Can someone translate this Notam

[liam548]

PJE WI 2NM RADIUS 5311N 00017E (SKEGNESS RACEWAY, LINCOLNSHIRE).
CTC 01664464816 OR 01949860878 (10-07-0477/AS 3)



Im not sure what PJE is.

[GBOACdave]

PJE = Parachute Jumping Exercise

:ok:

[Talkdownman]

Acronym for a Parachuting Drop Zone.

[liam548]

thank you.:cool:

[Jan Olieslagers]

What does the CTC stand for? A phone number for contact, perhaps?

[BillieBob]

Wouldn't the acronym for Parachute Dropping Zone be PDZ? 'TDM TLA', I think.

[Mike Cross]

If in doubt use the glossary (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-7D1AAABF6F68A60AB5D9C0FADA66EDE2/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/GEN/EG_GEN_2_2_en_2009-09-24.pdf) provided in GEN 2 of every AIP in the globe.

CTC Contact
PJE Parachute Jumping Exercise

For info AS 3 is not in the list. It's the identifier for Airspace Specialist 3, the bod in AUS who originated it so they know who has to sit on the naught step if it was wrongly coded.

[vee-tail-1]

What a cr***p way of giving out vital information.
Mike Cross why are you defending this nonsense? [See other thread re Elvington incursion.]
Plain language means PLAIN language with NO acronyms.
This is 2010/08/04 (to use the new fangled arse about face way of showing the date!) No one uses teleprinters anymore, and PCs can display whole words that everyone can understand without having to use an AIP to decipher.
Life can be difficult enough without promulgating nonsense for nonsense sake. :ugh:

[DC10RealMan]

I think that these abreviations are in use worldwide and in that format because not every reader in the world can read English.

[Mike Cross]

Hmmm.... and there was me thinking I was explaining.

However since you pose the question I concur entirely with DC10RealMan. The stuff should be delivered to a standard and that standard should be the same whether you are in the UK the USA or Uraguay. As a qailified pilot you ought to be know about the AIP. As I said earlier GEN 2 in EVERY AIP in the world contains this information. I've already shown it to you in the UK AIP

Here it is (https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/PDF_AIPparSSection/AIP%20FRANCE/GEN/2/1009_GEN-2.2.pdf) in the French AIP

PJE Exercices de saut en parachute (ou secteur)
for some reason they don't include CTC, although it is an ICAO abbreviation.

[Crash one]

If the abreviations can be translated for each language, why can't the PLAIN text be also? Why be difficult when with a little more effort they could be bloody impossible?
Edit:- Prob half the reason people don't bother. (yes I do)

[Ryan5252]

Whats an AIP?

[vee-tail-1]

Let me try to explain my exasperation with NOTAMS and with the all too common attitude of professionals as expressed here by Mike Cross.
There is a problem getting vital information out to some of the pilot community. NOTAMS are the accepted way of doing it, but NOTAMS use coding and acronyms that are used by and are familiar only to commercial and military pilots. The familiarity comes from frequent use by those professional pilots, who have no need to look up the AIP which nevertheless will be readily available in the ops briefing room.
The typical weekend or retired private pilot who flies less than 50 hours in a year, and has no ops room at his private strip, but is computer literate and carries a laptop is the 'problem'. He knows the importance of NOTAMS and he makes great efforts to read them before every flight. But they are written in gobledeegook, and the few recognisably English words contain unintelligible acronyms. He could drive down to the nearest airfield and ask to borrow their AIP (that's if someone has told him that a decode is to be found somewhere in that document) But every time he flies he goes through the same hassle and sooner or later he just gives up on NOTAMS and hopes for the best on his infrequent flights.
The use of PLAIN ENGLISH with NO acronyms will completely solve this particular problem.

[Crash one]

Something produced by the AIS!

[fisbangwollop]

The NOTAM code goes back to the dark ages ( well when I first started my ATC career ) when everything was sent out by teleprinter message, hence the long hand was transposed into code. However nowadays with everyone running around with laptops and I phones there is no reason what so ever why we cannot use plain language.......guess though I will be long gone and burried before anyone in authority see's sense !!! :cool::cool::cool:

And if you think NOTAMS are confusing try getting yur head around SNOWTAMS....SWEN0393 ENHF 04200155
(SNOWTAM 0393 A) ENHF B) 04200243 C) 05 F) 48/7/47 G) 02/XX/03 H) 60/58/53 GRT N) 47 R) 47 T) RWY SANDED)

That said I Phone now do an APP to translate SNOWTAMS...:cool::cool:

[Crash one]

Could someone explain this. EGQL Leuchars. U1818/10 until 31 Dec 2010 at 2359 UTC CRASH Cat 3A. CRASH 4A by PPR only 01 July 00-01 2010 until 31 Dec 2359 2010. created 17 July 1305 2010.
Edit:- Does this mean I can only crash there with PPR?

[IO540]

I don't see the impenetrable notam format as an issue.

For any given GA flight, between 90% and 100% (usually 100%) of the notams are irrelevant garbage.

Whether a notam item is garbage is immediately evident from just looking at one line of a notam.

Occassionally (very occassionally) one gets an item which is a restricted area/airspace and that is relevant, and those often need to be looked up (in some pink/mauve/violet - who thinks up this utter crap - AIC) but they are very rare; mostly airshows.

One could do a useful bit of ground school on speed reading of notams. I am sure people would get pretty good at it pretty fast.

Same with AFPEx. It is a very good and very usable tool.

This argument is a bit like taf/metar format. A lot of pilots, including many who have been flying for many years, cannot (and do not) read it. But it is an international format which is compact (which while no longer relevant to the transmission medium does remain relevant to how much of a piece of paper it covers - do you really want a TAF for one airport to cover half an A4 page, when translated into plain olde english?) and is very quick to scan through.

I am told the UK average PPL is 20-30hrs/year which is plenty enough to be able to retain the ability to decipher this stuff.

That's why I think the resistance is really wrapped up with the lack of internet usage/access/skills etc but a lot of people don't want to admit it.

[Crash one]

TAFs & METARs relate to an ICAO coded airfield & follow the same format (set of information). Notams cover a multitude of possible hazards at a multitude of Lat Long positions that have to be found first, to decide where they relate to, before deciphering what they refer to & wether or not an out of service radio mast 300 miles away is relevent. An ICAO code of the nearest airfield followed by the written word location & what the hazard is & when til when, would do, IMO. But then I'm only a bug smashing stripper, what the hell would I know. Most people I know get Tafs & Metars off t'internet, so I don't go along with the computer illiteracy bit.
Edit:- 90--100% of Tafs & Metars are relevant, & easily accessed by area.

[mad_jock]

The NOTAM code goes back to the dark ages ( well when I first started my ATC career )

F me was that when they had some poor sod on a horse delivering them?

Snowtams aint so bad you just make sure that the smallest number is more than your minimal runway width required

[Ryan5252]

I think the below graph, taken directly of the NATS site highlights quite clearly the almost non-exitant role NOTAMS play in GA today. The reasons for this seem quite evident to me; the system is incredibly flawed and the process is far too time consuming. However, I honestly believe that there is a responsibility on all to conduct a proper self brief before flight and the fact we can't be arsed to go through the hassle of obtaining TAF, METAR or NOTAM is a load of nonsense. I agree the system should be changed in line with it being the year 2010 but there is little point pissing and moaning over it. Computer illiteracy is not an excuse either - these are the tools of the trade these days and I personally believe one should take the time to familiaise themselves also.

Agree with IO540, there is absolutely a market out there for 'groundschool-esque' courses to cover the above and also AFPEX.

In the cold light of day the chart below is jaw-dropping, at least to me. How many GA flights are conducted monthly? By my count, I estimate only 5000 NOTAMs have been issued (on a good month!)

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/stats.gif

[mad_jock]

I don't know any commercial operation that gets its NOTAMS through the official site.

And to be honest a days worth of notams used to be 5-6 pages worth from ops but if i pull them myself its 16-18 pages for the scottish FIR alone. And to be honest at least 80% of the 16-18 pages hasn't changed for the last 8 years. The lights on mount eagle mast are still ****e as they were when i first started instructing 8 years ago. The NOTAMS for INV are the same as well.

I really can't understand why they have to repeat the info in the AIP but there we go. Year in and year out its the same 5 NOTAMs which do sod all for air safety

[Cows getting bigger]

So where do they get their NOTAMs from, MJ? :)

PS. I agree. When CGB was a lad he had to learn that a NOTAM was a "notice containing information concerning the establishment or change to an aeronautical facility, service ..........." The important bit was that NOTAMs either covered a temporary period or until the next AIRAC cycle in order that the changes could be incorporated in the AIP.

[AdamFrisch]

The aviation world hasn't come across a word yet it hasn't turned into some incomprehensible abbreviation or acronym.

TAF's, METAR's, NOTAM's all stem from the time when they were Telexed around the world on little strips of yellow paper in braille by a needle printer. It's still that way even though the Telex died a painful death over 40 years ago.

You couldn't make it up if you tried to. Only in aviation. It's utter nonsense and if I was a made Generalissimo of all the FAA's and CAA's in this world, it be the first thing to go. It's unsafe, unclear and wastes everybody's time.

It makes as much sense as if the The Times were to start printing their newspaper in stenography tomorrow, then hand you a stenography decipherer and say "what you whining about - it's all explained in there!".

[Cows getting bigger]

It is a good thing that both Europe and America are developing the digital NOTAM then. How easy do you think it is to get every ICAO contracting state to agree a new format and baseline infrastructure? :bored:

[Ryan5252]

How easy do you think it is to get every ICAO contracting state to agree a new format and baseline infrastructure?About as easy as it was to get them to do it in the first place id say :ok:
As a newcomer to this industry I am amazed with the lack of evolution that exists. As to why this is I am not entirely sure. It is little wonder so many people choose to move on to other ways to spend their time so soon after earning their licence. One would easily spend an hour and half planning a flight if procedures were properly followed - before even stepping a foot near the aircraft! METARs and TAFs scattered all over the place, NOTAMs promulgating 8+ pages of spam and colour coded pages to highlight changes which do not 'qualify' to be published as a NOTAM. Again, I am not saying the torture one must endure to obtain relevant information absolves him from needing to do so, it must be done regardless.

If Ryanair can send me an email every other day with their 'one time' special offers surely something similar can be applied to the aviation industry. The software and programs which are available are entirely underused in general aviation.

It is only a matter of time before the actions of one pilot who fails to do a proper briefing will cause a serious infringement at an air show, through Royal 'class A' or even meet heavy iron because he busted CAS. This will be to the detriment of all and will have only a negative impact on GA - the answer of course will be not to solve the problem which lead to the incident but just to throw up some more CAS or restrict GA activity some other way.

[Mike Cross]

he all too common attitude of professionals as expressed here by Mike Cross

You flatter me dear chap. I'm a PPL with no instrument or night qualification and a tally of hours numbered in hundreds rather than thousands. I have a quarter share in a Luscombe. The only avionics in it are a COM and a Garmin 196. The aeroplane was built before I was and I'm 61 years old. I have however been aviating for a few years, starting in gliders in 1973. My day job for the last 30 years has been running my own telecommunications business. If I can work out how the system works, so can you.

The aviation world hasn't come across a word yet it hasn't turned into some incomprehensible abbreviation or acronym

,,,,

You couldn't make it up if you tried to. Only in aviation. It's utter nonsense and if I was a made Generalissimo of all the FAA's and CAA's in this world, it be the first thing to go. It's unsafe, unclear and wastes everybody's time.


An elegant example of foot-shooting; using two acronyms in your own complaint about their use.

I don't know any commercial operation that gets its NOTAMS through the official site.

You must get out and meet more people, unless you don't count FTO's and AOC holders as commercial operators. There are plenty of airlines that use the site as well. It is precisely because the information is presented in a familiar standard format that it is used by foreign crews briefing when away from their home country. Airlines such as BA have their own in-house operation to produce tailored briefs for the routes they fly as part of an automated business process while others use third-party briefing services, a number of which also offer services to GA pilots. One thing they have in common (along with the AIS site) is that THEY ALL USE THE SAME DATA. All they are doing is employing people to go through the data and produce a personalised brief. You are of course perfectly at liberty to do the same. All that is needed is to educate one's valet to do the job, carefully write it out in an arrangement of copperplate script that is pleasing to ones eye and present it on one a silver salver for perusal before one enters one's aerial carriage. Of course if one is, like myself, too poor or parsimonious to employ a valet or some commercial tradesman one does the job oneself, which while perhaps a little below ones's dignity does give one a certain pride in one's achievement.

[Mike Cross]

Could someone explain this. EGQL Leuchars. U1818/10 until 31 Dec 2010 at 2359 UTC CRASH Cat 3A. CRASH 4A by PPR only 01 July 00-01 2010 until 31 Dec 2359 2010. created 17 July 1305 2010.
Edit:- Does this mean I can only crash there with PPR?

Absolutely!

Crash Category of a military airfield relates to the level of what the Military call Fire and Crash Rescue Services.

Another fine example of what happens when the same thing is described using two different terminologies rather than having a standard way of doing it. If I said it was a parallel but different way of describing RFFS Categories it would make complete sense to you (wouldn't it?).

RFFS = Rescue and Fire Fighting Services, the civilian equivalent.

Saying "by prior arrangement only" would have been grammatically more correct but would have deprived you of your joke.

[mrmum]

Ryan,


Ryan5252 Whats an AIP?

I presume as you've visited the NATS / AIS website, you'll have seen what the AIP is. However, I think you're mis-interprening the graph.

I think the below graph, taken directly of the NATS site highlights quite clearly the almost non-exitant role NOTAMS play in GA today......

.......In the cold light of day the chart below is jaw-dropping, at least to me. How many GA flights are conducted monthly? By my count, I estimate only 5000 NOTAMs have been issued (on a good month!)

In a good month, say April for instance, there were about 95000 briefings, that's over 3000 a day, hardly insignificant! How many NOTAMs have been issued into the system isn't really relevant to whether people are using it.

[mad_jock]

It was all done through a commercial site based in Denmark.

Where they got them from and what editing they had I have no idea.

[IO540]

Yes, most commercial operators use commercial aviation briefing services. Firms like Jepp, for a few hundred quid a month and above, will provide you with a fairly comprehensive "routepack" service. I know one chap who does this for a living.

A serious bizjet pilot, asked by Mr and Mrs Wealthy to fly them to Tahiti the next day, is not going to be phoning and faxing airports, getting PPR, and all that crap.

A great deal of the "black art" of flying IFR around Europe and elsewhere is indeed concerned with finding ways to do all this without throwing a pile of $$$ at these firms. And it is easy enough to do. It is also getting easier, with the hardest part (Eurocontrol route development) now being finally comprehensively solved (http://flightplanpro.eu/Home.html).

Getting notams is really comparatively trivial - just hit the NATS site; it can be used for flights anywhere within Europe (especially now that the data comes from the Eurocontrol database and not from the various national ones).

Filing flight plans is also now trivial, with several options.

[vee-tail-1]

Mike Cross Try not to take it personally. On other issues your energy and determination are really helpful, and many in GA and the LAA have reason to be grateful to you. :ok:

But by heroically defending the present state of NOTAMS you are backing the wrong side.

The day before every flight I wade through the pages of nonsense trying to pick up the important bits. Sometimes I do indeed use a 'valet' in the form of the many internet sites that attempt to interpret the nonsense into something intelligible. This takes a lot of time and I am never 100% sure that something vital has not been missed.

The present NOTAM system is ony just fit for purpose and badly needs to be brought into the present century.

[Crash one]

Mike Cross. I'm sorry but I disagree with your view that we (the thick masses) should easily be able to decipher this crap. That is not the point, WHY should we HAVE to decipher this crap at all? Why can it not be presented in a Joe Soap readable format.PPR is not an acronym for Prior Arangement Only. That would be PAO.I wish, just once, that these views from people who use, or try to use these crap systems were listened to as if those views were from people who are not thick moronic idiots who need led by the hand & shown the stupid error of our ways by the real people.

[Captain Smithy]

Some good points here, although people are being unfair criticising Mike. The NOTAM system is a bit clumsy, clunky and could do with being a bit simpler and easier-to-use. Acronyms are fine to use if there is a reference somewhere to look up what they mean, but I had to ask an instructor what a PJE was when I first encountered the acronym whilst browsing the day's NOTAMs.

I think Ryan5252's quote best sums it up for me though...

METARs and TAFs scattered all over the place, NOTAMs promulgating 8+ pages of spam and colour coded pages to highlight changes which do not 'qualify' to be published as a NOTAM.

The system could do with being simplified, instead of us having to read through all this Gobbledegook. Not for modernising for the sake of things, but potentially it could be a safety issue. Perhaps if NOTAMs were simpler to read and more relevant (i.e. not scattered with notes involving cranes that are lowered in LVPs anyway and steel plates on taxiways), and TAFs/METARs were written in plain English, perhaps more people would be able to understand them clearly.

Rhetorical question here, but a thought to end upon. How many pilots bust a TRA because the NOTAM was hidden amongst several pages' worth of other trivial notes to airmen (and hence said to themselves "bugger reading through all that, there's never anything in it anyway"), and how many pilots get caught in deter. Wx because they didn't understand the TAF as it was written in an obscure code instead of plain English?

Smithy

[Mike Cross]

You seem to be under the impression that I am defending the current system. What I have been trying to do is explain how it works so as to assist anyone who is having problems.

As some will know, I represent AOPA UK on NOTAM issues and have been involved with the current AIS system as well as its predecessor and the paper bulletins that existed before that.

The format of NOTAM (and TAF and METAR) is set in stone by ICAO. All NOTAM originated anywhere in the world have to conform the format, which is set out in Annex 15 of the Chicago Convention. Now you can bitch as much as you like but the UK does not have the legal capacity to change it. The chain of command in the UK goes like this. DfT is responsible for Civil Aviation. Their agency is the CAA and the CAA in turn employs NATS as their contractor to provide AIS. None of them can change the ICAO format.

Change is on the way in the form of AIXM and xNOTAM, which are ways of transferring aeronautical data that get away from the limitations of the current ICAO text format based on the ITA-2 teleprinter alphabet. AIXM is an xml based schema that will allow graphical data as well as text to be passed so the days of Garmin Jepp Entegra et al having to recode all of the data and upload it into their systems will be a thing of the past. It's a joint Eurocontrol/FAA project and trials have already been held that have involved data being uploaded to aircraft in flight. Until it's adopted by ICAO we all have to put up with what we've got.

UK AIS has done sterling work over the years and great strides have been made in the delivery systems. The current AIS system is better than anything that has gone before. However we are still stuck with the ICAO format.

All operators including the airlines are using the same data. As I've indicated some use the AIS site and some use a third party service while others have their own in-house systems. That is an option open to all. If you want a system that expands everything out so that VOR is written out as "Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range" in your briefings because you don't llike acronyms then go ahead and be my guest, a parser to expand the abbreviations is not exactly rocket science. You can have anything you like if you are prepared to pay for it, which is what the airlines do. The AIS system is of necessuity a "one size fits all" solution that presents all of the data and has limited and readily understandable filtering tools so you know what you're getting. I have no VOR/DME ILS or ADF in my aircraft so I could safely filter out all of those and I don't have an instrument or night qualification so I could filter out all of the runway taxiway and approach lighting but building that level of filtration into a public-use system that is going to be used by people who don't understand how the ICAO NOTAM system works would be foolhardy.

WRT those who say that the system is not fit for pupose my reply would be somewhat pithy. If it's good enough for the airlines it's good enough for us. The limitations have been recognised and are being addressed. If anyone has a problem understanding how it works I'll be happy to assist him. If he's not prepared to educate himself and all he wants to do is sit on his backside and bleat that it's all too difficult then I'd sooner he didn't fly.

Edit
WRT Smithy's comments I fully agree that we have too much dross in there and it's something I made a point about at the AIS consultation meeting last month. That was attended by CAA, NATS AIS, The CO of No I AIDU RAF, EAD, British Airways, Navtech and other luminaries so it was a good audience.

Each NOTAM series has capacity for 9999 NOTAM. The UK has 11 NOTAM Series, France has 6, go figure.

[Ryan5252]

Ryan,
Quote: Ryan5252 Whats an AIP?
I presume as you've visited the NATS / AIS website, you'll have seen what the AIP is.
This was tongue in cheek remark - hence the reply "Something produced by the AIS"

Ryan

[Johnm]

I agree with Mike, while it is understandable that people would want a more user friendly system that takes time and wide agreement and the French will accept teleprinter abbreviations, but you try getting them to agree to a "plain language" version in English:eek:

I fly a lot and I have PPL IMCR night and might get an IR one of these days even though I'm older than Mike:uhoh:

Each flight I get the notams from the NATS site and the weather from Metoffice and others. It rarely needs more than a 5 min scan of each to pick out what's important, occasionally that turns out to need a few minutes plotting and a note on a chart.

For me the fact that it's available when I want it is a big step forward, when I learned to fly only 10 years ago the only source was helpful ops at the airfield. Moreover I can even file my own flight plans on line now yippee!

Mr Cross has been instrumental in making some of this happen (with others as he will modestly insist) and I for one am extrememly grateful for the progress so far!

[IO540]

As ever, and all over the forums, there is a lack of clarity as to what the people (who are severely unhappy with the present system) really want.

If someone wants to replace "VOR" with "Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range" that is technically easy to do but most "regular" pilots would not want that because they know what a VOR is, and expanding it is just expanding garbage.

Similarly with expanding TAFs and METARs. It is true that some distant foreign ones have strange stuff in them (which I cannot read either) but most of these are UK pilots who read UK weather, and this stuff is dead easy and fast to decode.

I think the present notam system is OK. I just speed-read through the garbage in under 1 minute and have a laugh at General Hooton's unallocated transponder codes :)

As Johnm says above, the facilities are vastly better now than 10 years ago when I started on the PPL. Today, you can fly all over Europe, and beyond, with just a laptop for all planning, weather, notams, flight plan filing, hotel booking, you name it.

[Captain Smithy]

I don't think its a lack of clarity, I think most folks would simply prefer it if all this stuff was easier to read. Its not really anyone's fault because it is an ICAO issue, but it will be interesting to see what improvement AIXM and xNOTAM makes. Just out of interest do you have any more info on them Mike?

There's nothing wrong with using acronyms, as long as there is some sort of reference to look up what they mean. Currently we don't have that. Consequently for those of us who are less experienced it makes things a little more difficult. Just a thought, but perhaps a separate reference page on the AIS site containing a list of acronyms/abbreviations and their meanings used in NOTAMs might be a handy addition. Everyone might know what a VOR is, but what about a PJE? At work I am confronted with a vast array of obscure acronyms used liberally in the wide variety of technical documents that I have to read but there is always a reference page to inform the reader what they all mean. Its good practice, not to mention common sense. Why not so with NOTAMs?

Smithy

[Anonystude]

There's nothing wrong with using acronyms, as long as there is some sort of reference to look up what they mean.

What, you mean like GEN 2.2 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=10.html) in pretty much any AIP internationally? I mean, even the Iraqis (http://www.iraqcaa.com/media/reg_docs/iraq_aip_edition_43.pdf) manage that.

Seriously, everyone complaining about how hard it is to read -- can anyone suggest a viable alternative? Given that NOTAMS have to be understandable internationally (even by someone with the DGAC definition of an ICAO Level 4 English speaker :hmm:) you can't just blather in plain English -- is a 'Parachute Jumping Exercise' the same as a 'Parachute Drop', or a 'Parachuting Exercise', or a 'Drop Zone Activation'...? Is it really too much to expect you to know what some of these things mean, and if you don't know, to look it up in a handy, regularly amended, authoritative regulation such as, say, the AIP?

We have to deal with this because this is one of the few aspects of day-to-day aviation that is international, and has international implications. The only obvious way to improve matters is data exchange in a format that is easily interpreted graphically, which is coming (apparently!). Until then, we have to man up and cope.

[Captain Smithy]

Hmm. Fair points Anonystude. That said, whilst musing over how to word my response, I think Crash One's quote above sums it up best for me.

I'm sorry but I disagree with your view that we (the thick masses) should easily be able to decipher this crap. That is not the point, WHY should we HAVE to decipher this crap at all? Why can it not be presented in a Joe Soap readable format. :D

Smithy

[IO540]

Because flying is international and Joe Soap is not the only one around.

[BackPacker]

Just out of interest do you have any more info on them Mike?

I don't have any information, but from what I've seen in other fields when going from a text-based to an XML-based layout, I think you should expect the E) line not to change much. Except that it can now be done in lowercase instead of all-caps.

But the same people that currently write these E-lines will be writing them again in the future. Acronyms, abbeviations, spelling errors and everything included. So a PJE will remain a PJE.

The big improvement will be in the encoding of the other lines. Currently the only geographic encoding that's possible is a single lat/long plus a radius. If the area concerned has an irregular shape (or is a line - ie. a royal flight) then the lat/long/radius has to describe a circle surrounding that shape/line. That means that vast areas are included as well where the NOTAM is not relevant. But if you fly through or near these areas, the NOTAM will be included in the Narrow Route Brief.

[IO540]

The biggest improvement will be a standardisation in the way shapes are presented. This should enable 3rd party graphical tools to deliver graphical presentations which can be trusted, which is presently not 100% the case.

Obviously somebody will have to produce a validation tool which the notam originator will be required to use to verify that he formatted it correctly, did not drop any digits, etc, otherwise the whole exercise will be largely pointless.

Since the telex network is no longer used for the AFTN (at least, not in Europe) there is no longer the need for all-uppercase. But this hardly matters - except it would enable the use of any URL to be included. Presently, a URL can be included but everything after the domain has to be set up as uppercase on the server.

[Captain Smithy]

Flying might be international, and Joe Soap might not be the only one around, but apparently English is the standard language used in aviation internationally...

[IO540]

Suprisingly, English is not the only ICAO language. But yes I agree; however conversational English is not an international standard yet this appears to be what some people want. They are not going to get it, in the same way they are not going to get conversational English proficiency among foreign ATC.

English is not my first language - I had to learn it from zilch, but I just cannot see an issue in notam decoding.

It is no different to taf/metar decoding. How many people would want a PROB30 TEMPO +TSRA written out in the full version? If you structured/indented it clearly it would run to several lines. If whole tafs/metars were written out like that, they would be very time consuming to read.

[Fuji Abound]

While on the general subject I have come across a very good iPad / iPhone 4 app called NOTAM - it derives its information from the FAA database but covers UK and the whole of Europe and presents the data as either a wide route brief or as a graphical map.

It is one of the very few that produce graphical data for Europe as well as the UK. Graphically it does not attempt to define the NOTAM'ed area but paints a symbol on the map at the centre of the NOTAM with a description of the hazard.

It seems very good.

For anyone with an iPhone / iPad I doubt it would ever take more than 30 seconds to put in your route (however complicated) and less than that to pull up the NOTAMs so its perfect for a self brief before the flight.

I appreciate it is possible that a NOTAM could be missed given the source of the data and the graphical interface but better capture 95% of all NOTAMs than none at all.

[Mike Cross]

Presently, a URL can be included but everything after the domain has to be set up as uppercase on the server. but a lot of the characters in a URL do not appear in the ITA-2 alphabet. It's not just lower case that's missing, a lot of the punctuation marks and symbols are missing too.

Graphically it does not attempt to define the NOTAM'ed area but paints a symbol on the map at the centre of the NOTAM with a description of the hazard. Trouble with that is that the centre may be off the map. For example the DOC of Lands End VOR is big so if it's u/s and Land's end ain't on your map you won't see the NOTAM even though you are within the DOC. There was a fatal CFIT in Wales some years ago where the NAV was found tuned into the Lands End VOR. Speculation in the AAIB report was that he may have followed a wandering needle up the valleys into a mountain because the VOR was notammed as not in service.

If you're intested in AIXM and xNOTAM a quick Google will turn up the relevant pages. As far as xNOTAM are concerned it will be backward compatible, i.e. the current data format will continue to be available and the existing systems will therefore continue to work. It's an enabling technology that will enable someone who wants to to produce a graphical presentation. I suspect there will be a few iterations on the presentation front before a "standard" version evolves.

The major beneficiary of AIXM (which is the model underpinning xNOTAM) will be ANSP's. No longer will it be necessary for data to be painstakingly re-keyed and checked to get it into a FMS or a GPS database, it will be possible to automate the process because the data is held in true machine-readable format rather than in something that is not truly machine readable such as a pdf document. This will lead to cost reductions which we hope will feed down into cheaper database updates.

WRT acronyms and jargon. As Anonystude rightly points out they have a concise format and a concise meaning, which plain language does not. "QNH 1010" for example can be rendered in many different ways in plain language, e.g. as the setting at on your altimeter that would cause it to read zero were you at sea level or as the setting that would read aerodrome elevation were you at the ARP. Everyone knows what the Regional Pressure Setting means but achieving precision by using its definition is cumbersome and uncalled for.

[IO540]

a lot of the characters in a URL do not appear in the ITA-2 alphabet. It's not just lower case that's missing, a lot of the punctuation marks and symbols are missing too.

Sure, but anybody knocking up a website for the purpose of carrying a more detailed version (like a map ;) ) would just set up a URL like

WWW.NOTAMS.COM/2010080601 (http://WWW.NOTAMS.COM/2010080601)

etc.

I think a forward slash is OK?

[Fuji Abound]

Trouble with that is that the centre may be off the map.


Mike

Yes, I agree none of the graphical tools are perfect for all the well rehearsed reasons.

However it is my perception that pilots come up with all sorts of excuses for not pre-flighting the NOTAMs. Since most flights are VFR, I would suggest that IMC / IFR hazards are not high on the list of priorities for most. In the vast majority of cases I would like to see us doing a better job of avoiding TRAs, which I think is where this thread started (a long time ago).

In fact for most isnt the primary concern preventing aircraft (for their own and everyone elses safety) entering restricted airspace that is not shown as restricted on the map?

If pilots can get this sort of information on a mobile 'phone (which presumably most have these days) in a graphical format, even if it is not perfect, surely that is better than doing nothing?

Pending the changes to the system if NATS really wanted to reduce infringements of TRAs etc I think they should produce (by all means on a contracted out basis) a graphical depiction of UK airspace which showed ONLY NOTAMS of relevance to UK VFR pilots with that warning and caveat clearly made. In reality that would cover the vast majority of puddle jump flights and would not be a significant expense in the order of things to assist the GA community. If necessary I would contract the whole thing out to Jepp for a fee. The representation would exclude this and that light not being operational and all the usual nonesense of course. I guess since the NOTAMS are manually plotted by someone already in NATS (or London info) the correctly plotted information is already available.

[gasax]

And then it would look just like this http://https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/AZBA/page_en_cours_8/Format_Html/Pdf/2010-08-09_1911-0000.pdf. or at least a variant of it. It can be done but it simply is not likely to happen until it is automatic.

Once it is automatic i.e. AIXM, then it will be interesting to see what the argument is from AIS over their unwillingness to exercise any quality control over what goes into the system.

[hhobbit]

I've used this to pretty good effect;
http://metutil.appspot.com/NotamData?type=TASK&name=UK_2DAY_WR_KML - Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Fmetutil.appspot.com%2FNotamData%3Ftype%3DTASK%2 6name%3DUK_2DAY_WR_KML&ie=UTF8&ll=53.357109,-2.944336&spn=10.356452,19.753418&t=p&z=6)

[mikehallam]

This is better, free, tunable and seems to give the right shapes when checked against original source.
mikehallam

Local NOTAM Map | NOTAM Info (http://notaminfo.com/localmap)

[Fuji Abound]

The trouble with almost all of these is they have no European coverage. While that may not matter for many (and for me some of the time) other than the app I referred to earlier, I dont know of any others than provide Europe wide coverage.

[Crash one]

Not sure if this link will work but it seems a good site.MET'MAP - ORBIFLY FLIGHT SCHOOL - IFR ET CPL AMERICAIN EN EUROPE - FAA IFR AND CPL IN EUROPE (http://www.orbifly.com/member/metmap.php?region_choose=UKI&mode=metar&lang=ENG&view_color=metars)

[liam548]

Although it is not free I find the NOTAM display on Airbox Fastplan very accurate and it is constantly updating itself. Its nice to view the notams on the actual CAA charts.

Not sure if this link will work but it seems a good site.MET'MAP - ORBIFLY FLIGHT SCHOOL - IFR ET CPL AMERICAIN EN EUROPE - FAA IFR AND CPL IN EUROPE (http://www.orbifly.com/member/metmap.php?region_choose=UKI&mode=metar&lang=ENG&view_color=metars)


Does that site offer a NOTAM viewer?

[Crash one]

It does, There is a drop down list at the "Metar Map" tab.

[liam548]

It does, There is a drop down list at the "Metar Map" tab.

doesnt seem very current..