NOTAM to become PC

[TCAS FAN]

As per UK's CAP 1430 effective from 28 September we will no longer have Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), instead it will be Notice to Aviation which I suspect results from an ICAO change. If so, hope all the Sheilas in OZ and elsewhere appreciate it.

[Less Hair]

What is next? Cockpits renamed to Henbays?

[Cat3508]

What's wrong with Notice to Aviators ?. No gender bias at all, and keeps the woke people happy

[whowhenwhy]

This isn't related to an ICAO change (though the UK Government plans to pursue this with them), as I understand it, this is down to the UK DfT

[callum91]

Maybe more people will actually read NOTAMs now then? People of all genders, not just men? :}

[redsnail]

NOTAC - air crew would have sufficed.

[TCAS FAN]

NOTAC - air crew would have sufficed.

If the change has not come from ICAO all UK CAA/DfT masters are doing is making their own PC decode of the a commonly used term.

ICAO Doc 8400, which specifies approved abbreviations, provides a somewhat convoluted decode of NOTAM, which describes what it contains, with no refererence to "airmen".

I suspect that the commonly used term will live on internationally well after all the PC CAA/DfT mandarins have departed the fix. Can only speculate on the number of man hours, sorry person hours, wasted by them to come up with this nonsense.

[ve3id]

What's wrong with Notice to Aviators ?. No gender bias at all, and keeps the woke people happy
I'm disappointed. In my novel, 'Flight of the Seawind' I had proposed 'NOTAP' (Notice to Air Personnel) instead of 'NOTAM', which acronym also promulgated the notion that pilots don't drink!

[2 sheds]

This isn't related to an ICAO change (though the UK Government plans to pursue this with them), as I understand it, this is down to the UK DfT

Really? CAP 1430 quotes the "source" as ICAO, Eurocontrol and CAA, though I cannot find any ICAO reference to it. However, it does sound like the pathetic, irrelevant nonsense that the CAA would come up with.

2 s

[Artisan]

In the maritime world NOTAM’s are notices to mariners, which is entirely appropriate.

Notices to airmen is quaint and outdated and there is no harm in modernising it. However the real issue is the way NOTAM’s are presented and the sheer volume of garbage that ‘aviators’ have to wade through to get to the information they need. Fixing that ought to be the priority.

[2 sheds]

The daftest aspect is that the acronym no longer works - but the derivation remains the same!

2 s

[whowhenwhy]

Really? CAP 1430 quotes the "source" as ICAO, Eurocontrol and CAA, though I cannot find any ICAO reference to it. However, it does sound like the pathetic, irrelevant nonsense that the CAA would come up with.

2 s
Bit grumpy today 2 sheds?

CAP 1430 is correct. The definition of NOTAM hasn't changed from the meaning in ICAO Annex 11. The only thing that has changed is that whilst the abbreviation NOTAM is still to be used, it means Notice to Aviators rather than Notice to Airmen. The ICAO definition doesn't include a decode of the abbreviation.

[TCAS FAN]

Bit grumpy today 2 sheds?

CAP 1430 is correct. The definition of NOTAM hasn't changed from the meaning in ICAO Annex 11. The only thing that has changed is that whilst the abbreviation NOTAM is still to be used, it means Notice to Aviators rather than Notice to Airmen. The ICAO definition doesn't include a decode of the abbreviation.

The ICAO decode of NOTAM, together with all other ICAO approved abbreviations, are set out in Doc 8400.

Wordy as it is the ICAO decode of the abbreviation is:

"NOTAM Notice distributed by means of telecommunication containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service,
procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations" Which is replicated in the UK AIP GEN section.

ICAO is apparently not going to change this.

Consequently it appears that EASA decided to adopt the decode "Notice to airmen" which has led UK down the same rabbit hole by publishing it in CAP 1430. The PC brigade in UK has now latched on to it and decided that this is not acceptable.

Why EASA decided to deviate from Doc 8400 when they habitually ram ICAO SARPS compliance down member States' throats, only the almighty might know.

Bottom line appears to be that this whole exercise was totally avoidable if EASA and UK had stuck with the ICAO Doc 8400 decode, and not decided to adopt the unofficial "Notice to airmen". Surely there are far more important issues for them to devote their efforts to?

[ex-EGLL]

Could have saved a lot of bureaucratic time and money by retaining NOTAM and calling it Notice to Air Mammals, or would that offend some gentle soul?

[SWBKCB]

Notices to airmen is quaint and outdated and there is no harm in modernising it. However the real issue is the way NOTAM’s are presented and the sheer volume of garbage that ‘aviators’ have to wade through to get to the information they need. Fixing that ought to be the priority.

Isn't this the real point? Isn't the issue about communicating information effectively to keep everybody safe? Safe for TAF's, METAR's....

[jmmoric]

Wordy as it is the ICAO decode of the abbreviation is:

"NOTAM Notice distributed by means of telecommunication containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service,
procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations" Which is replicated in the UK AIP GEN section.

Seems like they're taken the step to change the abbreviation and use the definition as an abbreviation....

Guess that goes as well.

[mike current]

"NOTAM Notice distributed by means of telecommunication containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service,
procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations" Which is replicated in the UK AIP GEN section.


NDBMOTCICTECOCIAAFSPRHTTKOWIETPCWFO doesn't quite have the same ring to it :)

[whowhenwhy]

The text in ICAO Doc 8400 regarding the definition of NOTAM hasn't changed in years. I think it's only a webpage on the ICAO website where they spell out what the abbreviation NOTAM actually stands for. The definition of NOTAM hasn't changed for years and the UK is not changing it. All that the DfT has directed is that the meaning of the abbreviation is changing, not the definition itself.

[Dont Hang Up]

It reminds me of when NATS rebranded back in the 1990s.
Didn't change the name. Just stated it was no longer an acronym.
Not sure how much they paid their marketing consultants for that work of genius.

[TCAS FAN]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. All that the DfT has directed is that the meaning of the abbreviation is changing, not the definition itself.

Presumably also DfT who has imposed "Drones" on us, which ICAO specifically advise against using this term, instead of the technically correct Unmanned Aircraft Systems UAS)/ Unmanned Aircraft (UA).
If you have an insight into the workings of DfT were they responsible for the increased use by CAA of "airfields" (which ICAO does not define or use) rather than the technically correct "aerodromes"?
What next CAA = Civil Aviation Alternative?

[whowhenwhy]

Presumably also DfT who has imposed "Drones" on us, which ICAO specifically advise against using this term, instead of the technically correct Unmanned Aircraft Systems UAS)/ Unmanned Aircraft (UA).
If you have an insight into the workings of DfT were they responsible for the increased use by CAA of "airfields" (which ICAO does not define or use) rather than the technically correct "aerodromes"?
What next CAA = Civil Aviation Alternative?

I think that the use of drones is just down to laziness amongst a certain group of the highly paid help. The use of the term airfield I would guess is the result of the CAA employing too many ex-military personnel who have not learned the correct terminology.

[Bigears]

It reminds me of when NATS rebranded back in the 1990s.
Didn't change the name. Just stated it was no longer an acronym.
Not sure how much they paid their marketing consultants for that work of genius.
I believe £1M was the figure mentioned.
This included everything.
A rumour was that the then-CEO's wife ran the marketing company.