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?

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.........

[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]

eghh

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]

EGWU

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