Obstacle (and other) information in NOTAMS

[titaniumwings]

I have observed in some stations multiple obstacles information is published, be it temporary or permanent.

How would it affect me? Is it practical to input all the information for performance calculation? I don't see people around me doing it though. How would you determine whether a particular obstacle would affect your performance, be it landing or take off?

Thank you very much.

ps: there are also a lot of published information on approach charts and procedures (though the charts are already updated). Can be tiring by the time you comb through the length NOTAMS before dispatch.

[john_tullamarine]

How would you determine whether a particular obstacle would affect your performance, be it landing or take off?

By doing the sums for each obstacle.

After gaining some experience with a particular Type it becomes easier to eliminate some of the non-critical items by inspection ..

[titaniumwings]

There are actually many obstacles listed by some airports. I do not even know whether the computer takes in all but we are suppose to check the most critical but again the question about which is the most critical.

But as you said, maybe there is no other easier way.

Thanks for the reply.

[john_tullamarine]

'fraid not ...

[Denti]

If there is a NOTAM with a relevant obstacle we do get temporary performance data with reference to that NOTAM in our EFB software, so i guess our performance supplier takes NOTAMed obstacles into account. Apart from that we can enter new obstacles ourselves into the software and it will be taken into account.

[JammedStab]

Seems to mostly be glanced at and not much else done. Usually a statement of something like "we are light today" can be expected. I wonder if the carriers engineers monitor these notam and adjust their calculations.

Our OPT does have a way where you can see what obstacles are in the calculation and a way to manually enter another one. For the older way of doing things, not so easy.

[titaniumwings]

When I asked around, colleagues just tell me- "it doesn't affect us" or as you said "we are light today". Someone also suggested 2X the 3 degree glide path- eg at 1nm below 600' is ok.

Sometimes there is an INTAM which which tells use to input a specific obstacle into the performance software, hence the belief that they check the obstacles. No assurance of sort given by them (flt ops people or performance software provider) though.

Thanks for the input guys.

[AerocatS2A]

The airline performance department should be checking NOTAMs and assessing whether any obstacles require recalculation of the RTOWs.

I've flown with two divisions of the same company that use the same performance department. In the first division we would get a "NOTAM watch" published twice weekly which listed all NOTAMed obstacles for our destinations and how they affected our RTOW charts. You then go through the NOTAMs and match them up with the NOTAM watch. If anything wasn't on the NOTAM watch you needed to have a think about it or get in touch with the performance department. Typically you could use a bit of logic to tick off obstacles as N/A. For example any obstacles behind the the start of the take-off roll wouldn't be an issue, likewise an obstacle that is lower and further down the take-off splay than another obstacle that has been assessed as not affecting the RTOW would be ok.

Bizarrely I now fly for this other division of the company and we get no information at all about obstacles, so there is no way as a captain to easily assess which obstacles are ok and which aren't. The crazy thing is that the NOTAM watch I used to get was not specific to that part of the company, it had all of the company routes / aircraft types on it, so the information is out there, we just don't get it.

When I've enquired about it I'm told that we just trust that the performance department are doing their job and if any significant obstacles are NOTAMed we'll get some new RTOWs.

[deefer dog]

How would you determine whether a particular obstacle would affect your performance, be it landing or take off?

By doing the sums for each obstacle.

After gaining some experience with a particular Type it becomes easier to eliminate some of the non-critical items by inspection .. Yes John, but in the REAL world, (and I'm acting as devil's advocate now) without plotting charts, and operational TIME constraints, how for example would you attack this one....?

E) MULTIPLE OBST (27 WIND TURBINES) OPR (LONG TERM) WI AREA BOUNDED BY 533906N 0001622E - 533758N 0001854E - 533652N 0001720E - 533657N 0001618E - 533911N 0001518E - 533906N 0001622E (VCY HUMBER ESTUARY). MAX HGT 463FT AMSL. 14-08-0733/OPS1



....stab a guess and go, based on the assumption that the airport (or ops, if you have such a backup) would tell you if it was a known issue? Or would you find a chart to plot the lat/longs?

Be honest!

[john_tullamarine]

so i guess our performance supplier takes NOTAMed obstacles into account

A big guess to stake your life on I would have thought ?

Seems to mostly be glanced at and not much else done

Likewise ..

eg at 1nm below 600' is ok.

That has to be one of the most frightening statements I have heard in a long career doing this stuff.

The airline performance department should be checking NOTAMs and assessing whether any obstacles require recalculation of the RTOWs.

Exactly the case for a professional operation.

When I've enquired about it I'm told that we just trust that the performance department are doing their job

Fine but, if they screw up, you die .. and this within the same company ? Obviously don't comprehend corporate risk management.

but in the REAL world ... how for example would you attack this one....?

No sign-off from the relevant Ops Eng group .. no go. Plain and simple.

Realistically, using typical general takeoff charts, a conservative result can be figured by using the max obstacle elevation declared at the minimum distance and this is fine for one-offs. For routine operations, however, the dollar dictates a more refined analysis.

....stab a guess and go

Not a chance.

Be honest!

Be assured that I am being entirely upfront ... with either the pilot's or professional engineer's hat on. The job just isn't worth being risk ignorant.

Having said all that ... I presume, from the profile, that D-DOG is a corporate pilot. I appreciate the realities of that sector of the Industry but the buck still sits in the Commander's lap when the mishap gets to the Inquiry and you are on your very Pat Malone.

[ANCPER]

JT,

Who do you operate for, QF? I understand what you mean, but that attitude about not going would see you terminated by a number of companies regardless of you being in the right.

Even in Oz you see numerous notams on obst that are taken for granted that the ops dept have "see to it". And not enough info to check them out.

[CL300]

on the performance chart, there is the list of the notams accounted for, for each runways, and the eventual weight penalties associated ( at least for my provider)

[deefer dog]

Having said all that ... I presume, from the profile, that D-DOG is a corporate pilot. I appreciate the realities of that sector of the Industry but the buck still sits in the Commander's lap when the mishap gets to the Inquiry and you are on your very Pat Malone. Yes John I am, and I'm pleased that you recognize the realities of the situation that many of us find ourselves in...especially when we're not flying to the same old places day in and day out.

Maybe you can share some of your valuable experience and give us an insight into how one should do.. the sums for each obstacle.. as you vociferously recommend, and manage to do it within the time constraints allowed?

Also, as you state the buck still sits in the Commander's lap
This is indeed the case, but buying software, subscribing to outsourced data still means the Commander needs to check - doesn't it?

So is there a problem here that the industry needs to address...perhaps we should show up for duty three hours before a flight to make sure the buck does not land in our lap?

[Skyjob]

I'm all for those applications capable of reading digital notams and plotting them on a local area chart for review, one glance and you'll be able to determine if any obstacle needs to be assessed for flight

[john_tullamarine]

Who do you operate for, QF?

No (although I have done some sim training work for them in years gone by) .. as an olde pharte, my airline flying days are well and truly over.

Been involved with a number airlines on the pilot side and most have been what I would refer to as good operations for the ops eng side of things. On the other hand, I have seen a number which I would move to the cowboy end of the scale.

Similarly, I have provided ops eng support for a number of airline operators. All have been very sensitive to their corporate risk responsibilities. Indeed, on occasions when the CP and I took a view, sometimes we chose not to tell the beancounters too much about that view .. preferring just to implement the more conservative approach to life

Perhaps I've just been lucky along the way ?

but that attitude about not going would see you terminated by a number of companies

I appreciate and understand that. However, I probably would have resigned from the role prior to its coming to that. Then again, I have the advantage of having several strings to the bow and the ability to make a crust one way or another.

Sincerely, I do empathise with folks who are involved with such operators.

Even in Oz you see numerous notams on obst that are taken for granted that the ops dept have "see to it". And not enough info to check them out.

When I was actively involved in airline flying, the operators all had adequate general takeoff chart data sufficient for the crew on the day to make a conservative calculation of RTOW using NOTAM data. If you don't have that then the operator should have a call-in support service for the problem. Certainly, for my consultancy's customers, we fielded more than a few calls from commanders on the ground with a need for a go/no go answer.

give us an insight into how one should ... manage to do it within the time constraints allowed?

On the line, you can't do much more than use a general takeoff chart with the advertised obstacle problem. This should amount to a normal turnaround nuisance, time-wise, for folk in practice.

If you needed to run a full manual AFM analysis, one might need to make arrangements for the passengers to amuse themselves. Seriously, it is not a problem for the pilot .. the operator should be addressing it at homeplate.

but buying software, subscribing to outsourced data still means the Commander needs to check - doesn't it?

This Industry abounds with instances where the commander is responsible but can't, realistically, do the coalface work. Provided that the data source is reputable and competent, the usual expectation is that sensible sanity checks be made.

So is there a problem here that the industry needs to address...

As it has been (worldwide) for many a year.

perhaps we should show up for duty three hours before a flight to make sure the buck does not land in our lap?

I'll choose to read that with the wry smile I presume you intended ? Seriously, this either is a Regulator or Union problem to pursue.

[underfire]

Usually, if there is a NOTAM issued, it is because there is some conflict with a procedure. In the win turbine, that is a permanent one, but in reality, for situational awareness with radar issues.
If an obstacle is in conflict on a permanent basis, the flight procedure is adjusted or the obstacle mitigated.
Flight ops get all sorts of temp obstacles all of the time, depending on procedures, you adjust your procedures with your own, as it may not affect anyone else.
In the RNP world, we review obstacles all of the time that have no effect on other operations, especially when looking at the EO missed, which is not in the public designs.

[ShyTorque]

I appreciate and understand that. However, I probably would have resigned from the role prior to its coming to that. Then again, I have the advantage of having several strings to the bow and the ability to make a crust one way or another.

How I would love to take some of the more risk averse airline pilots for a trip into London Heliport! They would probably have kittens or s**t themselves at the sight of the first crane and there are dozens of them. Pilots are obliged to climb past one of them in particular with a lateral separation of less than 100 metres.

[Denti]

Apparently there is a reason for the huge divide between helicopter and airline safety.

[Tankengine]

If you have an electronic performance app you should be able to input the notamed data and get performance figures.
On the Airbus with their app you input height and distance from runway beginning or end and out pops the data.
Simple Maths would make you decide which notams to consider.

Like John T, 600' @ 1 mile being "OK" makes me shiver!:eek:

[john_tullamarine]

Usually, if there is a NOTAM issued, it is because there is some conflict with a procedure

With the caveat that I am not a NOTAM criteria expert, I think that the comment is a little wide of the mark.

There will be a host of criteria for which a NOTAM is required if "something" is outside the defined boundary of acceptability .. obstacle considerations being just one of many matters addressed by NOTAM.

In addition, one needs to be a little circumspect as, on occasion, the NOTAM itself contains duff gen .. and this certainly applies at times for obstacle NOTAM.

A healthy dose of suspicious cynicism helps one aspire to the goal of retiring rather than dying ... but isn't that the golden rule in flying anyway ?

If an obstacle is in conflict on a permanent basis, the flight procedure is adjusted or the obstacle mitigated.

Does your comment infer that one disregards a temporary obstacle problem ? If that were true, I have dishonestly obtained many dollars over the years from client operators ...

How I would love to take some of the more risk averse airline pilots for a trip into London Heliport!

Not risk averse at all and quite prepared to take a risk when the risk/benefit makes sense .. and, of course, that assessment will vary according to the particular circumstances and class of operation, etc.

However, risks at the other end of the scale don't get a guernsey in my ambit.

The catch-cry is risk-managed rather than risk averse. One needs to keep in mind that risk management involves competent technical assessment, not just a finger-in-the-wind-she'll-be-OK-Jack approach to the problem.

Pilots are obliged to climb past one of them in particular with a lateral separation of less than 100 metres.

Let me guess ... day VMC operations only .. or very well lit for night VMC ? While not in airline operations, I have done the same sort of thing in days gone past in Airwork utility operations. However, like those croppies who live to a ripe old age, the smaller the margin for error, the greater the effort which needs to go into procedural assessment.

I recall a TP mate, years ago, who spent hours traipsing the paddocks around the runway prior to the first flight of a particular machine .. you guessed it, and he didn't raise any sign of a sweat as he executed the prepared for forced landing.

[ShyTorque]

Very well lit? It has a single red light on top of the movable jib. Against the backlighting of the capital city, like all the rest of the very many cranes sprouting everywhere in London.

We do have the benefit of operating under night VFR, at least since the national rules were recently changed to allow it, rather than to mandate IFR only at night. But the task remains the same. There never has been a London heliport with an IFR approach.

Corporate helicopters could more safely carry out an ILS at London City Airport, which would be more convenient for most customers. But helicopters have always been banned from operating there.

[john_tullamarine]

It has a single red light on top of the movable jib.

Although not a helo driver (one of my regrets) I have had a reasonable amount to do with higher end operators in Oz.

I dips me lid to the well-accomplished helo drivers out there. And the idea of being able to do an ILS ... stop midway .... reposition to the needles ... and continue never ceases to amuse me.

First time in the air (a long time ago, now) was in an Iroquois as a cadet in the RAAF ATC at Canberra .. sold me on flying big time.