RAT5,
I'm not sure how NOTAMs are presented at your company, but in the companies at which I've worked, it's EXTREMELY easy to miss a NOTAM. An out of service ILS will be buried in a mix of taxiway closures and defective windcones. It's about time some human factors analysis goes into the NOTAM presentation.
In a world where we're getting paperwork on tablets, why can't we adjust the formatting of NOTAMs to something like this?
-Runway Closures-
RW 22R CLOSED from 22 Dec 2016 to 26 Dec 2016
-Inoperative Navaids-
ILS RW07 I-SIA ots from 22 Dec 2016 to 26 Dec 2016
-Taxiway closures-
taiway B closed btwn B6 and B7 from 22 Dec 2016 to 26 Dec 2016
-Other stuff-
RW 8R windcone unlit
taxiway D non-std markings btwn D2 and D5
...which is far easier to read than this nonsense
!DTW 01/440 (KDTW A0750/17) DTW RWY 27L PAPI OUT OF SERVICE 1701110628-1701131800EST
!DTW 01/439 (KDTW A0747/17) DTW RWY 27L FICON 10 PRCT WET OBSERVED AT 1701110551. 1701110551-1701120551
!DTW 01/438 (KDTW A0746/17) DTW RWY 21L FICON 10 PRCT WET OBSERVED AT 1701110551. 1701110551-1701120551
!DTW 01/437 (KDTW A0745/17) DTW RWY 22L FICON 10 PRCT WET OBSERVED AT 1701110550. 1701110550-1701120550
!DTW 01/436 (KDTW A0741/17) DTW RWY 04L/22R CLSD 1701110513-1701111030
!DTW 01/435 (KDTW A0740/17) DTW RWY 03L/21R CLSD 1701110513-1701111030
!DTW 01/433 (KDTW A0736/17) DTW TWY ALL FICON WET OBSERVED AT 1701110138. 1701110138-1701120138
!DTW 01/432 (KDTW A0737/17) DTW TWY W HOLD PAD AT RWY 03R CLSD 1701110137-1701120133
!DTW 01/430 (KDTW A0733/17) DTW RWY 21R FICON 5/5/5 100 PRCT WET OBSERVED AT 1701110128. 1701110128-1701120128
!DTW 01/429 (KDTW A0732/17) DTW RWY 22R FICON 5/5/5 100 PRCT WET OBSERVED AT 1701110128. 1701110128-1701120128
Even if colour coding is a potential problem, there's no reason they can't be grouped by importance (runway closures, inop navaids etc), and upper case letters used to highlight critical information.
Software filters would also help. If 22R is closed, I don't want to be reading notams pertaining to approaches or departures for that runway. Surely such things aren't considered scifi in 2017?