I disagree.
B1003/09 is an accident waiting to happen. OPADD clearly requires the following (my bold): etc. ………
Bookworm, I never verified the NOTAMs editing procedure docs as you did.
My statement was simply due to real life observation. As far as I remember I saw that way of act a lot of times, not to say always.
For the above reason I guess that receiving such a Notam any pilot has to highlight the essential practical operational information despite the layout or maquillage.
When a Notam says :- RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NORMAL OPERATIONS ON RWY 14/32
- NEW AERODROME LAY-OUT
- COMPLETE REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTAL APPROACH PROCEDURES
IMO it MUST trigger a BIG warning, especially if the on board approach plates and aerodrome map still report the previous scenario only, to be CLARIFIED as soon as possible.
With the company dispatcher in first, in the company where those people are allowed to communicate face by face with pilots, or, as last chance, with atco BEFORE the beginning of the approach.
Other technical editing consideration(s) can be very useful for lawyers, later. But in the meantime the harm has been done.
If the taxiway had been in use for months, don't you think that it would have been better to have a positive instruction via NOTAM i.e. saying something along the lines of 'Runway XYZ is fully serviceable, Taxiway ABC is no longer to be used for landing".
anotherthing, I agree with you. But things do not acts in this way.
What to do ? Land out of RWY everytime ?