The deteriorating quality of AIP information
But how was the NOTAM office to know that the original NOTAM was incorrect?
The regs you quoted only requre AsA to correct an error once it becomes known. Not to fact check the information as given to them.
Unless the originator corrects the error the NOTAM office will have no knowledge that incorrect data has been published and is not obliged to sanity check the incoming data
The regs you quoted only requre AsA to correct an error once it becomes known. Not to fact check the information as given to them.
Unless the originator corrects the error the NOTAM office will have no knowledge that incorrect data has been published and is not obliged to sanity check the incoming data
Thread Starter
With respect alpha, we don’t know who made what error/s. The NOTAM originator said she ticked the ‘Eastern Standard time’ box on the form. Either the originator is making that up, or she isn’t. Either the box exists on the form, or it does not.
It seems to me that there are only two alternatives: The NOTAM office stuffed up by not converting the times from Eastern Standard time to UTC in accordance with the form submitted by the originator, and then the originator stuffed up by not confirming the accuracy of the times in the promulgated NOTAM. Or, the originator stuffed up by submitting a form that did not present the time information accurately then stuffed up again by not confirming the accuracy of the times in the published NOTAM.
Key point: Either way, Air Services has a statutory obligation to find out WTF happened, and why, resulting in misleading runway closure times in a NOTAM published by Air Services. That’s the point of CASR 175.175.
If it turns out the NOTAM originator is incompetent, the organisation which appointed the NOTAM originator has a regulatory problem which should be of concern to Air Services and CASA. It could also be that the Air Services NOTAM office isn’t interpreting submitted forms properly, which would also be something that should be of concern to Air Service and CASA.
All these rules are, after all, supposed to be about safety.
It seems to me that there are only two alternatives: The NOTAM office stuffed up by not converting the times from Eastern Standard time to UTC in accordance with the form submitted by the originator, and then the originator stuffed up by not confirming the accuracy of the times in the promulgated NOTAM. Or, the originator stuffed up by submitting a form that did not present the time information accurately then stuffed up again by not confirming the accuracy of the times in the published NOTAM.
Key point: Either way, Air Services has a statutory obligation to find out WTF happened, and why, resulting in misleading runway closure times in a NOTAM published by Air Services. That’s the point of CASR 175.175.
If it turns out the NOTAM originator is incompetent, the organisation which appointed the NOTAM originator has a regulatory problem which should be of concern to Air Services and CASA. It could also be that the Air Services NOTAM office isn’t interpreting submitted forms properly, which would also be something that should be of concern to Air Service and CASA.
All these rules are, after all, supposed to be about safety.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 9th Apr 2023 at 10:26.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
I’ve raised the issue with ATSB.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 10th Apr 2023 at 23:23.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Here’s a current one for a very busy international airport on the east coast:
Let’s hope those times are intended to be interpreted as UTC! 1300 Eastern Standard time is about an hour from now.
The programmers of the EFB certainly interpret the times to be UTC (along with the rest of us) because the EFB currently says under that NOTAM:
RWY 16R/34L CLOSED DUE WIP
ALL MOVEMENTS OTHER THAN EMERG OPS USING OTHER RUNWAYS AS DEFINED IN
THE SYDNEY AIRPORT CURFEW ACT 1995 REQUIRE DISPENSATION FM DEPARTMENT
OF INFRASTUCTURE IN ADDITION TO PUBLISHED OPR RESTRICTIONS
REFER TO METHOD OF WORKING PLAN (MOWP) 21/003
FROM 04 111300 TO 04 131900
DAILY 1300/1900
ALL MOVEMENTS OTHER THAN EMERG OPS USING OTHER RUNWAYS AS DEFINED IN
THE SYDNEY AIRPORT CURFEW ACT 1995 REQUIRE DISPENSATION FM DEPARTMENT
OF INFRASTUCTURE IN ADDITION TO PUBLISHED OPR RESTRICTIONS
REFER TO METHOD OF WORKING PLAN (MOWP) 21/003
FROM 04 111300 TO 04 131900
DAILY 1300/1900
The programmers of the EFB certainly interpret the times to be UTC (along with the rest of us) because the EFB currently says under that NOTAM:
Active in 11 hours
Thread Starter
As you say, that is incorrect ... it is easy to see why such an error could be made when interpreting the MOS139, or when you deal with issues regarding Runways and Runway strips everyday to the point you forget they do overlap. Yes it is in black and white that the RWS includes the RWY in the definitions, but then almost all standards and references relating to the Runway Strip specifically refer to the parts that lay outside the actual Runway, with runways having their own set of standards.
Or in this case, don't taxi on the unsealed areas of the Runway Strip. You can say that, and it would be correct.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Good to see that the NOTAM for the latest event got the times correct:
RWY 16/34 CLOSED DUE VEHICLE TESTING
EXC FOR EMERG ACFT WITH 30MIN PN TO ORGANISER CTC ON CTAF 126.7 OR VIA TEL: nnnn nnn nnn FROM 04 130300 TO 04 150930
2304130300 TO 2304130930
2304132030 TO 2304140930
2304142030 TO 2304150930
EXC FOR EMERG ACFT WITH 30MIN PN TO ORGANISER CTC ON CTAF 126.7 OR VIA TEL: nnnn nnn nnn FROM 04 130300 TO 04 150930
2304130300 TO 2304130930
2304132030 TO 2304140930
2304142030 TO 2304150930
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Airservices' response to the Repcon:
"We have an opportunity to lead ADOs in this space...". Who writes this stuff?
How about: "Airservices changed the Form, yesterday, to remove the scope for confusion"? It's about safety.
Airservices appreciates the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the REPCON relating to incorrect times published in NOTAMS.
Our Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) NOTAM Office has identified that the acronym EST on the NOTAM Form may be misinterpreted as ‘Eastern Standard Time’ when it actually represents ‘Estimated’ time when completed by the Aeronautical Data Originators (ADOs).
In 2025, with the introduction of the eAIP, industry will be required to shift completely to UTC timings only. We have an opportunity to lead ADOs in this space earlier via updating the NOTAM Form to reflect ‘Estimated’ with the view of phasing out and only using UTC on the form. ADOs are regularly provided feedback for education purposes. Additionally, the NOTAM Office checking process is reviewed regularly under our Quality Assurance programme and is considered fit for purpose.
Our Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) NOTAM Office has identified that the acronym EST on the NOTAM Form may be misinterpreted as ‘Eastern Standard Time’ when it actually represents ‘Estimated’ time when completed by the Aeronautical Data Originators (ADOs).
In 2025, with the introduction of the eAIP, industry will be required to shift completely to UTC timings only. We have an opportunity to lead ADOs in this space earlier via updating the NOTAM Form to reflect ‘Estimated’ with the view of phasing out and only using UTC on the form. ADOs are regularly provided feedback for education purposes. Additionally, the NOTAM Office checking process is reviewed regularly under our Quality Assurance programme and is considered fit for purpose.
How about: "Airservices changed the Form, yesterday, to remove the scope for confusion"? It's about safety.
The following users liked this post:
How about: "Airservices changed the Form, yesterday, to remove the scope for confusion"? It's about safety.
The apparent confusion surrounding the use of the abbreviation “EST” sounds like deflection of responsibility. How about putting “What is the local time of commencement” or “What is the local time of cessation” on the NOTAM form and letting the pros do the conversion. Good thing this is getting solved….by 2025. It’s not like it’s safety-related or something.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
I'd much rather that everyone use UTC. It's why UTC was invented.
The people appointed by an aerodrome operator as a NOTAM authorised person should at least know what UTC is and how to do conversions. It is, of course, a strict liability offence to appoint someone who does not have the knowledge and competence to request the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS. Getting a runway closure NOTAM right seems to me to be a core competency requirement of a NOTAM authorised person.
The most disturbing part of this issue was the discussion I had with an ATSB staff member, who said CASA would probably not be interested in the substance of the REPCON or do anything about it if they were. So apparently CASA couldn't be bothered to do anything about a set of circumstances in which runway closure NOTAMS are repeatedly issued with the wrong times, which circumstances raise a question about the knowledge and competence of the person requesting the issue of those NOTAMS. And there was me thinking that Part 175 and all the criminal offences in it are about safety.
The people appointed by an aerodrome operator as a NOTAM authorised person should at least know what UTC is and how to do conversions. It is, of course, a strict liability offence to appoint someone who does not have the knowledge and competence to request the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS. Getting a runway closure NOTAM right seems to me to be a core competency requirement of a NOTAM authorised person.
The most disturbing part of this issue was the discussion I had with an ATSB staff member, who said CASA would probably not be interested in the substance of the REPCON or do anything about it if they were. So apparently CASA couldn't be bothered to do anything about a set of circumstances in which runway closure NOTAMS are repeatedly issued with the wrong times, which circumstances raise a question about the knowledge and competence of the person requesting the issue of those NOTAMS. And there was me thinking that Part 175 and all the criminal offences in it are about safety.
Clinton, you're right of course.
I'm sure Part 175 is supposed to be all about safety.. it's just that CASA don't feel enforcement is part of their mandate. A cursory review of the list of "Who it affects" at https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centr...ion-management indicates CASA only set the rules for everyone else.. they don't give a rats otherwise since that could be seen to generate a conflict of interest between government-funded entities.
The most disturbing part of this issue was the discussion I had with an ATSB staff member, who said CASA would probably not be interested in the substance of the REPCON or do anything about it if they were. So apparently CASA couldn't be bothered to do anything about a set of circumstances in which runway closure NOTAMS are repeatedly issued with the wrong times, which circumstances raise a question about the knowledge and competence of the person requesting the issue of those NOTAMS. And there was me thinking that Part 175 and all the criminal offences in it are about safety.
