PPRuNe Forums


Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17th Mar 2017, 10:04   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 60
Posts: 612
NOTAMS

This dropped into my mailbox this morning. An interesting "no holds barred" and pragmatic outburst that highlights how NOTAMS are considered by the author to have become a threat to flight safety.


http://http://flightservicebureau.or...llshit-notams/
deefer dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Mar 2017, 10:20   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 611
Shame author is unaware of current system enhancement being designed across both sides of the Atlantic in reference to mitigating this threat which in itself is correctly identified.

xNOTAM has been on the books for years and its capability are getting better, being designed from the perspective that humans and IT systems must be able to read it, a standardised format is available which can be parsed in whatever format the user requires.

Think of graphical representation of items, obstacles, closures (of airports, stands, taxiway segments and runways) and much much more...

Soon this system will be available for all to use and benefit from, including EFB systems and OPS briefing computers, printouts or emails for crew etc
Skyjob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Mar 2017, 11:11   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorset, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 278
"Being designed" is better than nothing but I am amazed that 30 years after the invention of the web it is still considered sufficient to publish NOTAMS as only lists of co-ordinates .... how many people actually plot these on a map? They might as well not be published at all.

The situation is slightly better now that iPad mapping systems show notams (though with lots of irrelevant clutter). No thanks to the authorities.
Romeo Tango is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Mar 2017, 14:14   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,457
As I observed here in 2004:

Quote:
It would help if more of our paperwork was in human readable format.

Take a look at the VOMM notams:

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWe...trievalByICAOs [link updated - Airbubba]

The runway cutback is notamed but it is buried in a sea of cryptic minutiae. Actually, the web page is cleaner than the paperwork I get in Asia with page after page of ICAO Annex 15 formatted text. It is like having to read the source code of a web page to figure out what it looks like.

This 1930's teletype stuff is a little behind the times even in the less developed countries. Sure, after the mishap you can find the warning buried in the pile of paper but the idea is to make things easy to get right, not easy to screw up (in the American system, anyway <g>).

Have you been to Taipei since the Y2K Singapore Airlines crash? The taxiways are now well marked, construction areas are lit up like a fire truck. It took a fatal mishap to get the known runway/taxiway confusion cleaned up.

How many mishaps will it take to get paperwork that can be read by us country boys tryin' to earn a living?
Saudi 747 lands in closed section of runway

A British colleague years ago told me that their cultural obsession with complexity and detail in aviation comes from the nautical tradition of making navigation so complicated that the enlisted men can't figure it out and mutiny. I laughed until I saw that he wasn't joking...
Airbubba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Mar 2017, 02:15   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 61
Posts: 2,994
D4D - A brilliant find. There were 136 NOTAMs supplied as part of my last briefing package tonight - for a one hour flight. One made sense. It explained that the very obvious red lights and barriers across a taxiway were there because of some equally obvious building works. Another useful NOTAM told us that the localiser may fluctuate due to the presence of preceding aircraft on the runway. No. Surely not. We also learnt that "CODE E MOVEMENTS PPR DUE WIP". That's amazing. What are "Code E" movements? Who cares? But we had been told!

I agree. NOTAMS are the aeronatical equivalent of 'crying wolf' and therefore are a complete waste of electrons and toner/ink. We had three pertinent NOTAMs on our last flight tonight - the rest were rubbish. The ratio of dross to useful information must be reduced to better than 50% and when that is done they might get read. If maybe the writers were charged for each one per hour pf validity they might not be written?

Airbubba - The obsession in Britain is with 'elf'n'safety' and people running scared in case some filthy compo lawyer has a go at them. Pointless and irrelevant NOTAMs are a manifestation of that problem.


*** WARNING *** WARNING *** WARNING *** WARNING ***

The post may contain traces of nuts. Not breathing whilst reading may cause unconsciousness and injury. This post must be read under adult supervision. Do not play with matches. Do not drink sulfuric acid. Think of the environment when reading this post - turn your screen down to minimum brightness to save energy. WARNING - Reading screens that are insufficiently illuminated many cause eye strain and headaches. etc.
Piltdown Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 11:33   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorset, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 278
It is sad and depressing that it seems no one is going to sort this.

It is a significant safety issue caused by an organisation (the AIS) that is supposed to promote safety.

AND It wastes tens (hundreds?) of thousands of expensive man hours a year.

Is there no one from the AIS on here who can either defend the status quo or say that something will be done?
Romeo Tango is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Mar 2017, 02:04   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 121
A0686/17 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QLAXX/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5152N00022W005
A) EGGW B) 1702261950 C) 1703312359
E)
3 LIGHTS OUT OF SERVICE ON THIRD BAR OF RWY 26 HIGH INTENSITY APCH
LIGHTS

Just in case.....
Consol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Mar 2017, 11:23   #8 (permalink)

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not home
Age: 39
Posts: 1,647
I am a devils' advocate on this, suggesting that it is operator's responsibility to filter NOTAMS according to Q codes and other criteria, see ippc.no for an example of what is available. What i mean to say is that the other suggested approach would be restricting aviation proffesionals from disseminating information of consequence to pilots and operational staff (definition, my underlining).

The example by Consol leaves me speachless, however.
FlightDetent is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:13.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1