Surely if you are flying close to an aerodrome en-route it is good airmanship to check the notams for the aerodrome and the area surrounding it in case of the requirement to use it as an en-route diversion or availability of the aerodrome, its surfaces, aids and ATC services? No?
I don't agree. A reasonable cross-country flight might take me close (as in < 20 miles close) to tens of dozens, if not hundreds of airfields. If I don't fly to that airfield, nor fly in their ATZ, I'm not interested in things like:
- runway closures, WIP on taxiways
- fuel availability
- amended operational hours
and so forth.
What I am interested in is anything related to any of my *planned* diversion fields, and these airfields are of course added to the NOTAM brief request. I'm also interested in any *en-route* navaids problems (VORs, DMEs, NDBs, but not ILSs and their associated markers) and other *en-route* issues (TRAs and similar, changed operational hours of en-route ATC units and so forth)
That's what IO540 is claiming: if a NOTAM is only of interest to those that will actually be landing on that airfield (or using it as a planned diversion), it should be marked as an airfield-only NOTAM. If it's interesting for pilots who are simply passing by, then it should be marked as a whole-FIR NOTAM, with appropriate lat/long information and radius so that a narrow route briefing will pick it up.