ATSU's and NOTAM

[Mike Cross]

NOTAM "A notice 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" (source UK AIP)

There seems to be an assumption that any change to the AIP should result in a NOTAM, whether or not "timely knowledge is essential"

For example

E1510/02
AGA : FROM 02/10/03 15:08 TO 02/11/01 09:00
E)HELICOPTER SLOPING GROUND AREA WEST OF RWY 03/21 OUT OF SERVICE DUE WIP

This is Shoreham with a full time ATSU and ATIS

A1853/02
AGA : FROM 02/10/04 12:00 TO 02/11/29 17:00
E)ACFT STAND 11 CLOSED DUE WIP.

This is Gatwick, also with a full time ATSU and ATIS

Anyone care to suggest a valid reason why this information requires NOTAM action? You require ATC clearance to use either of these so perhaps the NOTAM is the only way to let the local ATSU know?

I'm only a humble Luscombe pilot trying not to blunder into CAS and this sort of thing only obscures what I'm looking for.

EGTT Pre-Flight Information Bulleting currently runs around 37 pages because of things like this!

Aaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!


Mike

[Spitoon]

It's quite simple really. You're supposed to plan your flight before you get airborne - the fact that there's (what you believe is) a full time ATSU and an ATIS doesn't help you plan unless you telephone them, and I doubt that they'd want everyone thinking of visiting giving them a call. If you're planning a flight in your Luscombe it might be useful to know that a runway that's straight into wind is not available for some reason. Or, in the case of this NOTAM, it would be nice to know that the sloping ground can't be used before flying your helicopter there to train on it.
The definitive document for pre-flight planning is the AIP - it provides all of the information that you are likely to need. If the information in it was wrong you would be unhappy. Just because the information is of no interest to you doesn't mean no-one else is interested - or relying on it. You're right that NOTAMs are assumed to be necessary if anything in the AIP is not correct - and I can't think of a better way of planning my flights than being able to rely on the AIP and any current NOTAMs.

[Mike Cross]

Thanks Spitoon

I think you miss my point, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.

If I want to use either of these I have to ask the ATSU concerned for permission, at which point they can tell me that it is not available - no safety hazard, and neither of these could be regarded as essential. I'm not going to abandon my flight if I have to park on a different stand or practice my hovering on a different part of the field.

Can you point out any way in which safety would be compromised by any pilot's lack of knowledge of these two if he were operating within the rules?

Is it essential that every pilot, before he takes off, reads these two?

Does padding the PIB out to 37 pages with things like this contribute to safety or does the mass of information of this type help to obscure what we are looking for?

My suggestion is that people should think twice before they promulgate a NOTAM, consider whether or not it is essential to do so and if it's not, don't.

Same applies to things like the fact that EGHH's elevation has been amended to 38 feet (couldn't that wait until the next AIP amendment?)

EGJJ has an 18 inch high mound of earth 2 metres off one corner of the runway marked with flags and lights. Ther are two separate NOTAM on this one. Presumably you can't warn people about it on the ATIS or by r/t, and Hoskins' eyesight is such that he can't be relied on to see it unless he gets two NOTAM first. Perhaps a little OTT?

I absolutely agree that it is essential that facilities that might be relied on should be notammed.

Go on - tell me - do you really sit down with the AIP before every flight or do you use a flight guide like the rest of us?:D

Mike

[flower]

mrcross,

ATCs primary task is to control Air Traffic. Would you like us to put that as a secondary task and inform you about all unserviceabilities instead, which are dealt with through the NOTAM system.

NOTAMs are absolutely the correct way to inform the flying community about closures .unserviceable equipment etc.

If you are aware prior to landing at an airfield that there are taxiway closures etc you will ensure you take the appropriate exit point off a runway. Or if landing aids are unavailable you make a judgement as to whether or not to plan to land at that airfield.

We simply do not have the time or resources to keep repeating information that pilots should already be briefed on through the NOTAM system. It is a safe and reliable system which as a pilot you should welcome.

I suspect that you would be the first one to complain if you were not told such information and subsequently screw up.

[niknak]

Mr Cross - if you were a pilot of any experience, instead of much ignorance, you would know that notams are issued for the use of ALL pilots, not just those who think the world revolves around them.
The change of an elevation point etc is critical to any aircraft making an IFR approach to an airfield, as is the possibility of encoutering work in progress at a particular place anywhere o an airfield.
But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that.........:rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes: :mad:

[Mike Cross]

Sorry Niknak

Well aware of the purpose of NOTAM's, hence my quoting the definition from the AIP.

Apologies also for my ignorance, I've only had my licence since '74. Maybe I will become more knowledgeable and less ignorant as I get older, or maybe it will be the other way round as the grey cells expire.

Evidently this particular idea is a no-no.

Mike

[mainecoon]

the later i think

you don't fly rotor wing i think

you land qfe i think

(gross assumptions both)

but question ?

do you also object to notams north of london fir because it doesn't affect you
no atis there i know

but i suspect you are fixed wing ppl only

as was mentioned before you would look even more daft than now if you try to land your helo at one of these places

we in atc maybe wrongly assume some form of airmanship from those with a ticket but a rethink all round if you've got off with this attitude since 1974!!

[vintage ATCO]

You must remember that at places like Gatwick where ATC and the aerodrome authority are different, it is the aerodrome authority that send NOTAMs concerning the airfield, as they are obliged to do under their aerodrome licence. You may not be interested that stand 11 is out of service but operators at Gatwick would be.

And as an ATCO I wouldn't want a pile of information on my desk that I have to read out to pilots, nor would we want it on the ATIS. No, a NOTAM is the correct place so that pilots PRE-BRIEF.

[canberra]

i personally think that the notam system is getting out of hand, remember the foot and mouth epedemic, how many notams were there about farms to avoid? surely it would have been better to close uk airspace below 2000'? anyway why has bournemouths elevation suddenly changed, how long has the airfield been there? and theyve suddenly discovered that the elevation is out, i think someone has cocked up!

[ATCO Two]

Canberra,

It wasn't that long ago that the elevation at Northolt changed from 131ft to 124ft, and Biggin Hill from 518ft to 517ft. Maybe a change of aerodrome reference point, or more accurate methods of measuring? WBS will know.

[Spitoon]

mrcross asks Go on - tell me - do you really sit down with the AIP before every flight or do you use a flight guide like the rest of us?

The honest answer. If it's somewhere I know I use a flight guide, if not, I'll confirm what the flight guide tells me in the AIP before I go (much easier now it's on-line). Either way, I'll cast an eye over the current NOTAMs just to try and make sure I'm not going to make a fool of myself.

[alphaalpha]

I think you're being a little hard on mrcross, guys. He has a point: that it is hard to sort the wheat which is important to him from the chaff that isn't. Of course his chaff is somebody else's wheat.

The point is, that with the disappearance of the old A1 and A8 bulletins, it is hard to sort out what is important to me, for my flight, today.

Let's accept that all notams are important to somebody, and look for AIS (and other providers of the notam information) to make it easier to sort out what is important for the individual planning his (her) flight.

Specifically, headings dividing notams into meaningful groups; lat/long sorting of nav warnings; better altitude and sphere of influence specification would all make it easier to decide what is wheat.

Edited 'cos I pressed the send key by mistake. Whoops!

[Spitoon]

alphaalpha, you've got it right, the information should be easy to find and to assimilate. But that doesn't alter the fact that mrcross appears to go around with blinkers on.

And from the day job (controller) perspective it is terrifying sometimes when you realise just how unprepared some pilots are for the flights that they undertake!

[Mike Cross]

Having retired somewhat hurt from the fray and some of the personal invective that was being aimed at me I'd like to put this forward for comment. It's from the Manual of Air Traffic Services (CAP493) Part 1, 5.2.2

I think it does justify my original suggestion to some extent.

++++

A NOTAM is normally originated when urgent information of an operational nature
needs to be distributed rapidly.Parochial information which can be imparted locally to
operators and which will not preclude safe operation of a flight,or influence a decision
by aircrew on possible diversion requirements,should not be promulgated by NOTAM.

Items which come into this category include the following:
a)Routine maintenance work on aprons and taxiways which does not affect the safe
movement of aircraft;
b)Runway marking work,when aircraft operations can safely be conducted on other
available runways or the equipment used can be removed as necessary;
c)Temporary obstructions close to the aerodrome that do not affect the safe
operation of aircraft;
d)Partial failure of aerodrome lighting facilities where such failure does not affect
aircraft operation;e)Partial failure of air-ground communications when suitable alternative frequencies
are known to be available and are operative;
f)The lack of apron marshalling services or road traffic control;
g)The unserviceability of location,destination or other instruction signs on the
aircraft movement areas;
h)Parachuting in Class F or G airspace under VFR or when controlled at promulgated
sites or within danger or prohibited areas;
i)Other information of a similar nature.

+++++

I appreciate that as a pilot and a PPL at that I am stepping into the lion's den and have already had my head bitten off in no uncertain manner by some of you, who are I assume ATC professionals.

Perhaps my original post was not worded as well as it could have been - if you were offended then I apologise, that was not my intent.


Mike

[Spitoon]

mrcross, don't take it too personally - but your name does rather invite such responses.

The text you quote from MATS Part 1 is an interesting point and I think dates from a good few years ago. Although this is just what you are complaining about, the risk of being taken to court for not making known information fully available - i.e. not taking all reasonable measures to promulgate info - is what makes many airports NOTAM absolutely everything. It's just world we live I guess.

[Mike Cross]

Ah - Spitoon, you come bearing light.

My username is not mrcross because I want to convey anger, it is because it is my name. I am Michael Richard Cross so I tend to use my initials and surname as a username.

And I was beginning to think you guys were scary.

Having cleared that up, the bit from MATS is from a copy dated May 2002 so I doubt that it's out of date.

I appreciate that there is a natural tendency to cover ones backside by including everything, however you can have too much of a good thing.

I am currently working on a project to improve the Pre-Flight Briefing Bulletins (PIB's) that are put out by AIS from their new website at www.ais.org.uk - in fact I've been talking to them today and I'm up at Heathrow for a meeting with them tomorrow. If you have a look at the Private Flying forum here on pprune, the GA Discussion on www.flyer.co.uk and the threads on the CAA OnTrack Project at www.flyontrack.co.uk you will see some of the problems.

SRG, DAP and presumably yourselves are concerned about airspace infringements and there is certainly plenty of evidence from ATCOs and a/g operators to indicate that pilots are taking to the air while not aware of TRA that has been notammed. The PFA Rally at Cranfield and the Farnborough TRA are two cases in point.

While it is undoubtedly correct to say that they are in the wrong, they do need to be given information that is accurate, relevant and easily assimilated and that is just not available at the moment.

The airlines have their ops departments to do it for them, they are flying SIDS, STARS and Airways and are therefore largely not concerned with things that may be taking place in the open FIR. They're not likely to run into parachutists, air displays, balloons or military exercises because they don't take place in CAS. GA pilots on the other hand are, and they don't have the benefit of an ops department.

Part of the problem is the withdrawal of the old A1/A8 bulletins on 19 August and their replacement by an automated system. The old bulletins were hand-assembled by the experts at AIS who could discard stuff that they thought was not relevant. The new system puts it all in, duplicates and all, and does not sort it into any geographical order. We're working on that at the moment.

The other part of the problem is that there is far too much information in the bulletin that is not relevant to the average GA pilot. It runs to around 34 pages for EGTT, around half of which is Aerodrome and half En-Route. MATS seems to me to have it about right in its suggestions as to what should not be notammed.

Flower thinks NOTAM are safe and reliable - the website went live on 19 August and has gone down on 9 Sept, 21 Sept, 4 Oct and 10/11 Oct so far. I'd hate to have a car that was that reliable.

niknak's gratuitous abuse is unworthy of any comment and says more about him than me.

I hope that some of the more rabid elements in this forum can now see that I am not an ignorant PPL who thinks the world revolves around him, speaks through his backside and blunders into the sky without a care in the world. If I were I wouln't be talking to you.

Less prejudice and more thought will work wonders. Sorry if I got off on the wrong foot.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Mike

[flower]

The website crashing still has no impact on the fact that NOTAMs are still the most appropriate way for this information to be disseminated.
NOTAMs are not just obtained from the web.

[chrisN]

The difficulty we are wrestling with in GA in general and gliding in particular is how to get what is relevant from the NOTAM service and leave out what is not relevant. For gliding, we need Nav.-type notams for our geographic area (how far that is depends on the weather) and not the aerodrome stuff, because we don't normally go to Heathrow, Bournmouth or similar aerodromes.

Once, we used to get NOTAMs posted to gliding clubs, but that stopped. The web is the only way now.

We used to be able to data from A8 NOTAM lists (I think it was) and ignoring A1 data. Now we can't avoid getting 30+ pages of stuff when we only want about 1 page of it.

To get anything, I have to pretend I am going to fly from Cambridge to Great Yarmouth, staggering about 50 miles off-route, when I really want to fly from Ridgewell (which is not addressable by the NOTAM service).

I appreciate that other people do need the other stuff. So what we need is some way of selecting what is appropriate.

Fortunately, MrCross and another have taken on the mantle of trying to organise that for us.

Would have been nice if AIS had taken the trouble to find out what is needed, but they didn't, so MrCross is doing it for them - for which AIS, and I and a lot of others, are very grateful.

When the service goes down, it would be nice if AIS let everyone know plus what to do instead. They didn't - but last weekend apparently they asked MrCross to do it for them.

As his efforts are at his own expense, when he asks this forum for help in understanding what the issues are, it would be nice to see people giving constructive comments instead of flames.

[flower]

ChrisN
If Mrcross had put a different post up from the start explaining exactly what he was doing , the comments would have been very different and hopefully constructive , but he himself admits he could have written it better.

As an ATCO at a unit who has to deal with poorly if at all briefed PPLs on a daily basis through our LARs service, I can assure you you it causes us no end of problems.

I like most ATCOs do not like to MOR pilots unless I absolutely have to, unfortunately because of a total lack of briefing by PPLs I have had to do so because quite frankly those individuals endangered not only themselves but other Pilots to.

Most PPLs do brief and this is a dig at those who do not, anything that can be done to make briefing simpler is OK with me.

But if you want constructive comments , help and advice tell us what you really want to know.

[Mike Cross]

Hi Flower

"Notams are not just available from the web"

I fly out of EGHP so where do the NOTAM come from?

I can ring NOF and get them from the duty officer but how many enquiries can he deal with at once?

I could ring an ATSU and ask them - your attitude suggests you wouldn't take very kindly to such a request.

Please enlighten us.

The simple fact is that I, the aerodrome operator, and all the pilots flying from EGHP have a choice of the web or the web. NOF do not have any backup system such as fax.

A MOR highlights the problem but doesn't fix it. We can MOR 'till we're blue in the face but nothing will get any better until someone takes a constructive attitude in recognising that there is a problem.

I and others have MOR'd on non-availability of NOTAM, SDD are investigating and DAP are on to AIS, which is of course part of NATS.

We as a community are telling you there is a problem. Part of it is the volume of irrelevant data and I'm asking you to recognise that.

Your problem of poorly briefed pilots requesting LARS is a symptom of the underlying issue. I doubt you'll find a single pilot who would willingly fly without a proper brief, however you will find plenty who complain vociferously about the quality of the information available to them.

What they have is not up to scratch, does not comply with your own operating procedures in MATS and is worse than what was in place before the upgrade.

That's the real problem, and until that improves you will continue to get badly briefed pilots.

Mike

[mainecoon]

i'm afraid it's an airmanship thing

not a flame but

you as pilot in command are duty bound to brief via notam or however

as a controller not my problem computer failure thats down to the caa

(as a nats controller and ex computer prog need to get off that subject)

understand your problem but busy atsu's (some of us still get a8's) quite often don't have the r't time to pass all the info you guys and galls require

catch 22 i guess but hope your efforts come up trumphs

sorry if previously sounded like flaming
but did get narked in the past with what seemed to me requests by some that were clearly notamed a8 to me
thanks for the input and enlightenment but as a final as you said the initial post did come across badly

all the best with your quest
maincoon:p

[flower]

Mrcross
you do me a disservice by your comments. The Web may be the only place you have access to NOTAMs but that is not the only place that you can access them which is my point.

Forgive me if I am unaware of your personal difficulties and as I stated at the start of my previous post if you had been upfront from the start about what you had wanted you would not have had so aggressive a response..

At all major ATSUs there is a briefing office through which you are able to access information, what the response would be from staff I do not know, but better to try that than have nothing at all.
ATCOs however have very limited time to pass on the information over the R/T

The changes that you say have been made do not generally filter down to ATC staff at larger units so most of us would be unaware of them.
However I would think that to a person we would all like to see briefing be made as simple as possible and would support you in your quest.

[Mike Cross]

Sorry guys, I must stop being belligerent.

The computer failure was on equipment belonging to AIS/NATS, nothing to do with the CAA. They have a new system at NOF which feeds the notam out on to AFS for you guys. That system didn't go down but the replica server which feeds to us did, and was out for nearly a whole day. As I said this is the fourth failure since mid-August when it went live.

Yes its our duty to brief ourselves but it's NATS/AIS duty to make the information available and yes it is Catch 22 at the moment.

The availability issue is not your problem, it's an issue for us to sort out with AIS.

BTW my info is that you will lose the A8's, we've already lost them

We've strayed a bit from my original suggestion which was that perhaps we have too much stuff being notammed. I don't know whether you guys generate any of that or not.

Mike

[bpilatus]

mrcross

I have read this with interest and the Notam link in the Private flying forum

I hope you are getting a more constructive response from the people at AIS than the arrogant ignorant garbage being dished out on here by niknak and others

Anything to improve the rubbish that NATS have dumped on the users should be welcomed by everyone

All this talk of ATSUs with Notams etc completely ignores the fact that twice you've said you fly from Popham - hardly a major airfield - but perhaps that's the new attitude now NATS is owned and controlled by BA and friends. If they don't use the field they don't give a ****.

Good luck, maybe tell the people on the non-NATS forums and ignore this lot - at least you seem to get a reasoned reply in private flying.

[rustle]

Niknak,The change of an elevation point etc is critical to any aircraft making an IFR approach to an airfield
Someone making an IFR approach to EGHH (which is the airfield Mike referred to) knows that it's Cat1 ILS only otherwise non-precision.

So a one foot elevation change to threshold or ARP makes somewhat less that sweet-FA difference to IFR inbounds in this example.

Maybe if there was less defensiveness and more open dialogue things could actually be improved for everyone - on the ground as well as in the air.

[gemellus]

Mike Cross says " I doubt you'll find a single pilot who would fly without a proper briefing." I hate to disagree here but that simply is not true. I have come across too many who are happy to do just that. I'm the first to admit that changes need to be made to the current NOTAM system but there will always be those pilots who don't bother to read NOTAMs regardless of the information and how it is made available to them. A truly responsible pilot will make the effort to obtain the NOTAMs even in the current situation. I was horrified on my way into North Weald for the Aerofair in May to hear the number of pilots who plainly had not read the associated AIC. The controller was very patient with them.
Rustle seems to think that a one foot difference in the elevation at EGHH doesn't matter because it's only Cat 1 ILS. Are we now going to expect AIS to filter out this sort of information depending on the category of precision approaches at these airports?
This is taking things to the extreme. Personally I would rather see too much information (even if it is a bit annoying to go through) than not enough. I have experienced two notable omissions in the NOTAMs recently and that's far more worrying.
There is no doubt that the system needs to be improved particularly, as it has been less than reliable, but people have to be realistic and reasonable. On the subject of controllers' attitudes I have cringed at some of the things I've heard over the R/T which the controllers have had to deal with and it's no wonder some of them get annoyed. We're talking about NOTAMs (which have been difficult to obtain etc and I'm grateful to all those trying to sort out the problems) but this whole subject is more complex than just the NOTAM difficulties.

[flower]

Bpilatus, making an assumption here but I presume you are not a commercial pilot. Subsequently it is unlikely that you have ever actually paid for your Air Traffic Service. In fact you get it for free and the big airlines such as BA pay for you to receive a radar service.

This though goes totally off the plot , ATCOs have very little to do with Flight Briefing ,it does not generally come within our domain and is handled by Air Traffic Service Assistants ATSAs. We have not been made aware of the difficulties that the GA community have been experiencing since the introduction of this new system. let alone know that a new system was in place.
Popham may not have A FBU the suggestions made were that it may be prudent if unable to access the web that day to call the nearest large ATSU.
This is a short term solution and naturally it is vital that whoever is responsible for the web site to ensure that it accessible at all times.

As I reiterate again you may think we are an arrogant bunch of s...ts. But we were responding to incomplete information. Since we have been made aware about MrCross and his intentions you will note that he has infact had our support.

The reason why very few suggestions have been forthcoming is because flight briefing is not an ATCOs domain, I can assure you if it was, if I was able to offer any suitable suggestions I would do so.

[rustle]

gemellus,

Rustle seems to think that a one foot difference in the elevation at EGHH doesn't matter because it's only Cat 1 ILS. Are we now going to expect AIS to filter out this sort of information depending on the category of precision approaches at these airports?
Mike's post said:
My suggestion is that people should think twice before they promulgate a NOTAM, consider whether or not it is essential to do so and if it's not, don't.

Same applies to things like the fact that EGHH's elevation has been amended to 38 feet (couldn't that wait until the next AIP amendment?)
...and I concur - it's not an AIS problem per se, it's the originator.

Flying IFR I would expect my Aerad/Jepp plates to be updated in due course, but a NOTAM about a 1 foot change :eek:


Flower,

I am not a commercial pilot but I pay NATS/Eurocontrol charges if I fly IFR. Please do not assume that GA pay nothing and that only commercial operators pay.

[flower]

Rustle,
my apologies i meant to put unless you fly IFR airways as GA you don't pay .

However very few do. so don't have ago at the large airlines they do pay for the vast majority of the radar services

[rustle]

flower,

you were answering bpilatus' post.

I wasn't having 'ago' at anyone, just pointing out that GA do pay when GA use the service, which is a common misunderstanding because I've had this discussion before... ;)

BTW, you attract charges without using airways too - this is another misunderstanding.

File IFR = incur charges. Even if it's night and there's no VFR because everything (UK) is IFR at night...

Anyway, back to NOTAMs :)

[Mike Cross]

Hi Folks

Following the somewhat lively discussion, here is an opportunity for anyone with an interest in getting concise and relevant NOTAM briefings into the hands of GA pilots to put their views to the regulator.

A meeting has been provisionally arranged for 15 November. The attendees are likely to include AIS, their regulator from the CAA, other interested parties from the CAA, a representative from the BGA and Russell and myself.

The regulator is John Gentleman, Manager, Aeronautical Charts and Data at the CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy.

He has agreed that the email address [email protected] can be used for you to make representations and has already received a number of mails as a result of our putting the address on our proposals, which can be found at http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais

Please make your voice heard by sending an email. Don't get upset if you don't get a response, there are likely to be too many to reply to individually but they will all be taken into account.

If you support our proposal please say so but it is equally important for you to raise your voice if you disagree with what we are suggesting.

AIS and the CAA have come forward and demonstrated that they are ready and willing to listen to your views and deserve credit for doing so. Please give them a constructive response.

Mike

[mainecoon]

congrats mike

very detailed and most of it spot on

as i've said before computer code was my job a long time ago
also my company don't exactly have a good rep on that at the moment(not their fault lockhead martin most)

have looked at the site mentioned when it is running and is woefull

understand your problems better now
have sent an emither also advocating the backup faxback option which any sensible system such as this should have
don't hold out much hope though as sense doesn't hold any clout with my lot these days

hope it works out to some extent anyway you have my support
the maine coon
regrds:)

[Mike Cross]

For anyone wanting to see more discussion on this subject I have updated

http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais/forums.htm

to include links to all the forums I could find. If you know any more please use the link on that page to let me know where they are.

Mike

[cubflyer]

Ive got to agree with Mr Cross on this one.
The NOTAMS system is a complete mess. Looks more like its run by the legal dept than by an operational department to enhance flight safety. ie If we put absolutely everything in there, then no one can say they didnt know about it, so they cant sue us.
No thought to the fact that there is so much rubbish, you cant find what is relevant to your flight.

The main problem is that there is no good way to filter the information to get what you need. If I am flying a VFR flight from A to B at 1500ft, I do not need to know about 80% or more of the stuff that comes up in the NOTAMS.
Similarly if I'm doing an IFR flight at FL270, I dont need to know about NOTAMS for parachute jumping or tethered balloons.

When Im at work, flying out of LGW, my company has a nice system, such that it prints out the NOTAMS relevant to my route, thus most are applicable and worth looking at. When I want to fly my own aircraft I can look at the AIS web site and spend ages trying to find something relevant in amongst the pages of rubbish!

Mr Cross is exaclty right that a lot of these NOTAMS are just wasting people's time. AS I said I fly out of LGW but it is no use to me to have a NOTAM that stand 11 is closed. If it is closed, then I wont find my aircraft parked there and my company and ATC wont tell me to park there when I return!! Yes, the Airport Authority needs to tell the operators who might want to use that stand and the local ATC, but they are the only ones who need to know!
And the change in airfield elevation of a few feet is completely useless too. I descend to the DA got from the plates or performance book. If the elevation change had that drastic effect on my approach then the plates would have to be changed or a NOTAM issued that the Minima had changed. ( but again only IFR flights need to know this, so I should be able to not get this info if I tell the system that I'm a VFR flight.

Yes, you ATC people are right, there needs to be a NOTAMS system, but it needs to be useable by everyone, in a format that they get the information relevant to their flight, not just to please the lawyers.

[Greebson]

MRCROSS

You stated that you cannot receive NOTAM when the website is down, remembering from my dim and distant past, AIS are able to fax any info you require. It is not a great hassle for them, although it'll probably use quite a lot of your paper up.

[rustle]

cubflyer,

The "stand-closed" NOTAM is an interesting one, where a degree of 'reasonableness' needs to be applied.

If the stand is the only one that can accept a B767 (for example) then it is quite right to NOTAM it unavailable.

(There is a reference for this, where an operator supposedly would have changed the aircraft type had they known the only B767 stand was U/S at destination - allegedly)

If it is one of many that can accept a B767 (for example) then it is an operational matter, and not safety critical - therefore NOTAM isn't the right way to distribute that info. (Just the easiest way)

It will take a lot of effort and discussion to stop the originators NOTAMing everything, but our point isn't that it's easy, but that it's prudent.

[Mike Cross]

A glimpse of the blindingly obvious has hit me:-

How would you define a good briefing?

How about "Information that is relevant to the intended flight, presented in an easily assimilated form"

or whatever your own choice of words might be.

I can't see any evidence that NATS have even defined what they want to achieve, let alone measured the result against it.

Mike

[bookworm]

If it is one of many that can accept a B767 (for example) then it is an operational matter, and not safety critical - therefore NOTAM isn't the right way to distribute that info. (Just the easiest way)

It will take a lot of effort and discussion to stop the originators NOTAMing everything, but our point isn't that it's easy, but that it's prudent.

I think you misunderstand the role of the NOTAM system, rustle. Annex 15 and the AIS Manual say nothing about "safety critical", but rather talk specifically about "operationally significant".

NOTAMs are published when it is necessary to disseminate information of direct operational significance which
(a) is of an ephemeral nature or (b) is appropriate to the AIP but needs immediate dissemination.

I salute your efforts to improve the situation for GA pre-flight briefngs, but fix the system where the system needs fixing -- at point of delivery. Great bark: wrong tree! :)

[rustle]

Hi bookworm,

I don't want to argue about semantics, but 1 stand of 1 able to accept a B767 is "operationally significant" if it goes U/S, but the thrust of my point was that 1 stand of MANY able to accept a B767 is not...

As cubflyer so eloquently put it:

If it is closed, then I wont find my aircraft parked there and my company and ATC wont tell me to park there when I return!! Yes, the Airport Authority needs to tell the operators who might want to use that stand and the local ATC, but they are the only ones who need to know
Anyway, the meeting's this Friday coming and I'm sure that AIS personnel have read this thread along with the "parent" thread in Private Flying - guess they'll have their own views!

I'll let you know which way they see it...;)

[bookworm]

Rustle

There's a NOTAM code specifically for stand closures: QMPLC. It's used worldwide, not just in the UK. You can petition ICAO if you like... :) But as you say, it's not the detail of that that is important, it's the principle. Let me try to persuade you one more time.

NOTAMs are not just intended for getting information to flight crew, they are for distributing temporary aeronautical information to everyone with a need. In the example that you cite from cubflyer, if the airport operator wants to tell the aircraft operators and local ATC that a stand is closed, it should do it by NOTAM. The fact that you or any other pilot doesn't want to know is irrelevant.

NOTAMs are meant to be passed from AIS to AIS. It's up to the AIS to provide an appropriate pre-flight bulletin for pilots' use. Different users have different needs -- what you've got on your web site is spot on. A different sort of filter is required for each group. I don't understand how you and Mike can write stuff that is so clearly sensible on the site, and then post a message here that makes it look as if you think the entire NOTAM system revolves around not just flight crew in general, but GA pilots in particular. :)

Isn't it obvious that the place for filters to be applied is at the point of delivery? It's the classic use of a database: put all the information in in a structured way, and take out only the information that's required at the point of use.

What you should care about is not whether QMPLC NOTAMs go into the system, but whether they get churned out in your PIB.

You have the opportunity to help make that happen right -- good luck on Friday.

[rustle]

Bookworm,

You are right, of course, and I am persuaded :)

Why do I have the distinct impression that you have battered me in discussions elsewhere previously??!!

During the three months it's taken to get to this stage I have learned that it's far better to ask for 200% and be happy with 95% than to only ask for 75% at the outset ;) (I suspect you know what I mean)

What went on our website (www.telecall.uk.com/ais) was a realistically obtainable goal - as you say, filtered to requirements of the various PIB users.

We won't be asking ICAO to change anything ;)

Cheers

Russell

[Mike Cross]

Hi Bookworm

If you look at my post in this forum of 14 Oct at 15:24 you will see that MATS supports Rustle's point. I am told that the wording is taken verbatim from ICAO Annex 15

It is a difficult issue and there are a number of ways of approaching it.

Your suggestion that everything should go in and filtering should be used at the point of delivery is persuasive, however it goes against MATS and ICAO.

It could equally be argued that facilities for loading and unloading the aircraft are a matter for the airline's local agent and should not be the subject of a worldwide broadcast. What if, for example, the bus drivers are on a work to rule or equipment is out of service resulting in delays in getting passengers to or from remote stands. Where should the line be drawn?

The underlying problem is that NOTAM are a quick and easy way of getting the information to a very wide address list and so are used even when not appropriate.

DVLA hold the address of every vehicle owner in the UK but it would not be appropriate to send a recall notice on a Ford Fiesta to the whole address list, you need to have more precise targetting.

If BAA want to tell all airlines using LGW that a stand is out of service there are much more targetted ways of doing it but they require more thought and a little more work. The same applies to the CAA wanting to warn owners of certain Russian registered aircraft that their C of A may not be valid for international use.

These are really matters for DAP. I know they have a view that things are being notammed that should not be, so we may see some guidance being issued.

I recognise that if MATS were strictly applied then alternative communications methods (e.g. new address lists) might be required so that users could subscribe to information that may be of operational significance to them but which falls outside Annex 15's definition of what should be a NOTAM. It would of course be useful to have the information presented using the NOTAM message format so that existing database systems could cope with it.

I am not trying to be dogmatic, there are many valid arguments on all sides and there is no "right" answer.

Mike

[bookworm]

OK, let's do it blow by blow...

If you look at my post in this forum of 14 Oct at 15:24 you will see that MATS supports Rustle's point. I am told that the wording is taken verbatim from ICAO Annex 15


The MATS wording is indeed taken from ICAO Annex 15 and the ICAO AIS Manual. The paragraphs that describe what should or should not be NOTAMed do not mention stand closures explicitly. However, the appendix to the NOTAM chapter in the AIS Manual goes through every permissible NOTAM code. One of them is "QMPLC", for stand closures. The tables in the appendix even list the NBOMIV flags that should be used for it.

If a stand closure does not meet the ICAO requirements for the issue of a NOTAM, why did ICAO invent and list a code for it?

DVLA hold the address of every vehicle owner in the UK but it would not be appropriate to send a recall notice on a Ford Fiesta to the whole address list, you need to have more precise targetting.


It's a good analogy. If there's a recall issued on the Ford Fiesta, Ford notifies the appropriate agency in each country. The agency is then responsible for promulgating the information to the affected owners.

If a stand is closed at LGW, the airport operator raises a NOTAM to warn the AIS. The AIS distributes the NOTAM to those states whose operators may be affected by this. The state AIS is then responsible for promulgating the information to the affected operators.

The same applies to the CAA wanting to warn owners of certain Russian registered aircraft that their C of A may not be valid for international use.


So how is the pilot of a Russian-registered aircraft based in France going to find out that the UK CAA will ground his aircraft if he flies it to the UK unless he first gets an exemption?

[Mike Cross]

Like I said, there's no "right answer".

Sure, ICAO 8126 has a code for it but that doesn't automatically mean it should be notammed.

AIS can't promulgate it to the "affected operators", they don't (nor are they required to) know who they are. The only option they have is to issue a NOTAM which goes to everyone, worldwide. The aerodrome operator can of course inform the affected operators direct because they are his customers and he knows who they are.

The Russian registered aircraft problem is that certain C's of A are only valid within Russia. The aircraft therefore can't operate legally within France either. The DGAC should ground the aircraft if it is in France and the CAA if it is in the UK. Either of course could issue an exemption valid for their own airspace.

Mike

[alphaalpha]

Let's not get carried away too far in this discussion. The key point is to help GA pilots and GA organisations to get the Notams which are important to them and their flight easily and quickly and to avoid dilution by Notams not relevant.

In this context, GA flights are numerically far larger than the airlines, including not only private pilots flying for fun and business, but also air taxi, medevac, training and small corporate outfits etc, none of whom have the resources of a comprehensive ops department for pre-flight planning.

If a specific Q-code is irrelevant, it should be possible to filter it out individually, or as part of a family. I subscribe to Pilotbrief, who provide this facility and it works well -- but you do have to subscribe. So, it can be done. AIS should provide the raw data, allowing the users (or commercial intermediaries) to provide the filters.

For filters to work well, the timing, radius of action and altitude limits of the issue need to be well specified. This is an area where AIS could intervene to sharpen up the data quality from the original source, and promulgate refined data in the UK.

AA.

[rustle]

Have a read of this:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=notam+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm021105/text/21105w02.htm#21105w02.html_wqn5

(Extract follows)

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the state of faults on the UK NATS website; and when the faults will be rectified;[R] [79443]
5 Nov 2002 : Column 148W
(2) what representations he has received from UK pilots who have to log onto the Swedish air traffic service in order to obtain UK NOTAM for safety and time critical information owing to faults on the UK NATS website.[R] [79442]
Mr. Jamieson: National Air Traffic Services Ltd. introduced a new on-line information system in late August, replacing the former manual system. The change was made after extensive consultation with users. The new system is intended to provide much wider access to pre-flight information, thereby enhancing safety, but some general aviation users who are accustomed to the manual system have not found it easy to adapt.
The system is provided with back-up facilities and, while—as with most other similar websites—it may be necessary to suspend operation for very short periods, I am assured that the continuity of service will not be significantly compromised.


So who was consulted? Who is this Jamieson character who, basically, is suggesting that the problems are OUR fault?

Come on folks - this is outrageous:mad:

[Warped Factor]

rustle asked....

Who is this Jamieson character who, basically, is suggesting that the problems are OUR fault?

I suspect this (http://www.davidjamieson.co.uk/) might be said gentleman, a Labour Transport Minister.

WF.

[rustle]

Thanks, WF.

Post-meeting information can be found in Private Flying Forum:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72705

[Mike Cross]

For an update on the meeting that took place at AIS Heathrow on Friday please go to:-
http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais/news!.htm

Then let's have some comments!

Mike