Originally Posted by
whowhenwhy
Bit grumpy today 2 sheds?
CAP 1430 is correct. The definition of NOTAM hasn't changed from the meaning in ICAO Annex 11. The only thing that has changed is that whilst the abbreviation NOTAM is still to be used, it means Notice to Aviators rather than Notice to Airmen. The ICAO definition doesn't include a decode of the abbreviation.
The ICAO decode of NOTAM, together with all other ICAO approved abbreviations, are set out in Doc 8400.
Wordy as it is the ICAO decode of the abbreviation is:
"NOTAM Notice distributed by means of telecommunication containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service,
procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations" Which is replicated in the UK AIP GEN section.
ICAO is apparently not going to change this.
Consequently it appears that EASA decided to adopt the decode "Notice to airmen" which has led UK down the same rabbit hole by publishing it in CAP 1430. The PC brigade in UK has now latched on to it and decided that this is not acceptable.
Why EASA decided to deviate from Doc 8400 when they habitually ram ICAO SARPS compliance down member States' throats, only the almighty might know.
Bottom line appears to be that this whole exercise was totally avoidable if EASA and UK had stuck with the ICAO Doc 8400 decode, and not decided to adopt the unofficial "Notice to airmen". Surely there are far more important issues for them to devote their efforts to?