NOTAM Gotcha!
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?
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.
I reckon this 3' fence has been at YNAR for 50+ years:
At least they're unlikely to be DFO'd any time soon.
OBST FENCE 472FT AMSL 1841M FM SOT 92M NTH C/L INFRINGES TKOF SFC
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.
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.
But what if it's about 'safety'? Crazy suggestion, I know...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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*
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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*
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.
From MOS139
Your're stuck with them.
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.
(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.
The information in the YNAR NOTAM I quoted above does not comply with this:
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'?
The 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.
(c) the height of the obstacle 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 SFC
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.
Thread Starter
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/
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/notam/
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.
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.)
(43: A 510 is a turboprop. It's just that the props are a very small diameter.)
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'.
All of the obstacles are specified as AMSL rather a height in relation to the aerodrome elevation.
ERSA shows the AD ARP as 474' AMSL.
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.
(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.
(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.
I merely quoted what you quoted from the MOS, TIER. It was only 9 posts ago, remember?
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.
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.
(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 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.
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.
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.