a Navigation Warning.

Under ICAO,Navigation Warnings are classed as "Miscellaneous". If you choose to switch off Miscellanaeous by choosing "General" only you will NOT get Nav Warnings and this one would only appear in that case if you had Fenland down as your Departure. Arrival, or one of the Alternate Aerodromes.
This is entirely in accordance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) and is diddly squat to do with the AIS Site. The AIS Site conforms, as it is required to, with ICAO SARPS.

If you don't get it, then the problem lies with you, not with the AIS site. As the AIS User Guide says on Page 7Important Note: Certain navigation warnings are classified as Miscellaneous. and again on Pages 8, 9, 10, and 11Purpose: Navigation warnings are classed as miscellaneous. The default will ensure that you don’t miss anything.
Sorry you didn't get it David but of you ask for a Narrow Route Briefing you only get a/d NOTAM for the a/d you enter on the page. If you want Nav Warnings to appear you must include "Miscellaneous" as the guide suggests.
The pdf takes about 30 secs to download for me, the fact that nothing appears to be happening is a function of Acrobat Reader, not of the AIS site.

Pictorial representation of NOTAM raises several issues, not the least of which is that the ICAO standard NOTAM format is not designed for pictorial representation. The AIS site is not exclusively for UK PPL's, the database is worldwide and it's important that the information is presented in the internationally recognised format.

There's a presumption that it's dead easy to provide a pictorial representation. The fact is that it's not. How for example do you depict a NOTAM where neither the geographic centre of the NOTAM nor any part of the periphery of it's Radius of Influence appears on your map, e.g. for something that affects all UK FIR's?

The RAF's No 1 AIDU did experiment with a graphical representation for some years but the project now appears to have been dropped.

The way is of course open for other providers to produce graphic representations and some have done so, but I don't know of a single one that provides the worldwide coverage that the AIS site does.

I represent AOPA UK on NOTAM issues at regular meetings attended by AIS, CAA(DAP) and AUS (Mil) as well as some of the commercial briefing services and airlines, such as AvBrief, Bytron and BA. If you have questions I'll be happy to answer them as best I can.

Mike

[bookworm]

It is a miscelaneous warning. It is not required to be included in pre-flight briefings. Thus it is possible to obtain a perfectly valid pre-flight briefing and not to have it included.

This information is in the "nice to know" category rather than the "need to know" category.

I disagree. Annex 15 view of a "PIB" tends to revolve around the crews of commercial air transport flying within controlled airspace.

The legal requirement to satisfy that the flight can be safely made "taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used" doesn't reference the Annex 15 definition of a PIB. I think someone trundling around VFR at 1500 ft should be looking at Nav Warnings.

Here's another example of a Misc Nav Warning. Nice to know or Need to know?

(H1035/07 NOTAMN
Q)EGTT/QWPLW/IV/M/W/000/090/5050N00153W005
A)EGTT B)0705031230 C)0705031330
E)AUS 07-05-0089/1107/AS1
PJE BY RAF FALCONS FROM C130 WI 5NM RADIUS 5050N 00153W
(WEST MOORS -DORSET). DROP TIME 1300 HRS. SUPPORT ACFT MAY FLYPAST
DROP ZONE ON COMPLETION. AUS ACN 07-05-0089 DATED 16 APR 07 REFERS.
OPS CONTROL BOURNEMOUTH ATC 0120 364150.
F)SFC G)FL090)

FWIW, airspace restrictions are also scope W only but do have the B purpose flag set e.g.

(J1232/07 NOTAMR J0642/07
Q)EGTT/QRTCA/IV/BO/W/000/020/5040N00309W002
A)EGTT B)0703270839 C)0704302359 EST
E)AUS 07-01-0226/784/AS7
RESTRICTED AREA (TEMPORARY) ESTABLISHED DUE TO INCIDENT IN LYME BAY.
RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER ARTICLE 96 OF
THE ANO 2005 IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY A CIRCLE RAD 1.5NM CENTRED ON
504021N 0030937W. PILOTS ARE FORBIDDEN TO FLY WI THE RESTRICTED AREA
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF HM COASTGUARD COMMANDER FOR DORSET
(EMERGENCY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY) TEL 01305 760439 OR RTF 132.650MHZ.
MIL ACFT SHOULD COMPLY WITH JSP 552 201.135.9
F)SFC G)2000FT AMSL)

[Ray Nicholson]

There was no Fenland Radio at anytime durring the aerobatic weekend at Fenland it was "Fenland Information" as it is every weekend at "Fenland"
This service is provided by CAA licensed Fight Information Service Officers and is a Air Navigation Service Provider

Ray Nicholson
S/FISO Fenland Air Traffic Unit

[david viewing]

Hello Mike
The pdf takes about 30 secs to download for me, the fact that nothing appears to be happening is a function of Acrobat Reader, not of the AIS site.

Agreed. So why not put it in HTML?

Regarding "miscellaneous", why is it an option anyway? It doesn't seem to make much difference to the length of a typical briefing. And something like an en-route airshow is probably more than a 'miscellaneous' interest to transiting pilots. The fact that the user guide points it out repeatedly suggests that there is a problem with this 'option to inadvertantly infringe'.

David

[Fuji Abound]

Thanks Mike.

I had a healthy exchange with Mike last time this came up and I was critical of the AIS.

Mike pointed out quite rightly that the AIS are in part constrained by the format of the ICAO NOTAM briefing.

In hindsight he is quite correct. Part of the issue is the ICAO standard is long out of date and due for overhaul. As Mike points out it does not lend itself to graphical analysis. Moreover, its deliverance is hardly aimed at the typical GA pilot who may want to bimble around the countryside in a relatively aimless way.

Sad to say I don’t suppose the standard will be changed any time soon - but it should be.

[Mike Cross]

Hi David

The user guide is a PDF so that it can be printed out for reference by a pilot and easily saved on a local disk for future reference. There's nothing bureaucratically obsessive about pdf's, they're just a convenient way of distributing a document that can be read across different platforms as a single file. If you tried to do that with html you'd end up with a collection of files and the rendering would be dependent on your web browser and your installed fonts. The UK and French AIP's are published as pdf's as are most of the CAA, JAA, and EASA documents.

The misc thing is there as an option because that's how ICAO choose to classify NOTAM. I can't think of a good reason either for filtering out Misc NOTAM but the default settings on the site are failsafe and the user guide is quite clear. If people stray from the defaults without understanding what the effect is then they may well experience problems.

If anyone's interested in understanding a bit more there's an "unofficial" copy of Annex 15 to the Chicago Convention here (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%2015%20-%20Aeronautical%20Information%20Services/an15_12ed.pdf) Chapter 5 and Appendix 6 are the bits you need.

The B flag mentioned above by Bookworm means "for inclusion in bulletins". It's up to the Originator to include it if he wants to. The two examples above were both originated by the Airspace Utilisation Section (AUS) of the CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy. The one for Fenland was I suspect originated by the a/d operator. If anyone has an issue with the content it's best to take the issue up with the originator. UK AIS is responsible for promulgation, not, in the main, for content. Blaming them for content is like blaming the postman for the content of your Council Tax demand.

Mike

[Vedeneyev]

Has anyone questioned at a higher level whether ICAO NOTAMS are fit for purpose these days, since teletype and morse code have been retired?

[bookworm]

The B flag mentioned above by Bookworm means "for inclusion in bulletins". It's up to the Originator to include it if he wants to.

Actually Mike, I'm not sure that that is the case. The Purpose (MNBO) flags are determined by the 4-letter NOTAM code. So if it's QWPLW, it should be 'M' only. I don't think the originator has discretion.

[Mike Cross]

You're almost certainly correct. I don't have a copy ICAO Doc 8126 to hand to check it.

[drauk]

Mike Cross wrote:

The way is of course open for other providers to produce graphic representations and some have done so, but I don't know of a single one that provides the worldwide coverage that the AIS site does.It is just barely open. There is no free source of the underlying data. http://fly.dsc.net has to pretend to be a human being, asking for all the Notams for various FIR. If the way was truly open then the data would be able to be downloaded in a raw format, all in one go, with a checksum at the end to make sure it was complete. It would take about 5 minutes to write the software to do it and another 5 to test it.

As for not offering worldwide coverage (not sure how relevant that is to a PPL, but western Europe would be good), my site could happily do it, again, if I had the data.

As I've said before, this stuff (the presentation of the data in a readily available database) isn't hard. I built the Notam bit of my site in a few hours, largely to prove it could be done and there are only a few hundred people out there who do Notam briefs on it regularly. But on that basis I think I've got a pretty good sense of the fact that it would only take a bit more effort to build something which addressed the needs of all Britain's PPL GA people.

And as to the original post, I think one part of the solution is for instructors to stop teaching people to use airfields as VFR navigation waypoints, particularly in areas when you can't fly above 2,500'.

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

since teletype and morse code have been retired?
In Northern Europe and the US maybe, but they are both alive and well in other parts of the world where t'internet is still expensive or missing.

The trouble with changing international standards is that they have to support the lowest common denominator.

[Mike Cross]

There is no free source of the underlying data.
There is, the data is provided free by NATS to users, however they do understandably require the recipient to jump through a few hoops to prove that they are not going to disrupt NATS systems. I understand there is a fee involved for the work NATS have to do in connection with this.

Bookworm will be better placed than me to comment but in this world of vicarious hacking it's as well that the data is protected.

[Chilli Monster]

If pilots can't read charts, what makes you think they can read NOTAM's!

3 aircraft, obviously in formation, all squawking 7000 with 'C' (3400ft) direct track from overhead Leicester to overhead Nottingham 1215(L) this afternoon.

Anyone with a chart handy will see the problem with that! :ugh: :rolleyes:

If anyone here departed Sywell with 2 other aircraft this morning and turned west at Pole Hill heading towards the Blackpool area - you were noticed ;)

[IO540]

So what do we need to do?

Revamp the PPL training establishment to fully embrace the internet, with everybody hitting the PC (weather, notams) before they go off to fly. That would be a good start and 10 years later something might change.

To me, flying off without spending a few mins getting weather and notams is unthinkable. I did it exactly once, and what happened? HRH was off to lunch so there was some temp Class A; luckily I was talking to Farnborough and they sent me halfway around the UK to avoid it.

The huge drawback with that is that people might discover PC-based flight planning also, and would give up the circular slide rule. We can't have that, so we can't have the first thing either. There is no way one can allow the training establishment to be thus undermined.

I say the above only half tongue in cheek. Never underestimate tradition. Also never underestimate the fact that the PPL flight training business has zero incentive to turn out pilots who can fly from A to B. Most of them never do, so why bother? There is no comeback on the instructor anyway.

DFC, you are wasting your time on the keyboard. I am ignoring your baits.

[drauk]

Mike Cross wrote:

There is, the data is provided free by NATS to users, however they do understandably require the recipient to jump through a few hoops to prove that they are not going to disrupt NATS systems. I understand there is a fee involved for the work NATS have to do in connection with this.

It's not a few hoops. And there is a not insubstantial fee involved.

Not disrupting the NATS system is (or could be) a complete nonsense; I don't need to deploy my software on their server for goodness sake.

but in this world of vicarious hacking it's as well that the data is protected.

I guess I don't understand how the Internet and computers work, because this makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Flyin'Dutch']

The sad recurrence of infringements and people clearly not using and applying flight essential information is a clear indicator that the system is broke and needs fixing

Endless pages of debate into details ad infinitum prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

[Mad Girl]

I0540 Said
Revamp the PPL training establishment to fully embrace the internet, with everybody hitting the PC (weather, notams) before they go off to fly. That would be a good start and 10 years later something might change.


I0540 - I've read your posts over the last 18 months and know that you're a totally cynic to "old" school teaching (although I'm sure you're perfectly pleasant in person :) ).

Please don't tar ALL training establishments with the same brush.

I've got an instructor who taught me how to use the met office and the AIP when I was still on straight and level.
Periodically he'd ask me to "prove" that I'd checked the internet sites when I was in the circuit (so I took to printing the sheets off every weekend - because I never knew when he'd require proof).
"Never fly without checking NOTAMS and Wx" has been hammered into me from day one - whatever lesson I think I'm going to have - Local or in the circuit.

And I haven't started navigation yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know my instructor is "good" and determined to make sure I enjoy safe flying when I've got my licence, but so do the other instructors at my school - including the hours builders - and the school provides the internet for all people flying from the club whether you're a student, a club airplane hirer or a private owner!!!!!!

Please give it a rest.

There are bad examples of every type of business and I see no reason why aviation should be any different....BUT they aren't all as bad as you try to make out (repeatedly :ugh: ) and neither are the instructors.

Nothing personal - just an alternative point of view :ouch:

[J.A.F.O.]

NOTAMPLOT is great.

Using the ais2kml utility with GoogleEarth is even better. Just search for "ais2kml", download a tiny program, the information is taken out of ais and put on a pretty picture for you.

Even an idiot like me finds it easy to see huge red cylinders.

I understand Flymap have recently introduced the facility to have NOTAMs displayed on their nifty moving maps.

[rustle]

drauk's site is by far the simplest, most easily accessible and most functional site in relation to NOTAM checking.

I'm fairly amazed that coming-up 5 years since the AIS site was launched it is still non-graphical and still doesn't have a look-up table so that the output is human readable irrespective of how the data is stored "in an ICAO compliant way". After all it converts 01000101010001110100110001001011 into EGLK, so it should be able to convert EGLK into Blackbushe without too much effort.

[rjakw]

For the forseeable future, or until the various dark forces at work finally kill off GA, we're stuck with NOTAMS, so why not just use the French site?

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/default_uk.htm

Doesn't change the need to decode the NOTAM gibberish in some cases, but it's a damned sight better than the British crap.

The French have have excellent techno-adoption credentials, so it wouldn't surprise me if they had graphical representation in their development plan somewhere.

Ray.

[Rod1]

The Notam system in use in the UK was written by the French…

Rod1

[Mike Cross]

why not just use the French site?
'cos the ICAO system is predicated on the assumption that the briefing service is provided by the State within whose airspace the flight originates.
States make their own decisions on what States they distribute their NOTAM series to, and on what series they subscribe to from other States. For example France distributes one set of NOTAM only to Schengen States, so of you were in France and took your brief from UK AIS you wouldn't get the NOTAM. From the French AIP GEN 3.1.3.2Series D: containing information on other aerodromes used for international flights. Publication is restricted to the countries involved within the scope of SCHENGEN agreements (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Iceland and Norway).

If you don't understand how the system works it's not a good idea to make up your own ways of using it.

[IO540]

To add to the above:

Since a hypothetical aircraft could fly from say the UK to anywhere in the world, data on airports capable of accepting international traffic, plus enroute data, cannot possibly be withheld according to whether the dissemination facility is or isn't in say Schengen.

What appears to be withheld from the ais.org.uk database is airfield data on French airfields that are not capable of accepting international traffic. This is obviously relevant only to somebody flying within France.

I don't know if other countries do something similar. It's pretty arrogant and stupid (basically, it helps to ensure that somebody flying into France from abroad and landing illegally is likely to also commit some other offences) but I suppose the French are entitled to do it.

However, official "you should use the applicable national site" posturing aside, all pilots should know that - subject to the above caveat on domestic airfields - ais.org.uk should deliver the same data as anybody else's notam site. If it doesn't then something is wrong with the system - because the said route could have been flown with a UK departure!

[Mike Cross]

I think the issue is to do with "domestic" NOTAM.

As I read it, data is witheld (by the French) on airports that accept International Traffic ONLY from Schengen States. A flight direct to one of these a/d from the UK would be illegal because the UK is not in Schengen.

There could of course be other data that might not be distributed internationally, for example info on changes to national requirements and procedures. Our NOTAM don't include changes to the French AIP and theirs don't include changes to ours.

[IO540]

data is witheld (by the French) on airports that accept International Traffic ONLY from Schengen States

OK, but that is in effect the same as saying "non-international airfields" - because every piece of grass in France is capable of accepting Schengen traffic, isn't it??

There could of course be other data that might not be distributed internationally, for example info on changes to national requirements and procedures. Our NOTAM don't include changes to the French AIP and theirs don't include changes to ours

We have been here before Mike, I think. Can you give examples of this mysterious missing data?

The basic point is that all data applicable to the flight should be in the notam itself, and that includes references to say the French AIP. If you get an ais.org.uk briefing for some route across France, the data will include references to the French AIP if the route passes close to one of the nuclear power station TRAs for example.

As I say above, any given route could have been flown with a UK departure, so what is the basis for witholding anything??

There is a possibility that due to a c0ckup some data may not be passed to the UK and then if you are doing a flight not terminating in the UK you could get picked up for not briefing from an authorised source, but has this actually happened?

This is one great reason for getting an IR and flying IFR. When under ATC control, there is very little reason to worry about enroute notams and few IFR pilots bother with them. Duff navaids are relevant, as are airfield notams (o/s ILS for example), but ATC won't send you on a track which busts some airshow.

[Fuji Abound]

I have a feeling the poster might have been suggesting using the French site for departure, arrival and en route NOTAMS for a UK only sector.

The French site does this "fine" subject to the caveats made by Mike - and I have to say I also dont entirely understand why these caveats would make the data for the UK any more or less reliable other than exclusions to changes in the AIP - which would not seem relevant in normal circumstances.

Stands back while there is a mass exodus to SIA :) .

[rustle]

Our NOTAM don't include changes to the French AIP and theirs don't include changes to ours.

If true, that is bizarre.

1) When planning an overseas flight the only* place to find their requirements is in their AIP.

2) Any amendments to their** AIP are promulgated by NOTAM, but you're saying we won't get them.

Spot the problem?

* Officially
** Ours too, but we would get them in your model

[Mike Cross]

We need someone a bit more expert than me but the sort of thing I'm thinking about is say an amendment to the National Requirements such as entry or departure procedures, SAR or something of that ilk. If you briefed for a flight wholly within UK airspace using the Franch SIA site would you get the info? I do know you'd get it it if you briefed from UK AIS, I don't know whether you'd get it if you briefed from SIA.

[IO540]

SIDa and STARs are in the approach plate kits, which are not connected with Notams.

You buy the Jeppview (or whatever) subscription and you get new plates when they come out, every 14 days. The changes are not notamed.

[rustle]

The changes are not notamed.

They are, old bean.

In the aerodrome section which you'd get if you listed that aerodrome in your NRB.

[IO540]

Never noticed that, old bean... curious since the plates do get changed from time to time.

Anyway, how long is the change notamed for? If the notam of the new approach plate shows up for say 30 days (which is the normal period; the AIRAC cycle) and you happen to not fly to that airport during those 30 days (highly likely to be the case unless you are an airline pilot) then you will never see that notam.

[rustle]

Never noticed that, old bean... curious since the plates do get changed from time to time.

Anyway, how long is the change notamed for? If the notam of the new approach plate shows up for say 30 days (which is the normal period; the AIRAC cycle) and you happen to not fly to that airport during those 30 days (highly likely to be the case unless you are an airline pilot) then you will never see that notam.

Fill your boots:

From today's PIBs.

Q)EGTT/QFAXX/IV/NBO/A/000/999/4912N00212W005
B)07/03/21 14:33 UTC C)PERM AGA (C1247/07)
E)DETAILS OF CHANGE REQUIRED AS FOLLOWS
1. BENIX 4A IN TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION, DELETE '035M TO LUSIT' ADD
'050M TO LUSIT'
2. LERAK 1B IN TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION DELETE 'R233' AND ADD 'R232'
3. SKERY 1B IN TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION DELETE 'ANGLA' AND ADD 'SKERY'
AD 2-EGJJ-6-2, EGJJ-6-4, AND EGJJ-6-3 (12 APR 07) REFERS


Q)EGTT/QPACI/I/NBO/A/000/999/5109N00011W005
B)07/03/15 00:00 UTC C)PERM RAC (A0515/07)
E)ASTRA 1A STAR IDENTIFICATION, NOTIFIED IN AIRAC 3/07 PART 2,
CHANGED TO ASTRA 3A.
LEVELS AMENDED TO READ 'ARRIVAL VIA R41(FL100 AND BELOW), R8(FL190
AND BELOW).
ALL OTHER DETAILS AS PUBLISHED


Q)EGTT/QPICH/I/NBO/A/000/999/5057N00056E005
B)07/03/22 10:13 UTC C)PERM RAC (C1255/07)
E)LYDD OFFSET ILS/DME RWY 21, REF UK AIP AD 2-EGMD-8-1 (15 MAR 07).
LYDD DIRECT ARRIVALS FROM THE NORTH.
INSERT TEXT IN PLACE OF MISSING INSERT BOX:
INTERCEPT AND FOLLOW NDB(L) LZD QDM 165 DEG NOT BELOW 3200 OR HIGHER
MSA. AT I-LDY DME 16.5 TURN LEFT TO INTERCEPT AND ESTABLISH ON THE
I-LDY DME 14 ARC, THEN CONTINUE AS FOR BASIC PROCEDURE.


etc...

You'd need these if you were using the plates from the AIS website to confirm any amendments... (Also useful to see just how "up to date" your Jepp/Aerads really are :p )

Good, innit ;)

[Mike Cross]

Diverting but wot I meant was the requirements regarding designated a/d, customs, immigration, etc rather than SID's & STAR's. They're not to do with navigation but they are legal requirements and they do appear in the AIP (GEN)

[Fuji Abound]

regarding designated a/d, customs, immigration, etc

Yes, but most likely you have got that sorted with the telephone call before anyway, as there are not many places you just pitch up these days.

I suppose the silly change at LFAT is a good case in pointing requiring you to email Pax details for Customs. Is that an AIP / immigration issue and if so it appears on the NATS briefing.

E)ARRIVING FLIGHTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN:
COMPULSORY LANDING CLEARANCE FOR CUSTOMS AND FLIGHT NOTIFICATION TWO
HOURS BEFORE ARRIVAL TIME WITH FLW INFO:
- CALLSIGN
- PILOT NAME
- PAX NAME , PASSPORT NUMBER OR IDENTITY CARD NUMBER.
VIA INTERNET : CUSTOMS AT AEROPORT-LETOUQUET.COM
OR AEROPORT-LE-TOUQUET AT WANADOO.FR
OR WWW.AEROPORT-LE-TOUQUET.COM/CUSTOMS
BY FAX : 33(0)3 21 05 59 34

Shame they cant get the email addresses right but perhaps that reflects the inability to code the "@"

[rustle]

VIA INTERNET : CUSTOMS AT AEROPORT-LETOUQUET.COM
OR AEROPORT-LE-TOUQUET AT WANADOO.FR

Shame they cant get the email addresses right but perhaps that reflects the inability to code the "@"

Do you think it might be written like that to reduce spam? All this stuff is machine readable... :ugh:

[Fuji Abound]

Do you think it might be written like that to reduce spam?

Nah, because their web address doesnt work, they dont reply to emails, and ssh but dont tell anyone but I know what happens to the emails ;) .

Mind you would take a computer man to sniff out some automated spam :) .

[IO540]

Harvesting email addresses with "at" in them is among standard spammer tools of the trade.

However, thanks to widespread antispam filtering and ignorant blanket use of databases like spamcop to dump emails, email is the most useless tool for anything half important. In many cases, emails just vanish. For for airport PPR there is only one thing that hacks it: FAX. In the UK, a phone call.

Rustle, you haven't replied to my Q as to how long a notam of an approach plate change appears for. 30 days?

[Mike Cross]

Hi IO

I'm advised by m'learned friend at AIS that in the case of an amendment to a Plate in the AIP:-

If the amendment takes place as part of the normal AIRAC cycle, i.e. the plate in the AIP is updated at the same time as the amenment becomes effective and the version in the AIP is always current then a Trigger NOTAM valid for 15 days will be raised to advise of the amendment. If you susbcribe to an amendment service like Jep then you should receive the amended plate prior to the date it comes into force.


If the amendment isn't done as part of the AIRAC cycle, i.e. there is a delay between the amendment becoming effective and the AIP being updated then a NOTAM will be issued which will be cancelled once the AIP has been updated.

Mike