Dreadful
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No excuse...
I agree its not the most user friendly system, but depending upon what I'm doing that day I either just use a point brief (25 miles) or a narrow route brief....both of which are saved in my briefing handbook.
By doing it myself, I can know what, if anything, awaits my students or hirer that wants to discuss them. I will often 'red pin' the wall mounted chart so at least people know there is something up...they then have to go find it for themselves.
Never an excuse for not looking...
By doing it myself, I can know what, if anything, awaits my students or hirer that wants to discuss them. I will often 'red pin' the wall mounted chart so at least people know there is something up...they then have to go find it for themselves.
Never an excuse for not looking...
MCT207036 is marginally easier than the Lat/Lon.
When the NATS system fist started, I created an easy, roughly square area brief for middle England by specifying a fictitious route from EGVN via VLN DCT SWB DCT CTM DCT MID DCT VLN back to EGVN. Route width of 40nm, so the information for legs on opposite sides of the rectangle overlapped, meaning that there was no 'hole in the middle'. I used this dozens of times, with top level of FL60 - or FL060 in NATS-speak...
It was saved as a route and was very simple to use. A circular 'point brief' would not have been as useful.However, NATS later erased the route as I didn't use it for some weeks..... Thanks a bunch.
Now I have to specify DCT 5100N00238W DCT 5247N00239W DCT 5244N00039W DCT MID DCT 5100N00238W DCT which is far more error-prone and cumbersome.
If NATS really wants to cut down on airspace infringements, then they need to produce a web-based 'red pin wall chart' and update it every time a new 'red pin' is created. I would also suggest a 'lower level' filter, so that people didn't have to wade through all the 'training of birds of prey' and unlit chimneys etc....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the 207 in degM - or defined using the published declination for MCT?
A graphical interface would remove the need for all of this.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock..
Bludy hell MJ you will be wanting free roast beef then as well!!.....thanks for your kind comments though......hope you keeping well and dodging the sandstorms ..
Can we not rename you to Basic Information Service Traffic Officer then you can be a BISTO area? FIS
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in Germany the DFS has a great NOTAM site. You can register with them for free. This link may not work since it's under my registration name, but give it a try:
VFR-Bulletin by DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH
You just put your mouse over the "i" (for info) and the notam appears.
VFR-Bulletin by DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH
You just put your mouse over the "i" (for info) and the notam appears.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two points arise from this discussion.
First NOTAMS aren't hard, a narrow route brief and a phone call will tell you all you need from NATS and there are numerous reasonably reliable graphics sites if you need them. There is no excuse, if an old f@rt like me can cope so can anybody else.
Second what in heaven's name are our authorities doing setting up temporary controlled airspace for Americans, let alone permitting them to take some sort of official role in an airport control tower on British soil? Have we gone completely nuts?
First NOTAMS aren't hard, a narrow route brief and a phone call will tell you all you need from NATS and there are numerous reasonably reliable graphics sites if you need them. There is no excuse, if an old f@rt like me can cope so can anybody else.
Second what in heaven's name are our authorities doing setting up temporary controlled airspace for Americans, let alone permitting them to take some sort of official role in an airport control tower on British soil? Have we gone completely nuts?
Whilst there might be any number of 'reasonably reliable graphics sites' available, only official sites should be relied upon. Westie's DFS site shows the sort of thing which NATS should be able to provide.
Don't forget how that simpering little nuLabor poodle Bliar would lick GeeDubya Bush's backside at each and every opportunity!
Second what in heaven's name are our authorities doing setting up temporary controlled airspace for Americans, let alone permitting them to take some sort of official role in an airport control tower on British soil? Have we gone completely nuts?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, why won't it accept, for example, SWB (Shawbury) as a waypoint?
So what. The hell with 'calibrated to ICAO standards' - it's a published UK navaid and it is the location which is used.
I can guarantee that if I told some air-trafficker that my next turning point was 'Shawbury' or 'SWB', he/she wouldn't sniffily reply that he/she didn't know where that was, because...
Told you so! NATS needs to help, not hinder.
I can guarantee that if I told some air-trafficker that my next turning point was 'Shawbury' or 'SWB', he/she wouldn't sniffily reply that he/she didn't know where that was, because...
'...it's not in the bleedin' AIP'
No doubt there'll be NATS-apologists along.....
Last edited by BEagle; 19th Jun 2010 at 21:26.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept completely points made elsewhere about NOTAMSs being difficult to read/analyse/interpret, etc. and that an official means of plotting them graphically (instead of relying on Spine, NotamPlot, etc) would make them more 'user friendly'. Meranwhile rules are rules and pilots really should be aware of what's happening in their bit of sky. To not check NOTAMS smacks at best of lazyness and at worst arrogance. Either of these attributes in aviation are likely to result in tears.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Basingstoke
Age: 48
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all iPhone users out there, add the appropriately titled NOTAMS app. You enter the start and destination airports and all the relevant NOTAMS appear within a 20 mile radius of each airport and 20 mile buffer either side of track. Also gives a map of your route. Takes seconds.
Absolutely brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For all iPhone users out there, add the appropriately titled NOTAMS app. You enter the start and destination airports and all the relevant NOTAMS appear within a 20 mile radius of each airport and 20 mile buffer either side of track. Also gives a map of your route. Takes seconds.
Absolutely brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
How does your iPhone application invent information that isn't there? Is there a human being sitting at the other end doing the plotting for you (that would work, if you were willing to pay for it, but nothing else can)?
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude,
The NOTAM Q) line does contain the position, radius and vertical extent of the area in a well defined format which is amenable to automatic transcription - this is what gives you the big red circles you see on third party plotting tools.
This is also the circular extent of the NOTAM which is used by route briefing reports (including the AIS).
Some third party tools (such as mine) also parse co-ordinate data within the free form E) line text and interpret it as route or extent data. Whilst for complex NOTAMs containing multiple routes or extents this may not be entirely sufficient, it does immediately flag up gross errors in the NOTAM preparation, particularly where the free-form co-ordinate data clearly doesn't correspond to the stated centre and radius data in the Q) line.
Take for example, this initial attempt at a NOTAM for a Red Arrows' transit for today, 19th June:
H2186/10
Q) EGTT/QWVLW/IV/M/W/000/030/5115N00120W020
B) FROM: 10/06/19 10:57C) TO: 10/06/19 11:52
E) FORMATION TRANSIT BY RED ARROWS ACFT ROUTING:
5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1107 HR
5114N 00118E (BETTESHANGER, KENT) 1109 HR
5114N 00108E (BISHOPSBOURNE, KENT) 1110 HR
5107N 00114E (WEST HOUGHAM, KENT) 1112 HR
5112N 00123E (KINGSDOWN, KENT) 1113 HR
5124N 00125E (MARGATE, KENT) DISPLAY 1115-1139 HR
5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1142 HR
FORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 2000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE ARE
APRX AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO WX OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
SEE SEPARATE NOTAM FOR THE RESTRICTED AREA (TEMPORARY) FOR MARGATE
AIRSHOW. AUS 10-06-0452/AS1
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 3000FT AMSL
A simple plot of the Q) line and E) line data show a gross error:
http://metutil-test.appspot.com/NotamData?type=KML&ids=H2186/10 - Google Maps
...which was corrected after a few hours, but it does raise a couple of points (which arguably have been done to death, but since the problem is clearly recurring, aren't quite dead yet)
1) Why wasn't the data verified before publication? - there is a recurring problem with NOTAM source from this particular origin. The NOTAM for the reciprocal transit had the same problem
2) The Narrow Route Brief for a route passing through the actual track of the Red's transit would not have returned any details of the NOTAM, since the extent of the NOTAM used by the NRB was on the other side of the country.
The XML-encoded NOTAM format which will be with us in a few years - probably - might catch this sort of problem earlier, but until then we're stuck with the system we've got. Make the best of it.
The NOTAM Q) line does contain the position, radius and vertical extent of the area in a well defined format which is amenable to automatic transcription - this is what gives you the big red circles you see on third party plotting tools.
This is also the circular extent of the NOTAM which is used by route briefing reports (including the AIS).
Some third party tools (such as mine) also parse co-ordinate data within the free form E) line text and interpret it as route or extent data. Whilst for complex NOTAMs containing multiple routes or extents this may not be entirely sufficient, it does immediately flag up gross errors in the NOTAM preparation, particularly where the free-form co-ordinate data clearly doesn't correspond to the stated centre and radius data in the Q) line.
Take for example, this initial attempt at a NOTAM for a Red Arrows' transit for today, 19th June:
H2186/10
Q) EGTT/QWVLW/IV/M/W/000/030/5115N00120W020
B) FROM: 10/06/19 10:57C) TO: 10/06/19 11:52
E) FORMATION TRANSIT BY RED ARROWS ACFT ROUTING:
5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1107 HR
5114N 00118E (BETTESHANGER, KENT) 1109 HR
5114N 00108E (BISHOPSBOURNE, KENT) 1110 HR
5107N 00114E (WEST HOUGHAM, KENT) 1112 HR
5112N 00123E (KINGSDOWN, KENT) 1113 HR
5124N 00125E (MARGATE, KENT) DISPLAY 1115-1139 HR
5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1142 HR
FORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 2000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE ARE
APRX AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO WX OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
SEE SEPARATE NOTAM FOR THE RESTRICTED AREA (TEMPORARY) FOR MARGATE
AIRSHOW. AUS 10-06-0452/AS1
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 3000FT AMSL
A simple plot of the Q) line and E) line data show a gross error:
http://metutil-test.appspot.com/NotamData?type=KML&ids=H2186/10 - Google Maps
...which was corrected after a few hours, but it does raise a couple of points (which arguably have been done to death, but since the problem is clearly recurring, aren't quite dead yet)
1) Why wasn't the data verified before publication? - there is a recurring problem with NOTAM source from this particular origin. The NOTAM for the reciprocal transit had the same problem
2) The Narrow Route Brief for a route passing through the actual track of the Red's transit would not have returned any details of the NOTAM, since the extent of the NOTAM used by the NRB was on the other side of the country.
The XML-encoded NOTAM format which will be with us in a few years - probably - might catch this sort of problem earlier, but until then we're stuck with the system we've got. Make the best of it.
Last edited by eharding; 19th Jun 2010 at 23:44.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is worth having the AIS recorded info line stored on your mobile which details Retrictions to Flying and Airspace Upgrades for the day. I usually dial this on the way to the flying club just to get a picture of what's happening as often one chum or another will suggest an impromptu flying jaunt (and we happen to be v close to Farnborough).
AIS: 0500 354 802 (and 0044 20 8750 3939 from abroad)
Obviously for pre-planned trips I do review the NOTAMS, in my case on the Skybook site which is the best one I have come across (Europe's most integrated pre-flight briefing service for the General Aviation (GA) pilot). This is generally a highly tedious experience (on any site) because even with a narrow route briefing the filtering is so crude that one ends up with 95% of cr*p. Even if you exclude enroute airports you still have to read about all the taxi lights that don't work (and cranes, although the base of flight has been set at 3000'
). Most sane people would do their best to avoid this junk. My answer would be to heavily fine someone for entering a NOTAM in the first place without bothering to set realistic parameters. Kite flying should not appear on a route set at FL50 !! I'm convinced they deliberately chuck in everything to absolve themselves of any possible liability . . . . but by doing so they heavily degrade the effectiveness of the system. . . ..
AIS: 0500 354 802 (and 0044 20 8750 3939 from abroad)
Obviously for pre-planned trips I do review the NOTAMS, in my case on the Skybook site which is the best one I have come across (Europe's most integrated pre-flight briefing service for the General Aviation (GA) pilot). This is generally a highly tedious experience (on any site) because even with a narrow route briefing the filtering is so crude that one ends up with 95% of cr*p. Even if you exclude enroute airports you still have to read about all the taxi lights that don't work (and cranes, although the base of flight has been set at 3000'
). Most sane people would do their best to avoid this junk. My answer would be to heavily fine someone for entering a NOTAM in the first place without bothering to set realistic parameters. Kite flying should not appear on a route set at FL50 !! I'm convinced they deliberately chuck in everything to absolve themselves of any possible liability . . . . but by doing so they heavily degrade the effectiveness of the system. . . ..
Another incident - last Saturday I was flying out of Stapleford then doing aerobatics over northern Kent (the nearest I could find enough headroom!).
Crossing the route of the Queen's birthday flypast and subsequently, I had a Basic Service from Southend. I'd guesstimate that at-least half of the GA they were handling had to be specifically told that the flypast route airspace was closed to them, and on one occasion a pilot seemed to be asking the controller to read and interpret the NOTAM to him !
A very large proportion of GA pilots who should have known better!
(Incidentally, full marks to the staff at Stapleford who seemed to be reminding every pilot entering or leaving the door of the clubhouse about the flypast NOTAM.)
Thanks for the Griffin link by the way - quite useful.
G
Crossing the route of the Queen's birthday flypast and subsequently, I had a Basic Service from Southend. I'd guesstimate that at-least half of the GA they were handling had to be specifically told that the flypast route airspace was closed to them, and on one occasion a pilot seemed to be asking the controller to read and interpret the NOTAM to him !
A very large proportion of GA pilots who should have known better!
(Incidentally, full marks to the staff at Stapleford who seemed to be reminding every pilot entering or leaving the door of the clubhouse about the flypast NOTAM.)
Thanks for the Griffin link by the way - quite useful.
G
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a Notam'd aerobatics competition yesterday at Little Gransden.
Three aircraft flew through the overhead in the middle of our aerobatic box at between 1500 and 2500 ft. None of them responded to calls on the Little Gransden frequency. We had to stop 2 flights and delay a 3rd because of them. They didn't even notice an aircraft doing aerobatics!
We normally get 2 or 3 doing this at a competition.
ZA
Three aircraft flew through the overhead in the middle of our aerobatic box at between 1500 and 2500 ft. None of them responded to calls on the Little Gransden frequency. We had to stop 2 flights and delay a 3rd because of them. They didn't even notice an aircraft doing aerobatics!
We normally get 2 or 3 doing this at a competition.
ZA
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Notams Briefing is a preflight requirement.”
True, but you can do that by phone.
Zulu Alpha
Did you have an RA(T)? If not then the aircraft were operating perfectly legally (outside any ATZ)…
Rod1
True, but you can do that by phone.
Zulu Alpha
Did you have an RA(T)? If not then the aircraft were operating perfectly legally (outside any ATZ)…
Rod1
Last edited by Rod1; 20th Jun 2010 at 19:00.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B) FROM: 10/06/20 17:50C) TO: 10/06/20 18:41
E) FORMATION TRANSIT BY RED ARROWS ACFT ROUTING:5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1800 HR5144N 00123E (OVER THE SEA) 1805 HR5222N 00041W (BURTON LATIMER, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE) 1820 HR5314N 00037W (SKELLINGTHORPE, LINCOLNSHIRE) FLYPAST AT 1829 HR5318N 00033W (SCAMPTON AD, LINCOLNSHIRE) 1831 HRFORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 2000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE AREAPRX AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO WX OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. AUS10-06-0478/AS1LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 3000FT AMSL
I went on a local bimble this afternoon after reading the above. I entered their co-ordinates into my gps to veiw their track between Burton Latimer and Skellingthorpe as I figured they would pass close to where I would be, I was back on the ground long before they passed o/h but I'd say they were 3 or 4 miles west ofthe intended track and at 500ft. Whats the point of publishing a route and planned transit height and not adhering to them, I know they use the words 'approximate, and may change' but seems a bit ambiguous to me, Though I think the timing was about right!
E) FORMATION TRANSIT BY RED ARROWS ACFT ROUTING:5121N 00121E (MANSTON AD, KENT) 1800 HR5144N 00123E (OVER THE SEA) 1805 HR5222N 00041W (BURTON LATIMER, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE) 1820 HR5314N 00037W (SKELLINGTHORPE, LINCOLNSHIRE) FLYPAST AT 1829 HR5318N 00033W (SCAMPTON AD, LINCOLNSHIRE) 1831 HRFORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 2000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE AREAPRX AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO WX OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. AUS10-06-0478/AS1LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 3000FT AMSL
I went on a local bimble this afternoon after reading the above. I entered their co-ordinates into my gps to veiw their track between Burton Latimer and Skellingthorpe as I figured they would pass close to where I would be, I was back on the ground long before they passed o/h but I'd say they were 3 or 4 miles west ofthe intended track and at 500ft. Whats the point of publishing a route and planned transit height and not adhering to them, I know they use the words 'approximate, and may change' but seems a bit ambiguous to me, Though I think the timing was about right!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
The NATS NOTAM system works by applying filters to the raw data. In the case of a NRB it filters based on the route you input.
The database of waypoints is maintained from the AIP's of all of the ICAO contracting states. The process for notifying new waypoints and deleting obsolete ones is set out by ICAO and quality assured to ICAO Standards.
If you introduce non-compliant data into the database you compromise data integrity. If it's not an officially notified reporting point then it's a matter of fact that there will not be any notification if it were withdrawn. Neither, in the case of SWB will there be any notification of inaccuracy or unserviceablity.
The routing in the NRB follows the same conventions as the routing in a Flight Plan. If you file a FPL stating that you were routing via SWB you'd get the same problem The only SWB that ICAO recognises is the Sawmill VOR/DME which is near David G Joyce Airport at Winnfield Louisiana.
There was a case some years ago of a fatal CFIT in Wales where the COM was found tuned to the Lands End VOR, which had been NOTAMMED as out of service, leading to the suggestion that the pilot might have been unwittingly following a wandering needle into the mountains. At least in that case if he had read the NOTAM he would have been aware. If it ain't in the AIP you get no notification.
The NATS NOTAM system works by applying filters to the raw data. In the case of a NRB it filters based on the route you input.
The database of waypoints is maintained from the AIP's of all of the ICAO contracting states. The process for notifying new waypoints and deleting obsolete ones is set out by ICAO and quality assured to ICAO Standards.
If you introduce non-compliant data into the database you compromise data integrity. If it's not an officially notified reporting point then it's a matter of fact that there will not be any notification if it were withdrawn. Neither, in the case of SWB will there be any notification of inaccuracy or unserviceablity.
The routing in the NRB follows the same conventions as the routing in a Flight Plan. If you file a FPL stating that you were routing via SWB you'd get the same problem The only SWB that ICAO recognises is the Sawmill VOR/DME which is near David G Joyce Airport at Winnfield Louisiana.
There was a case some years ago of a fatal CFIT in Wales where the COM was found tuned to the Lands End VOR, which had been NOTAMMED as out of service, leading to the suggestion that the pilot might have been unwittingly following a wandering needle into the mountains. At least in that case if he had read the NOTAM he would have been aware. If it ain't in the AIP you get no notification.