batninth

If you do a route brief or Aerodrome brief that included Church Fenton, you would find it in Nav Warnings as well as in the FIR Brief.

Ensuring that you include aerodromes along your intended route as well as departure and destination will help cut out a lot of the chaff that you may not need to trawl through.

All briefing systems require some time spent with them to find the functions that suit you best. If the HELP tab on the NATS AIS website is baffling to you, then give them a ring and they will guide you through the most appropriate briefing function for your requrements.

:ok:

I flew into Elvington on saturday. From several miles away it was evident that the airfield wasn't presenting it's usual picture of a huge, empty runway with an equally huge, empty hardstanding. The large number of marqees, display and visiting aircraft and numerous parked cars etc gave me just the tiniest clue that something was going on. Notam read or not. A quick call on 119.625 would have confimed it to anyone intending to practice aeros. They had the same view as I did. This wasn't the usual fly-through of a notammed event. And this guy did it twice!, departing to the west after the first session then turning back for the second. No excuse. End of story.

What about if you did A to B (which went close to CF) but did not specifically put CF in the brief, and then did say 20nm route width. Would it show then?

I often only put in the departure and destination and a wide corridor if it is reasonably straight track and use that for my brief.

That's right - if an event appears under aerodrome notams only, then a narrow route briefing will not pick it up.

And it is not reasonable for a pilot flying A to B to seek aerodrome briefings for airfields along his route. That would be completely nuts; not even the most diligent pilot will be doing that and it isn't the way the notam system is supposed to work. If this really was needed then the notam was filed incorrectly.

englishal

Yes that will do it.

IO540

Not sure what your point is as you can include aerodromes in route briefings without having to specify an aerodrome brief.......

Surely if you are flying close to an aerodrome en-route it is good airmanship to check the notams for the aerodrome and the area surrounding it in case of the requirement to use it as an en-route diversion or availability of the aerodrome, its surfaces, aids and ATC services? No?

I don't agree. A reasonable cross-country flight might take me close (as in < 20 miles close) to tens of dozens, if not hundreds of airfields. If I don't fly to that airfield, nor fly in their ATZ, I'm not interested in things like:
- runway closures, WIP on taxiways
- fuel availability
- amended operational hours
and so forth.

What I am interested in is anything related to any of my *planned* diversion fields, and these airfields are of course added to the NOTAM brief request. I'm also interested in any *en-route* navaids problems (VORs, DMEs, NDBs, but not ILSs and their associated markers) and other *en-route* issues (TRAs and similar, changed operational hours of en-route ATC units and so forth)

That's what IO540 is claiming: if a NOTAM is only of interest to those that will actually be landing on that airfield (or using it as a planned diversion), it should be marked as an airfield-only NOTAM. If it's interesting for pilots who are simply passing by, then it should be marked as a whole-FIR NOTAM, with appropriate lat/long information and radius so that a narrow route briefing will pick it up.

I think much is being lost in translation and interpretation here, and before the thread creep goes completely off topic, it is fair to say we are now splitting hairs over what constitutes an en-route diversion - planned or otherwise. We could be here for months with that one. :ouch:

However, I hope it is fair to say that the point has been made regarding the airmanship points raised and that there was no excuse for the behaviour of the pilot concerned on Saturday.

For the avoidance of any doubters, the Elvington NOTAM was contained in the en route NOTAMs and not the aerodrome information for CF. CF was merely used as an example of an aerodrome that may be used within a route brief. Any further discussion on individual planning preferences are really not relevant to the thread. Suffice to say that as long a reasonable planning is taking place, then that satifies the requirement in the ANO.

And the other thing I can we can agree on, is that not enough time is spent in the PPL curriculum (both initial and recurrent training), on the way NOTAMs are structured, generated, submitted, stored and promulgated, and the way you can selectively retrieve them via the internet.

As others have said, if you do a narrow route briefing on the AIS website, or smartly use any of the other tools that are available on the internet, the list of NOTAMs that you have to wade through is relatively small. But you have to know how to use these tools smartly, and that requires a little knowledge about what the contents of a NOTAM actually is (including the non-textual lines) and how a computer uses that information to filter out the NOTAMs that are relevant to you.

That is interesting as I wouldn't normally pick up notams for the aerodromes on my route of flight, apart from a diversion or two.

Perhaps it is time for the Air Law exam to be amended to include picking up pre-flight notams and such like? Not sure if it has any such questions as it is a decade since I did it...

One gets airfield notams only for departure, destination, and planned alternates. Not for a pile of airfields along the route.

Yeah, should be... I do think notams are taught more these days, but the whole topic is inextricably wrapped up with the availability of the internet where it is needed, etc.

With most new pilots chucking it in more or less right away, there are many more "old" pilots (in the sense of having been flying for many years) flying than there are new pilots flying, so the place to attack this is on the 2-yearly check flight, but there is no requirement to do that on that, either. The only way you don't get signed off is if the instructor does not survive the flight :)

Maybe it's an idea for a magazine article? A bit on NOTAM background, and then tracing a NOTAM (e.g. one for an aerobatics competition) through the system from initial draft, submission, promulgation onto your AIS narrow brief? Alongside an explanation of the various options that the NOTAM submitter has (airfield, whole FIR, IFR/VFR etc) and how this affects the narrow route brief filtering?

I realise that not everybody reads these magazines, but still...

SPINE
 

Anyone on here use this?

Spine stands for “Soaring Pilot's Intelligent NOTAMs Editor”. For use in the UK only, it provides a simple interface to the AIS web site for downloading ...
www.enborne.f2s.com/gliding/spine.

Demonstrating that you're competent to access and read NOTAMs seems a fairly sensible refresher check to me (even though it doesn't seem to be part of any formal requirement). Maybe an alternative would be for the CAA to cross-reference how often pilots access the AIS site vs how many hours they claim to fly. If you don't log in for two years, you presumably haven't flown during those two years....so, voila your licence is revoked! [Takes cover under nearest rock....]

I for one do check NOTAMS before EVERY flight. It is easy enough to do and now even easier with graphical displays such as that on Airbox Fastplan.

I think more people would use it if the NATS version was just as simple to use.

So if you use a computer where a user has already logged in (such as at many flying clubs, or flying schools), you would have your licence revoked?

What utter rubbish. :ugh:

No, you logout and login with your own userid. Just like people do with webmail, PPRUNE, etc. It's not difficult and I'm sure within the capability of most PPL holders.

Not quite accurate. Nowt to do with whether or not it has an ICAO code, everything to do with whether the aerodrome information in the AIP is accurate or not. Unlicensed a/d do not have entries in the AIP and so you won't see a/d NOTAM for them, even if they have an ICAO code (Popham EGHP, Lee on Solent EGHF and North Weald EGSX are all examples). The numbers will increase as a/d drop out of being licensed now they no longer have to be for training but retain their ICAO indicators.

What you will get is a Nav Warning. The Q Line for the Elvington NOTAM was
Q) EGTT/QWALW/IV/M/W/000/050/5355N00058W003

This is what is used to select whether or not it appears in your brief. Here's the decode

EGTT - the FIR
QWALW - QWA=Air Display LW=Will Take Place
IV - of interest to IFR and VFR
M - Miscellaneous NOTAM
W - Nav Warning
000/050 - affects surface to FL050
5355N00058W - co-ordinates of the centre of the activity
003 - Radius of Influence in nm from the centre

So - if you take a Narrow Route Brief from the AIS site it will use the route width you choose to define a corridor within which your flight will take place. If the circle describing the RoI intersects that corridor the NOTAM will appear in your brief.

Simples!

I know how the system works; I 've been using it in a professional capacity since it launched. However, what you propose is impractical. What about folk like myself, who sometimes operate from field and other locations with no internet access?

A licence holder's personal logbook provides proof that flying has been carried out by an individual, not the AIS website.

Try

UK 48-Hour Notams : Warnings and Restrictions

It's what I do, log out the airifeld computer, log in as myself, leave the audit trail. Works fine for me.