Let’s fix Notams
The following 2 users liked this post by Lazyload:
I noticed this one for YSSY the other day. The four foot shrub - very hazardous to flight safety.
RUNWAY DISTANCE SUPPLEMENT (RDS) AMD
RWY 07 APPROACH GRADIENT 3.8 PERCENT DUE SHRUB 25FT AMSL (4FT
AGL) BRG 268 MAG 1396M FM ARP AND 135M FM RWY 07 THR 49M NTH RWY CL.
AMD ENR SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA (ERSA)
FROM 01 310428 TO 03 300500 EST
RUNWAY DISTANCE SUPPLEMENT (RDS) AMD
RWY 07 APPROACH GRADIENT 3.8 PERCENT DUE SHRUB 25FT AMSL (4FT
AGL) BRG 268 MAG 1396M FM ARP AND 135M FM RWY 07 THR 49M NTH RWY CL.
AMD ENR SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA (ERSA)
FROM 01 310428 TO 03 300500 EST
ICAO hasn't been able to complete the SARPS for GADDS, more than 7 years after the disappearance of MH370. There's no chance that any simplification rather than further complex-ification of the NOTAM system will happen before hell freezes over.
Imagine how muchbusy-work 'safety' is created by people surveying shrubs and other flora, the results of which surveys require an amendment to the approach gradient to a runway and the promulgation of corresponding NOTAM because of flora with tops at 4' AGL. Presumably more amendments and corresponding NOTAMs will be required, as the shrub does what shrubs tend to do?
Imagine how much
CASA could incorporate changes to notams while they are changing ANR's (or whatever they choose to call them these days) to plain English and condensing the number of pages to a realistic level. That's working well so far.......
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Imagine how much busy-work 'safety' is created by people surveying shrubs and other flora, the results of which surveys require an amendment to the approach gradient to a runway and the promulgation of corresponding NOTAM because of flora with tops at 4' AGL. Presumably more amendments and corresponding NOTAMs will be required, as the shrub does what shrubs tend to do?
I have the solution:
First, obtain advice, from a horticulturalist, as to the likely growth rate of the shrub. Then plot the increasing approach gradients that correspond with the likely height increases of the shrub over time (with an appropriate safety margin). Then put that plot in the RDS.
So the approach gradient could be 3.8 percent for e.g. the next month, then 3.9 percent for the month after that. The increase won't be linear, because of different growth rates in different seasons, but pilots are capable of deriving the applicable point on a curved plot e.g. daylight and darkness graphs.
Job done!
First, obtain advice, from a horticulturalist, as to the likely growth rate of the shrub. Then plot the increasing approach gradients that correspond with the likely height increases of the shrub over time (with an appropriate safety margin). Then put that plot in the RDS.
So the approach gradient could be 3.8 percent for e.g. the next month, then 3.9 percent for the month after that. The increase won't be linear, because of different growth rates in different seasons, but pilots are capable of deriving the applicable point on a curved plot e.g. daylight and darkness graphs.
Job done!
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
And the shrub should be lit (as in: illuminated at night, not ignited).
Notams to be relayed in plain easy to read format and domestic flights to revert back to using registration as callsign. Simple, straightforward, common-sense safety enhancements. Please listen CASA, work with us, not against us.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by scrum
I noticed this one for YSSY the other day. The four foot shrub - very hazardous to flight safety.
RUNWAY DISTANCE SUPPLEMENT (RDS) AMD
RWY 07 APPROACH GRADIENT 3.8 PERCENT DUE SHRUB 25FT AMSL (4FT
AGL) BRG 268 MAG 1396M FM ARP AND 135M FM RWY 07 THR 49M NTH RWY CL.
AMD ENR SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA (ERSA)
FROM 01 310428 TO 03 300500 EST
RUNWAY DISTANCE SUPPLEMENT (RDS) AMD
RWY 07 APPROACH GRADIENT 3.8 PERCENT DUE SHRUB 25FT AMSL (4FT
AGL) BRG 268 MAG 1396M FM ARP AND 135M FM RWY 07 THR 49M NTH RWY CL.
AMD ENR SUPPLEMENT AUSTRALIA (ERSA)
FROM 01 310428 TO 03 300500 EST
I'm contacting the folks at AU NOTAM facility and asking for some kind of reasoning that this NOTAM was issued, and again superseded with the same exact info. As an 'aerodrome operations manager' in the colonies, I want to find out if they will tell me anything about the origin or inspiration for squawking a 4ft tall shrub 135M from the threshold. I don't hold out much hope for an honest dialogue.
I think we are treading in a dangerous area WRT the entire NOTAM system. The original idea was a good one to keep pilots up to date on evolving changes in the aero environment so they can make the best decisions possible enroute. However, the system is now reaching the point where it's becoming the potential source of obfuscation and misery for all aviators. the chaff far and away obstructs those small nuggets of real interest. This is noted in the end of the cute video as the 'stealth' or hidden NOTAM that can affect the flight as the pilot wants to diligently cover the material but there is just so much it becomes an eye-glazing mess of rote acknowledgement to CYA.
I take a bit of exception to the portrayal of the devious or incompetent, or simply cruel airport manager who sits at the computer and just tossed detritus into the NOTAM system for no good reason. I've meet many other airport managers, and trust me or don't we have zero interest in making our jobs harder, or further adding to the misery of our own little fief or the misery of the pilots out there. I've recounted in a different thread my sad tale of woe concerning a designated FAA inspector who chose to identify a couple of power poles, that have zero affect on my airport ops, but he's annotated it on the airport inspection report as a potential hazard, leaving me no option but to submit a perm NOTAM about these poles. Now, they are stuck there, clogging up the NOTAM system where no one will ever care but as long as the FAA rep noted it, I have to put it in the system for liability exception.
So, sorry for my part in the debacle. I have little or no choice. The airport has been there for 40 years, the poles have been there for > 20 years, but up until 4 years ago, they were not a factor until the FAA decided they were, or are, or will be. I'm working to have the poles removed, but I'm not the guy in charge here, and the rest of the people who can do something about them, really don't get a spit if they stay up or come down.
I take a bit of exception to the portrayal of the devious or incompetent, or simply cruel airport manager who sits at the computer and just tossed detritus into the NOTAM system for no good reason. I've meet many other airport managers, and trust me or don't we have zero interest in making our jobs harder, or further adding to the misery of our own little fief or the misery of the pilots out there. I've recounted in a different thread my sad tale of woe concerning a designated FAA inspector who chose to identify a couple of power poles, that have zero affect on my airport ops, but he's annotated it on the airport inspection report as a potential hazard, leaving me no option but to submit a perm NOTAM about these poles. Now, they are stuck there, clogging up the NOTAM system where no one will ever care but as long as the FAA rep noted it, I have to put it in the system for liability exception.
So, sorry for my part in the debacle. I have little or no choice. The airport has been there for 40 years, the poles have been there for > 20 years, but up until 4 years ago, they were not a factor until the FAA decided they were, or are, or will be. I'm working to have the poles removed, but I'm not the guy in charge here, and the rest of the people who can do something about them, really don't get a spit if they stay up or come down.
Only one point of disagreement: It’s not “now reaching the point”; it’s past the point.
It’s the product of a typical bureaucratic system where the whole is less than the sum of the parts, because there appears to be no one with the strategic view and capability to build a priority allocation function into the system.
It’s the product of a typical bureaucratic system where the whole is less than the sum of the parts, because there appears to be no one with the strategic view and capability to build a priority allocation function into the system.
The following users liked this post:
