NOTAM - website quality reversion

[Pilotage]

I confess that I've not been checking NOTAMs quite as religiously as I should over the last few months since I've mostly been flying right seat with other qualified pilots or in my own backyard. But today, I've a meeting near White Waltham and rather than brave the M25 I've decided to fly up from Popham.

So, I am a good pilot go to the AIS website, and request a route brief from Popham to WW, and to be on the safe side I enter a 35nm radius since there isn't an obvious straight line route.

What I get seems straight back to the bad old days. Pages upon pages of NOTAMS, completely unordered, many of which have absolutely no relevance to my route.

For example, near the end of the list I have NOTAMs (in order) for Carlisle, St Athan and Coventry. Now I'm not a regular computer programmer, but even I wouldn't struggle to write a program capable of showing that none of these are within a 35nm radius of a straight track from Popham to White Waltham. That order scarcely lends itself to easy checking to my route either in the way that latitude order used to.

I thought from posts here and in the GA press that this was all sorted. Has anybody out there got a clue what is going on, and when it's going to be sorted out?

P

[flower]

Pilotage,
if you look further down the Forum you will see that a group of people are still working very closely with AIS to try to make the system simpler and more appropriate for GA.
You may help them out by looking at their suggestions and commenting on them on this site as all comments good or bad are welcome.

The post to look at is " could someone look at this please " which I have brought back upto the top for you
regards Flower

[Circuit Basher]

Pilotage - not wishing to sound insulting, but I had a similar thing (warning me of danger zones over Iraq for a flight from Perth (Scotland!!) to Edinburgh). Reported it to Mike Cross who very helpfully pointed out that I'd left the IFR / VFR selection at the default, rather than selecting VFR :O

Just a thought...!!

PS I'm about to go check NOTAMs myself for a trip from Perth to Benbecula tomorrow, so will be able to let you know if I concur with your issues!!

[Mike Cross]

Your problem is that you have selected the wrong brief. If you read the FAQ you will see that the brief you have selected gives you the entire FIR plus your departure arrival and alternate aerodromes.

6.1 The briefing will contain information for the whole FIR through which the route passes BUT NOT all the Licensed Airfields as in the Area Briefing.
Airfields included will be the AD of departure and destination and any additional airfields you have entered. If additional AD are required, insert the ICAO Location Indicator in the additional airfields. (DO NOT CONFUSE WITH
NARROW ROUTE BRIEF).

The FAQ are quite well written and I recommend anyone to print them out and refer to them until they are totally familiar with the site.


The one you want is the Narrow Route Brief.

The site now works OK, however work is still needed to make the interface more user-friendly and intuitive, something we are still pursueing.

The use of the terminology "UK ROUTE BRIEFING" confuses many people and we need to find a better alternative.

I have been told that the purpose of the radius field is to define a cylinder of airspace round the departure and arrival aerodromes, within which you will be climbing/descending to/from your cruise altitude. You should get NOTAM from surface to Upper FL+4000 ft within these cylinders. For the remainder of the flight you should get NOTAM from Lower FL-4000ft to Upper FL+4000ft. However the fact that you get the entire FIR anyway appears to negate its usefulness.

Hope this is helpful.

Mike Cross
Representing AOPA on NOTAM issues

[Circuit Basher]

Just did a NOTAM search and to some extent, wish I hadn't!! :O :mad: The NOTAM search engine behaved itself impeccably (thanks again, Mike / Rustle!!), but I wasn't too keen on what it told me.....

Background: Flying Perth-Benbecula tomorrow am, aiming to land around 0900Z and launching 1500Z for the return. Data I got was as follows:

EGPX (SCOTTISH) :

NAVW: FROM 03/06/23 07:00 TO 03/07/03 16:00 H3386/03
E) (MIL REF) AUS 03-06-0003/1790/KL
EX CLEAN HUNTER 03. LARGE FORMATIONS OF UP TO 40 FIXED WING ACFT WILL OPERATE IN AN AREA BOUNDED BY 5000N 00400W-5700N 00400W-5700N 00200E-5430N 00432E-5130N 00200E-5107N 00200E-5100N 00128E-5040N 00128E-5000N 00015W-ORIGIN. OFFENSIVE, DEFENSIVE AND SUPPORTING AIR OPERATIONS WILL TAKE PLACE. AAR, AEW, JAMMING AND CHAFF RELEASE CAN BE EXPECTED. ACN 03-06-0001 DATED 11 JUN 03 REFERS. CONTACT CAOC 9, 01494461461 EXT 2157/2714.
F)SFC G)FL240

NAVW: FROM 03/06/16 08:00 TO 03/06/26 16:00 H3222/03
D)JUN 16-20 AND 23-26 0730-0930 1230-1430 DAILY.
E)(MIL REF) AUS 03-06-0135/AIS 1659/KL
JMC 031. INTENSE AERIAL ACTIVITY WILL TAKE PLACE WI AREA BOUNDED BY 5800N 00620W-5635N 00522W-5605N 00522W-5611N 00705W-5630N 00800W-5758N 00800W-ORIGIN. LARGE FORMATIONS OF FAST JET AIRCRAFT WILL CONDUCT HIGH ENERGY MANOUEVRES AND MAY NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH RULES OF THE AIR. ACN 03-06-0135 DATED 19 MAY 03 REFERS.
CONTACT JMC DIRECTING STAFF, MOC FASLANE 01436 674321 EXT 4373/4379,
DFTS 93 255 4373/4379.
F)SFC G)FL550

NAVW: FROM 03/06/16 08:00 TO 03/06/26 23:59 H3219/03
E)(MIL REF) AUS 03-06-0135/AIS 1658/KL
JMC 031. NAVAL/AIR EXER WILL TAKE PLACE OVER THE NORTH SEA, HEBRIDES AND NORTH WEST APPROACHES WI AREA BOUNDED BY 5530N 01200W-6055N 01200W-6055N 00000W/E-6000N 00000W/E-5853N 00200E-5600N 00200E-5600N 00228W-5610N 00600W-5530N 00700W-ORIGIN. UP TO 30 ACFT IN MIXED FORMATIONS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH RULES OF THE AIR, OPERATE TRANSPONDERS IN MODE 3/A OR DISPLAY NAVIGATION LIGHTS. ACN 03-06-0135 DATED 19 MAY 03 REFERS. CONTACT JMC DIRECTING STAFF, MOC FASLANE. TEL 01436 674321 EXT 4373/4379, DFTS 93 255 4373/4379.
F)SFC G)FL240

NAVW: FROM 03/06/26 07:30 TO 03/06/26 14:30 H3752/03
D)0730-0930 AND 1230-1430
E)(MIL REF) AUS 03-06-0135/2008/KL
JMC 032. INTENSE AERIAL ACTIVITY WILL TAKE PLACE WI AREA BOUNDED BY 5940N 00130W-5920N 00100W-5800N 00100W-5800N 00450W-5816N 00600W-5950N 00600W-ORIGIN. LARGE FORMATIONS OF FAST JET AIRCRAFT WILL CONDUCT HIGH ENERGY MANOUEVRES AND MAY BE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH RULES OF THE AIR. ACN 03-06-0135 DATED 19 MAY 03 REFERS. CONTACT JMC DIRECTING STAFF, MOC FASLANE 01436 674321 EXT 4373/4379, DFTS 93 255 4373/4379.
F)SFC G)FL550

Talked to very helpful nice man at JMC, who said that there will be waves of 30 - 70 a/c passing thru at anywhere between 250' and FL150 with the main wave being expected over the Minch (are you reading this, Pinky??!!) between 0800 - 0900Z :hmm: :uhoh: :\

It was politely suggested that I may wish to delay / advance the flight!

However, the NOTAMS worked!! :ok:

[Mike Cross]

See this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94071) for useful input on these mil exercises.

Mike

[Circuit Basher]

mrcross - thanks; I was aware of that thread. The chappies at Faslane didn't know what I was talking about when I referred to Clean Hunter and it seems like the JMC operations are separate from Clean Hunter (although I expect that they are somehow entwined), so I've got 4 exercise NOTAMs to try to keep track of!!

Still, good news is that I very riskily declined the SNOWTAM option ;)

[Pilotage]

Thanks for the feedback chaps.

I did have VFR selected but not narrow route brief. I'll try that next and see what I get.

P

[Andrew Sinclair]

If you want to confirm your results, given the sector details below I received a 5 page brief which included the 26 En Route NOTAM listed below.

EGHP and EGLM have no active NOTAM.

Departure: EGHP
Destination: EGLM
Period: 09:00 UTC 01/07/03 to 18:00 UTC 01/07/03
Traffic: VFR Only
Flight Level: 35 (+/- 4000ft)
Purpose: General + Miscellaneous

COM : FROM 03/04/01 15:56 TO PERM B0634/03
COM : EGKR FROM 03/06/30 14:47 TO 03/12/31 16:00 L1511/03
COM : EGVA FROM 03/06/16 13:55 TO 03/07/02 06:30 U0725/03
COM : EGLF FROM 03/06/12 13:26 TO 03/08/01 06:00 E1139/03
COM : EGDL FROM 03/06/26 13:30 TO 03/07/02 16:00 U0757/03
RAC : FROM 03/01/16 13:08 TO 03/12/31 23:59 EST B0084/03
RAC : FROM 03/04/01 15:44 TO PERM B0633/03
RAC : EGLL FROM 03/07/01 07:16 TO 03/07/01 12:30 A1743/03
OTH : FROM 03/06/30 00:01 TO PERM L1474/03
OTH : FROM 03/01/16 10:00 TO PERM A2275/02
OTH : FROM 03/01/17 15:17 TO PERM B0148/03
OTH : FROM 03/06/23 06:19 TO 03/09/22 23:59 EST U0750/03
OTH : FROM 03/06/25 09:37 TO 03/12/31 23:59 N0101/03
OTH : FROM 03/06/25 08:00 TO 03/08/24 23:59 N0100/03
NAVW: FROM 02/10/16 08:13 TO PERM J0581/02
NAVW: FROM 03/07/01 18:00 TO 03/07/01 20:00 H3984/03
NAVW: FROM 03/06/23 07:00 TO 03/07/03 16:00 H3386/03
NAVW: FROM 03/04/18 04:30 TO 03/10/31 17:15 H1555/03
NAVW: FROM 03/07/01 03:30 TO 03/09/30 18:30 H3688/03
NAVW: FROM 03/07/01 07:00 TO 03/09/30 15:45 H3687/03
NAVW: FROM 03/07/01 03:30 TO 03/09/30 18:30 H3685/03
NAVW: FROM 03/06/26 13:15 TO 03/07/02 15:30 H3619/03
NAVW: FROM 03/07/01 07:00 TO 03/07/01 17:00 H3986/03
NAVW: FROM 03/07/01 03:30 TO 03/09/30 18:30 H3686/03
NAVW: EGWN FROM 03/07/01 12:15 TO 03/07/01 12:45 H3972/03
NAVW: EGBT FROM 03/06/20 16:01 TO PERM B1320/03

The detail has been edited out to save PPRuNe storage space!

Oh dear, I have turned into a NOTAM spotter :sad:

[Pilotage]

You don't seem to be changing my prejudices much Andrew.

P

[Mike Cross]

Andrew- quit while you're ahead!

One of the problems we face is nothing to do with the website.

NOTAM are originated by all sorts of people. AIS are just the publishers. If DETR or an aerodrome operator or the police or military issue a NOTAM AIS have to promulgate it. The Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf) lays down what should and should not constitute a NOTAM, however this is sometimes ignored. Because NOTAM are required reading it can be seen as a convenient way to get the message across.

Also some facility owners tend to NOTAM everything on the grounds that they can't be wrong if they put it in. This can be detrimental to safety by obscuring the info that IS relevant.

Have a look at this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69630&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) for some amusement on this subject.

What we PPL's refer to loosely as NOTAM are not in fact NOTAM, they are pre-flight information bulletins (PIB's) containing information selected from the NOTAM database. The criteria we enter on the pages of the AIS web-site are used in the selection process. If we are loose with our selection criteria we will get more data returned. If the originators of the NOTAM in the underlying database coded them wrongly we will get irrelevant data.

The old computer problem GIGO, Garbage In - Garbage Out

Mike

[Andrew Sinclair]

I think you're right Mike.......I need to see a shrink I think!

I must say though that if the selection criteria are as narrow as is possible and the reply is totally 100% trustworthy then it is better reading 5 pages (e.g. the 26 I got from my enquiry above) knowing that they are valid, than speed-reading 30 pages and maybe missing important information; not seeing the wood for the trees.

Admittedly there are better ways to display the data (e.g. graphically on a map for one) and work needs to continue is that area sure enough, but until such times as that bears fruit at least there is a reasonably reliable method of at least getting a reduced PIB.

I'll be honest, what I have done in the past has been to obtain a huge great long brief get bored and frustrated by page 10 of 35 and speed read the rest hoping to pick up any salient points then throw it over my shoulder and grab the aircraft keys. I am not saying it was the correct approach, but nowadays my attention span manages the 5-10 page replies and I feel more confident that I haven't missed anything even if it does take more work and is a pain at times.

[QNH 1013]

Well, the system may not be perfect, and I actually prefered the old listing by lattitude, but at least I now find it useable and therefore much safer than the previous fiasco.
My sincere thanks to the unpaid people who have spent a lot of their time and energy to get us back a useable system.

[david viewing]

Mike is quite correct to say that content is becoming an issue now that we have some sort of delivery mechanism once again.

For instance, the aerodrome brief for Eglinton (City of Derry) repeats the same Notam 3 times:

RAC : FROM 03/03/31 14:56 TO PERM L0789/03
E)TWR/APP HOURS SUMMER, MON-FRI 0645-2100, SAT 0645-1500, SUN 1100-2100

Despite the repetition, the actual hours are quite different with the airport closed for traffic during the day owing to rest breaks required because of single controller operation.

Eglinton is actually a very friendly place and is PPR anyway, but what use is the Notam in these circumstances?

[Andrew Sinclair]

Could I try and answer by taking your last point first. I read your post as saying "Eglington is PPR anyway so why publish opening times or a change in opening times because you must ring to establish PPR anyway and they will tell you". The reason for this NOTAM, I think, is because the NOTAM process is used as the update system for the UK AIP "library". Licensed airfields have an obligation to publish a set of data which, as we know, is incorporated into the UK AIP. When the data needs to be updated the NOTAM process is used. After the AIP is updated with the correction, this type of "XXXX to perm" NOTAM will be removed from the ADIMS database and will not appear in the Pre-Flight Information Bulletin (PIB).

At the moment the AIP specific airfield entry for Derry reads:

Winter
Mon-Fri 0700 - 2015 Sat 0700 - 1545 Sun 1230 - 2115 (By Arrangement)
Summer
Mon-Fri 0615 - 2015 Sat 0615 - 1545 Sun 1130 - 2015 (By Arrangement)

So effectively what they are saying is "We are updating the UK AIP and here are the new opening times"

Notwithstanding the above "official" published hours, if the ATSU has manning problems such that they cannot provide the required level of service then they have little option but to withdraw the airfield from service. Perhaps this is a short term manning problem (e.g. day-to-day) and that long term recruitment is actively underway by the ATSU concerned; I cannot comment because I don't know the detail at this airfield.

To your first point, why is it repeated. The reason is they have followed the ICAO Annexe 15 rules to the letter and submitted three NOTAM B0620/03, L0788/03 and L0789/03 because the change in these hours affects three different elements of the airfield operation which Annexe 15 required a NOTAM for; ATZ, A/D and Twr/App op hours I suspect. They could have combined these three perhaps and used a different code (XX) in the Q code. There is a good example of this and a more complete explanation Here (http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais/More_NOTAM.htm). Look at the paragraph half way down that starts "NOTAM Code, a 5 letter code...." Mike and Russell have explained the same issue concerning a runway lighting in the example.

Regards

Andy

[david viewing]

Andrew

Thanks for the detailed reply. But this leaves at least two unanswered (or unanswerable) questions:

1) Given that conscientious pilots like the chap who opened this thread are still frustrated by the volume and lack of relevance of Notams, are Notams like this any use?

2) Could EGAE publish a more relevant Notam with the actual times, or is the airfield technically open anyway at the published times ? (I was told in strong terms that I must not land, or depart, during the rest periods given to me on the phone).

As I said before, the chaps at EGAE are first class and it is PPR anyway.

There seems to be evidence that many pilots still do not read Notams and the ways to address this are 1) make the software work and 2) make the content relevant.

David

[Andrew Sinclair]

Your points are very salient and intuitively I agree. I am going to put two views; that is not to say I necessarily agree with either.

View 1 The NOTAM service which is provided by AIS under the terms of the ICAO is actually a promulgation service to the originators of the information and not to the pilot; the pilot is under legal obligation to make himself/herself aware of the latest information regarding the flight prior to take off; in the UK the ANO is the law which prescribes this. This is not a popular view, but valid nonetheless.

View 2 This is the pragmatic school of thought which holds that if you don’t make something easy then nobody will do it. This is true and we are all human. It is for this reason that there has been much negotiation with AIS/NATS and the CAA and in the future it is hoped that steps may be made to enable better use of well-known products like NotamPlot and NotamPro to make it very east and intuitive to get there PIB information.

If the latter of these two is possible then pilots will both discharge their responsibilities under the ANO and find is easy and intuitive to do so.

We are small fish in a big aviation pond and the AES (web front end to the ADIMS tool provided by NATS/AIS) is a one size fits all database and web interface. What might be irrelevant to us GA folk might be very relevant when viewed by another area of the industry.

Lastly to answer your second question, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that even though an airfield is open the operator or their agent can withdraw permission for it’s use because they own the land. Hence the PPR and in the case you mention the airfield did not grant the prior permission that was required for whatever reason; in this case it was staff manning levels. Someone will correct me if that is wrong but I believe that to be correct.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Andy

[Mike Cross]

Hi David

PPR does not mean you have to phone before taking off.

It would be quite permissible to fly there and get permission by radio before entering the ATZ.
If you got no answer because the a/d was closed you might be a bit hacked off at the lack of a NOTAM that had wasted your journey.

The airfield owners are responsible for requiring the NOTAM to be published.
They follow ICAO requirements. You therefore get three different NOTAM on three different subjects.

1. Change in opening hours
2. Change in radio operations hours.
3. Withdrawal of the ATZ at certain hours.

It would of course be possible for all of these to differ. For example the radio hours could be less than the hours that the airfield is open or the ATZ could be maintained even though the airfield is officially closed. (there might be some aviation activity taking place other than public use).

To answer your points

"1) Given that conscientious pilots like the chap who opened this thread are still frustrated by the volume and lack of relevance of Notams, are Notams like this any use? "

I would say they are. It is of course up to the aerodrome operator whether or not he publishes them and there is guidance in the Manual of Air Traffic Services on what should and should not be published. Broadly speaking if it might affect a pilot's decision on going to that destination it should be published.

2) Could EGAE publish a more relevant Notam with the actual times, or is the airfield technically open anyway at the published times ? (I was told in strong terms that I must not land, or depart, during the rest periods given to me on the phone).

The Rules of the Air Regulations are the authority here. You are not permitted to taxi, take off, land, or fly in the ATZ without the permission of the controlling authority. They don't have to close the a/d to refuse you permission. It is up to EGAE whether or not they wish to notify you in advance by NOTAM or by changing the published hours.

"There seems to be evidence that many pilots still do not read Notams and the ways to address this are 1) make the software work and 2) make the content relevant. "

1) The software does now work. It's not as intuitive as it could be and it requires the user to take the trouble to learn how to use it but it does work.

2) Relevance of the content is largely down to the originator of the NOTAM and the skills of the user in understanding how to use the filtering tools on the site. AIS do not originate NOTAM, they publish them.

I agree that many pilots do not seem to be reading NOTAM (or more correctly the Pre-Flight Information Bulletins derived from them).

Mike