NOTAM Gotcha!

[Lookleft]

They are numerous and annoying but you still have to read them. It doesn't help that the council workers have NFI what an airport is used for.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-056/

[Lead Balloon]

The aerodrome where my aircraft is based is occasionally NOTAMed closed 9am-4pm local time for use by car ‘enthusiasts’. The NOTAM is issued days before the event.

The number of aircraft that nonetheless ‘lob in’ is ‘disconcerting’. And I’m not talking about people who are overflying. They usually comprehend that it would be imprudent to land on a runway with a dozen or so cars on it and a few hundred people standing around, but landing on the ‘cross’ runway over all that activity, while the whole aerodrome is NOTAMed closed, seems to me to be – hmmmmm – imprudent. Talk about fish throwing themselves into the CASA compliance and enforcement boat…

The number of HO NOTAMs doesn’t help, but there’s no complexity in the number of location-specific NOTAMs for places like Gunnedah. Checking prior to departure or when inbound should not be a big challenge these days.

[outnabout]

A set of cones at the start of the taxi-way might have been a good idea, just to make certain sure pilots were aware the runway was closed.

Mind you, I have also seen pilots taxi around cones indicating a closed runway.....just as I have seen pilots ignore that pesky irrelevant white cross by the airstrip...

[43Inches]

Doesn't even have to be GA pilots, one set of domestic Jet pilots ran over the cones onto a closed taxiway not that long ago at Melbourne.

I do find it a bit disturbing that they didn't think some more signage was necessary though. Still, always check those NOTAM just before departure. I get a full briefing for planning and go through it thoroughly, but always just before leaving I'll bring up my departure, destination and any alternate on NAIPS, just the TAF and NOTAMs to remove any other mess. Takes a minute only and easy to read, even if it's just on the phone.

[Fieldmouse]

Thankfully there is a line in the new Mos 8.106 (10)to the effect:
"On a taxiway, an unserviceability marking must be placed:
(b) if a taxiway serves an unserviceable runway or an unserviceable portion of a runway - so as to warn against entry to the etc etc........

Used to be common sense, this generation needs everything spelled out.

[Hamley]

Used to be common sense, this generation needs everything spelled out.

Slack attempt at analysis from the ‘kids these days’ brigade.

The guy that yeeted his twin turboprop on a closed and dangerous runway without checking the NOTAMs was in this occasion what I would describe as ‘middle aged’.

Check your NOTAMs you tired old codgers!

[Capt Fathom]

If the Council was working on a road somewhere, there would be signs, witches hats, hi vis vests and a stop-go person holding vehicles to ransom! :E

[43Inches]

I've never visited Gunnedah but there also is an AFRU listed on the chart. They should also include some sort of message on the readback saying that the aerodrome is closed for aircraft operations refer NOTAM. I know many other CTAFs include short circuit messages and have heard "aerodrome unserviceablilities exist, refer NOTAM" at a few with hard surface only NOTAM ADs. A few cones on the runway entrance would have done the job, the signage on the gates does not look easy to understand, looks more like some sort of artwork than warning signs. As a minimum on any council work the area would be marked off for safety by tape and cones, road, sidewalk or playground, why they thought an aerodrome would be less of a risk who knows. It sounds like the council had done very few risk assessments around the aerodrome operations and just relied on rule compliance.

[kellykelpie]

The number of NOTAMs being published is out of control - one reason why some pilots stop reading them. Look at Sydney airport! Multiple NOTAMs for one taxiway light out, NOTAMS for trees! Really, this is a safety issue. Important information is lost in the static…..

[43Inches]

I agree with major airport NOTAMs, but country airports will only have one or two, easy to sift through by just NAIPS searching the few you are using.

Major airports should segregate NOTAM into critical areas, such as grouping them into movement area, approach and aid related, tower and ATS related, obstacle, lighting and misc.

[Lead Balloon]

I agree with major airport NOTAMs, but country airports will only have one or two, easy to sift through by just NAIPS searching the few you are using.

Major airports should segregate NOTAM into critical areas, such as grouping them into movement area, approach and aid related, tower and ATS related, obstacle, lighting and misc.Yep.

And we should be able to tick boxes in NIS/NAIPS called "Civilian" and "VFR Only" so that ADF Flip and IFR-only NOTAMs don't appear in briefings for civvy VFR ops.

[43Inches]

Meanwhile the new Airservices site looks like a Flowchart that someone thought of by throwing things on the floor and seeing where they land. I just tried to look up Gunnedah on the AIP package and could not make head nor tail of their menu system and arrow boxes. Whoever designed that layout is delving into abstract art....

[jonkster]

I agree with major airport NOTAMs, but country airports will only have one or two, easy to sift through by just NAIPS searching the few you are using.

Major airports should segregate NOTAM into critical areas, such as grouping them into movement area, approach and aid related, tower and ATS related, obstacle, lighting and misc.

An issue that concerns me with the current NOTAM system is many people are assuming if they pull up the NOTAMs for an aerodrome they will get all they need.

eg if you call up MOUNT ISA (YBMA) today you will get 3 NOTAMs (declared distance, an infringing obstacle and an issue with radio reception).

What is *not* displayed is the following NOTAM which could be of interest to you if you are operating around Mt Isa:
LOW LEVEL GEOPHYSICAL SVY ACFT OPR
WI 74 NM RADIUS OF MOUNT ISA AD (YBMA)
IN AN AREA BOUNDED BY: BRG 338 MAG 50NM FM ARP, BRG 328 MAG 55NM FM
ARP, BRG 327 MAG 61NM FM ARP, BRG 338 MAG 74NM FM ARP, BRG 342 MAG
72NM FM ARP, BRG 344 MAG 59NM FM ARP
ACFT TYPE: AS350 WI UNDERSLUNG ARRAY CALLSIGN: VH-VIM
OPR CTC TEL: 0439 982 692
ACFT WILL MNT LOCAL FREQ
SFC TO 4500FT AGL
FROM 10 292100 TO 12 221000
DAILY 2100/1000

You have to specifically ask for (and scan through) the Brisbane FIR NOTAMs to get that. Basically NOTAMs for half the continent.

(NB this just one example - the specific FIR NOTAM above may or may not be important to you if you are going to Mt Isa but my point is just calling up an aerodrome may not give you everything about that strip.)

The FIR NOTAMs are often pages of data and cover the whole country making it easy to miss the needles in the haystacks.

eg today with Mel FIR you will have info on everything from a swarm of drones in WA to an aerobatic competition at Bacchus Marsh (YBSS) in Vic. (BTW if you call up YBSS by itself, you will be told that YBSS doesn't have a NOTAM service and so no mention of the aerobatic activity).

INCREASED AVIATION ACT WI 3NM OF BACCHUS MARSH AD (YBSS)
DUE AEROBATIC TRAINING EVENT.
AEROBATICS WILL TAKE PLACE OHD AD AND WILL REMAIN CLEAR OF CONTROLLED
AIRSPACE. GND COM STN CS 'BACCHUS MARSH ADVISORY' ESTABLISHED ON
COMMON TFC ADVISORY FREQ (CTAF) 118.8 DURING AEROBATIC OPS.
ACFT CONDUCTING AEROBATICS MAY NOT BE MONITORING CTAF.
ORGANISER CTC TEL: 0448 886 863
SFC TO 4500FT AMSL
FROM 10 292300 TO 10 300900

...
...
UA SWARM (UP TO 200 MULTICOPTERS BELOW 2KG) OPR WI 1.2NM OF PSN
322041S 1154651E (LAKE WALYUNGUP) WESTERN AUSTRALIA
OPR WILL BCST ON FREQ 135.25 15 MIN PRIOR TO LAUNCH AND AT 15 MIN
INTERVALS WHILST AIRBORNE
OPR WILL MNT PH CEN FREQ 135.25
OPR CTC TEL: 041 095 3282 OR 0402 577 537
SFC TO 400FT AGL
FROM 08 040000 TO 11 051600
DAILY 0000/1600


It would be great if the NOTAM system could allow you to filter relevant NOTAMs based on route, not everything for Australia.

[VH-MLE]

Yes, & if considering Threat & Error Management, the NOTAM system in this country is a definite THREAT to air safety for the reasons outlined above. I doubt there's a pilot flying that hasn't missed an important NOTAM as some stage of his or her career...

I'm surprised with all of the modern day talk of equality/inclusiveness etc that the term NOTAM hasn't been replaced by NOTAP...:)

[neville_nobody]

Yes, & if considering Threat & Error Management, the NOTAM system in this country is a definite THREAT to air safety for the reasons outlined above. I doubt there's a pilot flying that hasn't missed an important NOTAM as some stage of his or her career


NOTAMs are all about blaming pilots and a way of every single service provider from avoiding responsibility.
Safety folk already acknowledge that NOTAMs are a threat, it's just that noone actually wants to be accountable for anything so they just write a NOTAM and then they can't be blamed.

[cogwheel]

A set of cones at the start of the taxi-way might have been a good idea, just to make certain sure pilots were aware the runway was closed.

This procedure should be automatic for those that have a work requirement on a runway. As a former ARO, it certainly would have been for me.

The most significant problem in my view is the number of NOTAMs that arrive when you call up a location or route. As indicated above there should be an option to filter what you want and not be drowned in data that is not applicable to your operation, such as all the NOTAMs applicable to capital city airports. eg: VFR, not above A100, class G or D only, etc As also mentioned above activities that occur at or in the vicinity of airfields that are not licenced/registered do not score a mention when the location is nominated. It could be an airshow or just aerobatics etc but the present system does not provide that info for other than registered aerodromes. This problem was raised at the RAPACs some years ago, but ASA said their software could not handle it. Things should have changed and ASA should be held to account for not providing a user friendly system that provides all relevant info.

[rcoight]

It would be great if the NOTAM system could allow you to filter relevant NOTAMs based on route, not everything for Australia.

Spot on. The system is basically set up for pilots to fail. Even the most conscientious pilot can miss things here or there.

Not to mention what is the reason that they are still not in "plain English"?
The way they are presented is surely a hangover from the Fax briefing days, or even DECTALK (remember that?), but these days there is no need to make them any harder to decipher than they need to be.

If it's all about "safety", why is it still done this way?

[Lazyload]

Take a look at this. It’s a world wide issue. https://medium.com/@markzee/what-does-great-notam-design-look-like-or-how-we-kill-the-nastygram-6aa42869c5df

[Lead Balloon]

It would be great if the NOTAM system could allow you to filter relevant NOTAMs based on route, not everything for Australia.That's what SPFIB was marketed as being able to do. I tried it a few times and gave up.

I think the format of the information is a consequence of ICAO parameters. As Lazyload's links shows, it's a world wide issue.

But the inefficiencies of the ICAO processes shouldn't prevent a plain English and specific route and operation type option being available. Let's face it: Airservices couldn't be bothered spending the time and money to make the system more use-friendly and, therefore, safer.

Meanwhile, YNAR has been YSSY-ised:AERODROME OBSTACLES AMD
TKOF RWY23:
OBST TREE 554FT AMSL 1590M FM SOT 110M STH C/L INFRINGES TNS SFC
OBST TREE 538FT AMSL 1520M FM SOT 67M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 533FT AMSL 1558M FM SOT 49M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 536FT AMSL 1193M FM SOT 98M NTH C/L INFRINGES TNS SFC
OBST TREE 495FT AMSL 1249M FM SOT 36M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 529FT AMSL 1450M FM SOT 33M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 544FT AMSL 1287M FM SOT 126M NTH C/L INFRINGES TNS SFC
TKOF RWY14:
OBST TREE 545FT AMSL 2550M FM SOT 42M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 552FT AMSL 2611M FM SOT 144M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 547FT AMSL 2660M FM SOT 22M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 538FT AMSL 2352M FM SOT 66M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 502FT AMSL 1996M FM SOT 69M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 503FT AMSL 1804M FM SOT 131M NTH C/L INFRINGES TNS SFC
OBST TREE 529FT AMSL 2295M FM SOT 116M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 542FT AMSL 2355M FM SOT 37M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 509FT AMSL 2111M FM SOT 123M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST TREE 536FT AMSL 2345M FM SOT 72M STH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
OBST ANEMOMETER 503FT AMSL 1516M FM SOT 129M STH C/L INFRINGES TNS
OBST FENCE 472FT AMSL 1841M FM SOT 92M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
AMD EN ROUTE SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA (ERSA)
FROM 10 220310 TO PERMERSA shows the AD ARP as 474' AMSL.

[43Inches]

None of that information is even relevant to a pilot as there is no way to calculate or correlate the information to a chart without being a master at surveying, so should not even be listed. Are they saying a minima is infringed or take off distance reduced, a displaced threshold needed? That's what is important to me.... I know some airlines might use the info to calculate escape routes, however let that info go straight to the relevant parties. As a pilot I have no idea if they have accounted for x tree or not, I assume they have. I can read and see it infringes take-off surface gradients, but does that mean the STODA is wrong in ERSA?

[717tech]

None of that information is even relevant to a pilot as there is no way to calculate or correlate the information to a chart without being a master at surveying, so should not even be listed. Are they saying a minima is infringed or take off distance reduced, a displaced threshold needed? That's what is important to me.... I know some airlines might use the info to calculate escape routes, however let that info go straight to the relevant parties. As a pilot I have no idea if they have accounted for x tree or not, I assume they have. I can read and see it infringes take-off surface gradients, but does that mean the STODA is wrong in ERSA?
These "Tree NOTAMS" were clogging up the briefing as mentioned. But I've noticed most that I saw, have now disappeared. I guess the Trees were removved??

[Checkboard]

I'd think that the aerodrome owner hires a surveyor to check the airport and it's protected surfaces (and I don't know, but regular checks like that is probably a condition of their licence). The surveyor puts in their report, noting that a row of trees has grown into those surfaces. A NOTAM is issued, a tree surgeon is hired to lop the top off said trees and the NOTAM is susequently removed. It's a cycle of life thing.

[Lead Balloon]

I reckon this 3' fence has been at YNAR for 50+ years:OBST FENCE 472FT AMSL 1841M FM SOT 92M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFCAt least they're unlikely to be DFO'd any time soon.

[43Inches]

Problem is what they think is ass covering is doing nothing. As it could be reasonably argued in court that the notice is 'white noise' that a pilot can't reasonably sift through and compensate for, and that it is the aerodrome operators responsibility to ensure any infringements of published data are adjusted in the tabulature, not just raw data supplied. If you were to collect one such tree or fence that is.

A bit like the rules governing lengthy contracts for general goods, once the wording gets too extensive it's considered unlikely anyone would read it and is therefore voided.

[Lead Balloon]

But what if it's about 'safety'? Crazy suggestion, I know...

[Fieldmouse]

Problem is what they think is ass covering is doing nothing. As it could be reasonably argued in court that the notice is 'white noise' that a pilot can't reasonably sift through and compensate for, and that it is the aerodrome operators responsibility to ensure any infringements of published data are adjusted in the tabulature, not just raw data supplied. If you were to collect one such tree or fence that is.

A bit like the rules governing lengthy contracts for general goods, once the wording gets too extensive it's considered unlikely anyone would read it and is therefore voided.


43, Unfortunately aerodromes operate under the system of ass covering dictated by CASA and ASA. We all know how that translates to the real world. A 200mm penetration by a stick, 500m off the runway end, requires a NOTAM until it's gone. An ILS GPO tower next to the runway is not an obstacle because it's a navigation aid, but the shorter windsock next to it is, because it is only a lowly visual aid.

Trick is not to care too much.

[43Inches]

I put the tree data as akin to having schedule figures at a station as purely a departure time from the first station and the passenger has to work out themselves at current speed and estimated stoppage time at intermediate stations what time their train will arrive. Ie I have some data, but not enough so much of what I'm operating to now is assumption or guesswork, Is the aerodrome open or closed, are the runway STODA distances affected or not? Is it safe? *whirs up the dental drill*

[Fieldmouse]

I put the tree data as akin to having schedule figures at a station as purely a departure time from the first station and the passenger has to work out themselves at current speed and estimated stoppage time at intermediate stations what time their train will arrive. Ie I have some data, but not enough so much of what I'm operating to now is assumption or guesswork, Is the aerodrome open or closed, are the runway STODA distances affected or not? Is it safe? *whirs up the dental drill*

I hear ya.
Generally by the time you do the math it refers to a tree you are 1000ft clear of on a bad day. Unless you are in an Antonov and lose one or two on rotation and its 40C.
The aerodrome should publish an amended STODA if anything changes by 33ft decrease or 98ft increase in DD's or a gradient change above 0.05% - ERSA intro 34. but that's about as much guidance as there is.
You have to assume if new STODAs aren't published it is below these criteria. But assumption has killed the occasional cat.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

From MOS139
7.18 Procedures for aerodrome operators to deal with obstacles in the OLS

(1) An aerodrome operator must:

(a) monitor the OLS for the aerodrome; and

(b) report to CASA, in writing, any infringement, or potential infringement, of the OLS.

(2) When a new obstacle is identified, the aerodrome operator must ensure that pilots are informed of it by NOTAM.

(3) For subsection (2), unless otherwise stated in the data product specification (DPS) for the aerodrome, the information must include the following:

(a) the nature of the obstacle;

Note For example, whether the obstacle is a structure or machinery or of another kind.

(b) the distance and bearing of the obstacle from:

(i) if the obstacle is within the take-off area — the start of the take-off end of the runway; or

(ii) the ARP;

(c) the height of the obstacle in relation to the aerodrome elevation;

(d) if it is a temporary obstacle — the time during which it is a temporary obstacle.
Your're stuck with them.

[Lead Balloon]

The information in the YNAR NOTAM I quoted above does not comply with this:(c) the height of the obstacle in relation to the aerodrome elevation;All of the obstacles are specified as AMSL rather a height in relation to the aerodrome elevation.

What is the height of this fence in relation to the YNAR elevation of 474'?OBST FENCE 472FT AMSL 1841M FM SOT 92M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFCThe lowest RWY threshold elevation is 469' (RWY 14).

I do hope that when a member of the public parks his or her car against that fence, to do a bit of 'plane spotting', the ARO arranges for an immediate NOTAM of the temporary infringement by a piece of machinery.

Rules made by desk jockies and administered by robots.

[Lookleft]

The production of NOTAMS worldwide is a problem. Lets hope what the FAA are doing is adopted by CASA as WBP. I am however not holding my breath. I shudder to think of the NOTAMs that will be issued when Nancy Bird Walton Airport is open for business. I learnt a lesson very early on in my airline career to never query the status of a navaid before having another look at the NOTAMs. Unfortunately, particularly for the Metro driver, the hidden NOTAMs now include that the whole foccacia airport is closed. I remember quite a few years back that a Metro operating to a regional airport in Annaland also landed when a NOTAM had been issued for a closed airport. Fortunately in that case it was only for the repainting of lines on the runway.
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/notam/

[Lead Balloon]

Improve the presentation of NOTAM information; prioritize or highlight the most important safety information; and optimize data, technology, and processes to help pilots find and retain the most relevant information.Crazy talk!

[Lookleft]

Another pilot being caught out by NOTAMs!

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-045/

[43Inches]

Another pilot being caught out by NOTAMs!

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2021-045/ (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-045/)

Why is a Citation Mustang classified in the turboprop sector?

[Lead Balloon]

Surprising that both events the subject of the recent ATSB investigations involve very expensive bits of flying kit. I would have assumed that us Wally the Weekend Warriors were the more likely culprits for not reviewing or comprehending the content of NOTAMs.

(43: A 510 is a turboprop. It's just that the props are a very small diameter.)

[43Inches]

I hope it's a genuine mistake, not some sort of formality for light jets as well. Just adds more ammo to the turbo-props are unsafe brigade, ' but, but you're counting small jets as turboprops'.

[kellykelpie]

From MOS139

Your're stuck with them.


You don’t happen to work for CASA or ASA do you. That’s bureaucrat talk right there…..

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

All of the obstacles are specified as AMSL rather a height in relation to the aerodrome elevation.
The AD ELEV is given AMSL. You don't need to be a pilot scientist to work out the difference.
ERSA shows the AD ARP as 474' AMSL.
The Aerodrome Elevation is the highest point of the landing area AMSL, not the ARP AMSL. The ARP 99.9% of the time will be somewhere other than the highest point. Generally the ARP is a point somewhat equidistant from all the RWY ends.
Given that you say the elevation of the 14 THRES is 469 and 14/32 slopes down 0.1% to NW, that would make the 32 THRES about 474 AMSL, so it's likely somewhere around there would be the highest point it seems. The land must fall away to the SE of that through the 14 Clearway if there is an fence only 20m beyond the clearway that is 2 ft lower than the 32 Threshold that still infringes the 14 Takeoff SFC . Either that or they got the height of the fence wrong.
I do hope that when a member of the public parks his or her car against that fence, to do a bit of 'plane spotting', the ARO arranges for an immediate NOTAM of the temporary infringement by a piece of machinery.
Na, that's CASA's call
(3) A temporary or transient obstacle:

(a) in close proximity to an aerodrome; and

(b) that infringes the OLS;

must be referred to CASA to determine whether the obstacle will be a hazard to aircraft operations.

Note Transient obstacles would include, for example, road vehicles, rail carriages and ships.

[Lead Balloon]

I merely quoted what you quoted from the MOS, TIER. It was only 9 posts ago, remember?7.18 Procedures for aerodrome operators to deal with obstacles in the OLS

(1) An aerodrome operator must:

(a) monitor the OLS for the aerodrome; and

(b) report to CASA, in writing, any infringement, or potential infringement, of the OLS.

(2) When a new obstacle is identified, the aerodrome operator must ensure that pilots are informed of it by NOTAM.

(3) For subsection (2), unless otherwise stated in the data product specification (DPS) for the aerodrome, the information must include the following:

(a) the nature of the obstacle;

Note For example, whether the obstacle is a structure or machinery or of another kind.

(b) the distance and bearing of the obstacle from:

(i) if the obstacle is within the take-off area — the start of the take-off end of the runway; or

(ii) the ARP;

(c) the height of the obstacle in relation to the aerodrome elevation;

(d) if it is a temporary obstacle — the time during which it is a temporary obstacle.Na, it's not CASA's call: "When a new obstacle is identifed, the aerodrome operator must ensure that pilots are informed of it by NOTAM." It's in the MOS old boy.

Na, it's not up to pilots to work out the difference: "the height of the obstacle in relation to the aerodrome elevation". It's in the MOS old boy.

"Either that or they got the height of the fence wrong." Oh I see. How do we pilot scientists work out which of the numbers in a NOTAM are wrong?

You're obviously emotionally - perhaps financially? - attached to this stuff, because you're trying to justify patent nonsense.

Seriously: What do you think the pilot of an aircraft actually does about the content of the likes of the YNAR NOTAM I quoted, in the real world? Seriously.

[43Inches]

A bit like windsock indications being useful in an age where no large aircraft, which are at particular danger to a damaged runway surface, are all doing straight in approaches. AFRU fitted, make it mandatory that a notice is broadcast on the read back, clear threshold markers, including lights indicating the runway is closed, council has these for roadworks, so not talking any increased costs. Yeah, yeah, read NOTAMs etc etc, there's going to be occasions when Joe Blo pilot is slack and bombs into an airfield after unexpected diversion and does not read the black and white. At least being warned before touching down might save some crumpled airplane, like in the case of the metro. The NOTAM defense is one layer of protection, either council forgets to post or pilot forgets to read or is inundated with so many obstacles they miss runway closed etc etc.

It's not that hard and I'm very suprised to learn there was not already signage requirements. Again this is really only an issue at licenced AD, anyone going to unlicenced private strips should be calling the owner prior and doing at least one inspection pass before landing to make sure the owners info is close to spec and that no veloceraptors have evolved on site since last visit. If you watched Jurassic Park 3 you would really know the value of proper inspection prior to landing.

[visibility3miles]

I guess it is too much to have an ATIS broadcast on a standard frequency stating that the runway is closed…

And yes, I have flown to an airport where the big wide tempting runway had an X on it because it was being repaved, and I was expected to (and did) land on the taxiway instead.

Even seeing the X, and knowing that work was in progress, it’s hard to wrap your head around the notion that you should land on the very narrow taxiway near where planes are tied down/parked.

After all, where are the other planes taxiing?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It's in the MOS old boy.
As is the section (3) I quoted you
"the height of the obstacle in relation to the aerodrome elevation".
How should it be stated in the NOTAM then? I guess if pilot scientists don't know what the Aerodrome Elevation actually refers to ("ERSA shows the AD ARP as 474' AMSL"), it makes it a moot point to state any figure. We'll just say minus 2 and you can puzzle over it.
You're obviously emotionally - perhaps financially? - attached to this stuff, because you're trying to justify patent nonsense.
No, I've just had some experience in working out and publishing NOTAM like this. Not because I wanted to, but because I had to. It's in the MOS old boy.
Seriously: What do you think the pilot of an aircraft actually does about the content of the likes of the YNAR NOTAM I quoted, in the real world? Seriously.
Nothing. Their eyes probably glaze over. But that doesn't mean the Aerodrome Operator is exempt from issuing it. AD operators aren't excluded from the CASA BS either. It's all just arse covering at the end of the day.

[43Inches]

Even seeing the X, and knowing that work was in progress, it’s hard to wrap your head around the notion that you should land on the very narrow taxiway near where planes are tied down/parked.

Well pretty sure there's some legal aspect to landing on surfaces not surveyed/approved for the purpose.

The major issue you need to consider is that even if the runway is closed there are various things that taxiways could be used for, many engineering purposes could see aircraft doing ground runs, taxi trials, taxi checkouts for maintenance staff. None of which require a NOTAM issue either as they are just daily operations. The runway closed could signal they have the taxiways to themselves to get some stuff done in peace and quiet without having to get out of the way of traffic, don't assume runway closed means airport totally deserted.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Years ago in another life we had our RWY closed for works. NOTAM'd and marked by white crosses etc. Pilot overflies and lands between a pair of crosses and taxies around the other. When I asked him if he got the NOTAM, he said he didn't bother with them, that's why he overflew first. I asked him if he saw the white crosses. He said yes, and that he made sure he didn't run over any of them. When we came back later, he'd taken off and gone. I called the "local" CASA office to let them know. Their response: "Well he got down safely, that's the main thing". I got the impression that that was as far as it was going to go.

[Hamley]

.. the hidden NOTAMs now include that the whole airport is closed.

NOTAMs about a closed runway or airport always appear at the top of the list. I can access this information in my pocket in seconds. I’d hardly call them ‘hidden’. They are very easy to find.

I agree that there are too many superfluous NOTAMs about trees etc. But finding out if an airport runway is closed is easy, basic common sense and basic airmanship.

[Lookleft]

But finding out if an airport runway is closed is easy, basic common sense and basic airmanship.

Problem solved then. All that has to happen is CASA revokes the license of any pilot who finds the current distribution of NOTAMs difficult, does not have common sense and is unable to define the requirements for basic airmanship. The incident that triggered the FAA response was the Air Canada flight that nearly landed on a taxiway full of jets at night in SFO. There was an issue with the NOTAM package where a closed runway was not so obvious. Its been a while since I have had to read NOTAMS but I don't recall runway closures always being at the top of the page. I am referring to the capital city airports as I haven't flown to a non-rpt regional airport for a long time.

[Hamley]

All that has to happen is CASA revokes the license of any pilot who finds the current distribution of NOTAMs difficult, does not have common sense and is unable to define the requirements for basic airmanship

With respect; Pilots are required by law to check NOTAMs. If someone doesn’t know that they shouldn’t hold a licence. Likewise if they dont know how to check NOTAMs.

These days you can retrieve NOTAMs via NAIPS smartphone app in literally seconds. If you are out of range you should understand your responsibility and find a landline etc

There is always all this talk of ‘kids these days’ but the guy who broke his aeroplane on a closed runway didn’t check the NOTAMs.

And yes NOTAMs are presented with the most important at the top. In my recent experience it is very very easy to check important operational info via NOTAM.

Maybe these old blokes are too busy taking ‘selfies’ or chatting on ‘Instagram’ or posting on ‘the Facebook’ and they forget to check NOTAMs lol

[43Inches]

I think you are missing the point, required by law does not stop things from happening. A proper system stops bad things by having multiple layers, at present having a one point safety net that can either be undone by a council not submitting the notice or the pilot not reading the notice is a bad system. The MOS has fixed most of the problems regarding extra signage required, but the NOTAM system is still flawed by a number of issues including overwhelming information, which in itself blocks critical information from being registered.

Saying the current NOTAM system is adequate is like saying, oh we don't need ATS, TAWS or Radar, pilots are legally required to know the lowest safe altitude and can make the safe choice themselves to let down to an airport if IMC. And separation, the law says I shouldn't hit another airplane so, that should be it, I don't need TCAS and ATS services, get rid of those costly buggers, I have a radio so can talk to others and separate, I don't need fail safes, I'm a Skygod.

[Checkboard]

A bit like windsock indications being useful in an age where no large aircraft, which are at particular danger to a damaged runway surface, are all doing straight in approaches.
I still look at it for take-off, though.

[Car RAMROD]

NOTAMs about a closed runway or airport always appear at the top of the list. I can access this information in my pocket in seconds. I’d hardly call them ‘hidden’. They are very easy to find.


yeah nah...
they don’t..

I just looked up YSSY in NAIPs...

33 notams into 51... RWY 07/25 closed 1200/1900 over 4 days..

[Lead Balloon]

No, I've just had some experience in working out and publishing NOTAM like this. Not because I wanted to, but because I had to.My apologies, TIER.

[morno]

With respect; Pilots are required by law to check NOTAMs. If someone doesn’t know that they shouldn’t hold a licence. Likewise if they dont know how to check NOTAMs.

These days you can retrieve NOTAMs via NAIPS smartphone app in literally seconds. If you are out of range you should understand your responsibility and find a landline etc

There is always all this talk of ‘kids these days’ but the guy who broke his aeroplane on a closed runway didn’t check the NOTAMs.

And yes NOTAMs are presented with the most important at the top. In my recent experience it is very very easy to check important operational info via NOTAM.

Maybe these old blokes are too busy taking ‘selfies’ or chatting on ‘Instagram’ or posting on ‘the Facebook’ and they forget to check NOTAMs lol

I guess safety investigations that look at the problems with the system that contributed to the occurrence happening are also stupid and not required?

There is a massive issue with the NOTAM system worldwide, too many irrelevant ones that overshadow the very important ones. Why on earth do I need to know about a tree that infringes the splay by 3ft 2.5kms away? What difference is that going to make? If it affects my take off performance, my performance department is going to do something about it (maybe they need a separate system that publishes all those types of things for anyone who needs them), but its relevance on a day to day operation is not worth considering.

Get back to Instagram buddy.

[compressor stall]

With respect; Pilots are required by law to check NOTAMs. If someone doesn’t know that they shouldn’t hold a licence. Likewise if they dont know how to check NOTAMs.
These days you can retrieve NOTAMs via NAIPS smartphone app in literally seconds. If you are out of range you should understand your responsibility and find a landline etc
There is always all this talk of ‘kids these days’ but the guy who broke his aeroplane on a closed runway didn’t check the NOTAMs.
And yes NOTAMs are presented with the most important at the top. In my recent experience it is very very easy to check important operational info via NOTAM.
Maybe these old blokes are too busy taking ‘selfies’ or chatting on ‘Instagram’ or posting on ‘the Facebook’ and they forget to check NOTAMs lol

What a load of cr@p. You remind me of the infamous cadet who proclaimed, "In my experience, experience counts for little."

The last major trip I did I downloaded the airports, a selection of alternates and FIR notams. 135 pages.....and that was a normal 10 font. I found some highly relevant, safety critical stuff buried on page 73.

[Lookleft]

You remind me of the infamous cadet who proclaimed, "In my experience, experience counts for little."

He certainly reinforced the adage that not all pricks sit in the left hand seat.

[non_state_actor]

With respect; Pilots are required by law to check NOTAMs. If someone doesn’t know that they shouldn’t hold a licence. Likewise if they dont know how to check NOTAMs.

These days you can retrieve NOTAMs via NAIPS smartphone app in literally seconds. If you are out of range you should understand your responsibility and find a landline etc

There is always all this talk of ‘kids these days’ but the guy who broke his aeroplane on a closed runway didn’t check the NOTAMs.

And yes NOTAMs are presented with the most important at the top. In my recent experience it is very very easy to check important operational info via NOTAM.

Sorry that is not correct. As mentioned before Sydney has always been a case in point with it's laundry list of NOTAMS. Darwin more recently had a very badly worded NOTAM with multiple separate NOTAMS around runway works none of which were at the top.

[43Inches]

NOTAMs possibly need to have a category assigned. Ie Category 1 is High risk such as airport closure, main runway closure, minima changes, large/dangerous obstacles changing TODA/TORA or LDA, extreme animal risks such as stock on runway, sudden lighting changes and so on. Category two as medium risk secondary runway, or grass surfaces unavailable, lighting changes, standby power, lower animal risks, frequency changes, ATS changes. Category 3 as no significant hazard but notifiable, obstacles under a certain height that pose no real threat to normal operations, hours of operation of tower, fuel etc, taxiway lights markings etc etc etc.

Once you have a category assigned you can push notifications through modern pilot applications. Ie taxi at Gunnedah, Oz Runways/Jeps flashes big red warning "Category 1 NOTAM for this aerodrome, push to read", once its read have it come up as just a big red "!" in the corner or next to the Aerodrome name, so it's still in mind. Still have an alert for Cat 2/3 but let it be just a yellow "!" in the corner next or to the aerodrome name or such. Just like TCAS or TAWS it becomes a fallback warning for a missed NOTAM, just like both its not infallible but will work in 90% of scenarios and hopefully prevent 99.9% of occurrences.

The MOS covers the councils extra duties, but really there needs a backup system for pilots, we are human and subject to err.

In theory you could link more to this, such as line up on the wrong runway and the big red "!" comes up, "hey idiot, this ones shorter than the minimum length in the aircraft data"