Hence why ATIS is a common mitigation in hazard analysis. If it's in AIP/NOTAM and on the ATIS, then maybe more crews will pick up on it.
No chance if a crew isn't reading the NOTAMS they will be the ones that won't listen to the full ATIS and just ignore the Guff as its going through until the MET comes up.
If pilots don't know about something try and find out why.
is it because the NOTAM is more than 2 weeks and its being filtered by the planning software.
Is it the fact that the airport has double figures of NOTAMS most of which never change.
A lot of European airports put temp changes through the plate providers and we get temp different coloured sheets through with the details on. They stand out and in general are read.
The doubling and tripling of the same information through different sources is never going to work its just treated as nagging. Then when something is important it gets missed mixed in amongst the Guff.
Its quite easy to tune out what's being said on box two until you hear the trigger word wind. If your the skipper you have to anyway because you will have box one going as well in case something comes up on it which needs your input or you want to make sure the FO gets it right so you don't have a Alt bust to deal with.
You can stick as much crap as you like on the VOLMET if you want. Just give the bare essentials on the ATIS.
I would suggest who ever does your hazard mitigation gets there backside out of there office and goes and flys the line on the jumpseat for 2 weeks 6 days on one off then 5 days with an airline that does 4-6 sector days. Then they might have a clue what mitigates a hazard and what creates one.
I don't actually know what we are meant to do different with half the guff anyway.
Grass cutting h'mm land on the runway and not on the grass?
Birds in the vicinity: Put safety specs on?
WIP in the undershoot: lets not fly 4 reds as usual then.
Dangerous activity below 500ft: tell the FO they are not allowed to fly the downwind at 300ft today.