NOTAM crashed

[Gabriel]

Evan, let me clarify my opinion:

I don't like the NOTAM (TAF, METAR, ETC) language, and I agree that there is no reason to carry on with that shorthand language these days.

What I am saying is that pilots learn that language and use that language with no problems. Heck, most pilots in the world need to learn a full second language (English), and they manage to do it.

I am sure that there must be some, but I never heard of an incident caused by a pilot not understanding or misunderstanding a NOTAM. I did hear several incidents due to pilots MISSING the NOTAM altogether. That is a very serious issue that actually caused accidents, and that is not solvable by replacing the shorthand language by plain English (which, remember, is still a second language for most pilots in the world).

As a dispatcher said:

"Dispatcher for 27 years. I generally love my job but the day I retire and never have to read hundreds of useless NOTAM while praying I don’t miss something important will be a happy day. The NOTAM system is broken even when it’s working."

You hear pilots and dispatchers complaining a about THAT all the time. You very rarely hear them complaining about the shorthand language.
They know where the difficulty with the system is and what unintentional mistakes can kill them.

Plain English will not solve the real problem with NOTAMs. While I agree that the NOTAM language sucks, I would not invest a cent in fixing that until we fix this other little thing first. Put all resources available to fixing NOTAMs there, please.

[3WE]

1. [Blah, blah, blah]

2. Put all resources available to fixing NOTAMs there, please.

1. I agree, it needs some common sense, but you won’t convince Evan when the words “Common Sense” are included.

2. Right AFTER we update all documentation to be inclusive.

3. I’m seeing 4 categories:

A. Critical safety stuff. (Instrument landing stuff)
B. Big operational stuff (commonly used runway closed)
C. Long term details (Runway 57 is only for blistering, non-prevailing winds and Cessna 150s)
D. All the other crap that may technically be relevant (taxiway details), but are not quite as important as making measured pull ups, but which also, is mostly garbage.

4. In spite of Evan’s jokes about old computers, it’s actually newer systems that are failing (no objection to upgrades and improvements but see my main topic 2.)

[Evan]

Plain English will not solve the real problem with NOTAMs. While I agree that the NOTAM language sucks, I would not invest a cent in fixing that until we fix this other little thing first. Put all resources available to fixing NOTAMs there, please.

The other little thing being the entirety of NOTAM is sent to every crew and dispatcher rather than only those that affect them? That and plain English are the same fix. Or do you get everyone's Whatsapp messages instead of only the ones directed at you? Just replace NOTAM with the same technology we take for granted every day (though obviously robust and tailored to the industry).

I suspect, if you call the NOTAM technical support number, you get Rip Van Winkle on the line.

[Gabriel]

The other little thing being the entirety of NOTAM is sent to every crew and dispatcher rather than only those that affect them?

No.

That and plain English are the same fix.

What?

Or do you get everyone's Whatsapp messages instead of only the ones directed at you?

I don't get the analogy. If I want to send a Wahtsapp to Evan, I send a Whatsapp to Evan. Whow does that work if the FAA wants to let whomever it may concern know that in MIA the runway is displaced for RWY construction and the edge line of TWY K4 is not painted? By making the NOTAMs in plain English?

[Evan]

No.

What then? I thought the main problem was that one must sort through large batches of them to find the ones that are applicable to one’s flight plan?

I don't get the analogy. If I want to send a Wahtsapp to Evan, I send a Whatsapp to Evan. Whow does that work if the FAA wants to let whomever it may concern know that in MIA the runway is displaced for RWY construction and the edge line of TWY K4 is not painted? By making the NOTAMs in plain English?

By only sending that NOTAM to those with flight plans that include MIA. Or at least by placing it on top for them. And in plain English.

The technology is proven. AI could even be leveraged but it’s not required. For example, when a crew loads a new flight plan into
the FMGC, they could receive the NOTAMS relevant to that flight plan. In plain text.

[3WE]

What then? I thought the main problem was that one must sort through large batches of them to find the ones that are applicable to ones flight plan.

Did you read this thread, where I posted some NOTAMS? There were 30+. 30 for the departure airport, 30 for the arrival airport, enroute stuff…should we check our alternate airport?

I loved it that the a Flyover NOTAM was stating that the Nashville VOR was out of service. (It’s part of a departure procedure)…probably part of who knows how many arrival procedures…so THREE TIMES, you read an reread that BNA is OTS. How many airliners are ’VOR only’ and why can’t your IFR clearance and a sector controller simply address it…Hell, pull up the Grand Ole Opry on the ADF and use it!

Turn off the black and white: it’s not that all flights get all NOTAMS, it’s that the “relevant” NOTAMS are heavy on crap. Repeating: TWY Bravo Foxtrot by the T-hangers has inadequate wingtip clearance for A-380, 747, 767, A-300 and 757, unless the 757 doesn’t have winglets. Birds present on and around airfield just like they are in 80% of the world. Big snow pile on the holding pad marked with barricades and lots of flashing yellow lights.

[Evan]

Tailor them to what is relevant for each recipient. Algorithms and AI can do that. Patching up old software cannot.

Not the 737Max approach. Those tend to crash. A clean sheet approach is needed.

[Gabriel]

What then? I thought the main problem was that one must sort through large batches of them to find the ones that are applicable to one’s flight plan?

By only sending that NOTAM to those with flight plans that include MIA. Or at least by placing it on top for them. And in plain English.

No, that's not the problem. The dispatchers and pilots already pull only the NOTAMS from the places they need. The problem, as I said before, is that you have a temporarily displaced threshold buried among things like a line not pained, a light not working, hours of Tower operations changed (in a way that doesn't affect your plan), advisory of construction going on at some remote part of the airport or in the vicinity, etc. And then you have the departure, destination, alternates, ETOPs diversion airports, and enrute portions for the areas relevant to your flight... and you end with hundreds of "applicable" NOTAMs of which only 1 or 2 really affect your flight plan.

Tailor them to what is relevant for each recipient. Algorithms and AI can do that.

Well well, welcome to the club finally. Can you please work full time on that and totally FORGET ABOUT ENGLISH until you solve this little issue first? BTW, the English thing is already solved you have tons of free online tools that translate NOTAMs, TAF, METARS, etc to plain English. But it seems that pilots and dispatchers PREFER the shorthand... probably for the same reasons that they prefer NOTAM to Notice to Airmen, TAF to Terminal Area Forecast, and METAR to Meteorological Terminal Air Report, and you prefer to use acronyms instead of plain English in many posts of yours especially when Airbus systems and procedures are involved: Yes, they takes effort and time to learn, but once they do, they are used to use them it and it is shorter.

Again, by al means you have my support. Change NOTAMs to plain English. Just don't invest a second and a dollar on that before you fix the other problem first. Because time and resources are limited, priorities are important, and in this case there is zero question about which of the 2 things is much more important for safety than the other and has the potential to kill more people.

[Evan]

No, that's not the problem. The dispatchers and pilots already pull only the NOTAMS from the places they need. The problem, as I said before, is that you have a temporarily displaced threshold buried among things like a line not pained, a light not working, hours of Tower operations changed (in a way that doesn't affect your plan), advisory of construction going on at some remote part of the airport or in the vicinity, etc. And then you have the departure, destination, alternates, ETOPs diversion airports, and enrute portions for the areas relevant to your flight... and you end with hundreds of "applicable" NOTAMs of which only 1 or 2 really affect your flight plan.



Well well, welcome to the club finally. Can you please work full time on that and totally FORGET ABOUT ENGLISH until you solve this little issue first? BTW, the English thing is already solved you have tons of free online tools that translate NOTAMs, TAF, METARS, etc to plain English. But it seems that pilots and dispatchers PREFER the shorthand... probably for the same reasons that they prefer NOTAM to Notice to Airmen, TAF to Terminal Area Forecast, and METAR to Meteorological Terminal Air Report, and you prefer to use acronyms instead of plain English in many posts of yours especially when Airbus systems and procedures are involved: Yes, they takes effort and time to learn, but once they do, they are used to use them it and it is shorter.

Again, by al means you have my support. Change NOTAMs to plain English. Just don't invest a second and a dollar on that before you fix the other problem first. Because time and resources are limited, priorities are important, and in this case there is zero question about which of the 2 things is much more important for safety than the other and has the potential to kill more people.

Step two of the ICAO plan is to prioritize the messages (step one is to throw out the outdated ones). So that's already in the works.

I'm talking about the underlying technology. If they shift the entire system to something like a modern text-messaging app, they can send messages in plain language, including on-the-fly real-time translations for all major languages. All the components for this exist and are proven. If they try to polish the turd, neither is possible.

[3WE]

(step one is to throw out the outdated ones)

Your density amazes me. Like I told Gabriel, I’ve read several and the system seems rather strict and procedural with respect to time…

I bet a beer that NOTAMS are 99%+ up to date at airline airports.

The problem is that they probably are all important in SOME way, but faded taxiway paint in the general aviation area is not quite as important as ILS maintenance, or a crane just off the approach end. Nor knowing that taxiway C and D have inadequate wingtip clearance for an A-380, if your opening a 737.

[Evan]

I bet a beer that NOTAMS are 99%+ up to date at airline airports.

How about 80% are less than 3 months old?

Officially, the warnings are supposed to expire after 90 days. But 20% of the more than 36,000 active globally notices are older than that, according to ICAO.

[kent olsen]

Last nite on the news they said just after the new year the Phillippines shut down their airspace for a similar problem. Then one day after the US incident, the same thing happened in Canada and they shut down the airspace as well ??????????????

[3WE]

Apparently data were being transferred or backed up, by a contractor and got deleted, instead.

It was always tough in DOS to type delete *.* AND THEN REALIZE you were on C: instead of C:\temporary\

I can imagine the contractor messing up, or the software and systems behind used in more than one country.

[Not_Karl]

It was always tough in DOS to type delete *.* AND THEN REALIZE you were on A: instead of B:

Modfied to reflect what (probably) happened in this case.

[3WE]

Modfied to reflect what (probably) happened in this case.

I understand the subtleties of your comment. Indeed.