That disclaimer's not just an idle threat either - they really do miss stuff out you need
Last Saturday did a Le Touquet run from Elstree and logged into the new site to try it out. Put in all the details and printed out the
18 pages. Undaunted, I waded through it all and couldn't find much to affect me, but as there was so much there I decided to just have a quick check using NotamPlot just in case I'd missed something important. I was horrified to see that just off my track I'd missed a PJE (Gillingham AB 5123 - H3862/02 in case anyone's interested!). I was really disconcerted - I was sure I'd checked reasonably carefully so I went back through it again to see how I could have missed it. Fairly simple explanation - it just wasn't there
.
How can that be??? It was scheduled for exactly the time I was returning and if I'd been one mile off track to the east I'd have passed straight through it.
I wouldn't like to jump to conclusions from just one example, but it really seems to me that this change is measurably dangerous and has a significant chance of causing a serious accident.
Quite apart from the missing NOTAMs, producing 18 pages of warnings, almost all of which are irrelevant, can only hinder pilots from carrying out a proper check. There's already been a thread on the OnTrack website about people not bothering to check for TRAs before setting out. Now it's been made even more difficult to check, this problem can only get worse. And if the service also omits NOTAMs (and even admits it might in the disclaimer) such pilots are starting to have a valid excuse for not bothering to look first.
This "improvement" really has been poorly carried out.