Give me the simple life.
Sumwalt - “That's what Notams are: they’re a bunch of garbage that no one pays any attention to,” adding that they’re often written in a language that only computer programmers would understand.
I’d have agree; on pure ‘safety’ grounds. To stay legal you are obliged to plough through a massive amount of data; HO + Area + destination + alternate etc. There are reams of the stuff. The very real risk to a flight is that you miss an important one; the very real risk for the provider is that if an incident can be sheeted home to them; then, someone’s rice bowl will get broken.
The ‘cover your 6’ mentality Australian aviation law has produced generates this sort of arse covering overkill. NOTAMs and MET should be provided in plain English, simple, concise and relevant. The amount of ‘code’ one is obliged to translate in a weather briefing is mind boggling – same-same NOTAM’s.
With today’s computer power and systems; would it not be possible to generate a ‘package’ of Met and Notam data pertinent to the flight plan? A simple package, in plain language, with only the essentials (just the facts Ma’am). They way things are, the current system is self defeating; too much guff, not enough ‘stuff’ – so crew just collect the huge pile of paper, scan for the ‘bits’ that matter and bin the rest at the end of the day. Easy to miss an essential on page 33.
Crew - “But, but that was one line on page 149 M’Lud; in code, hidden between a 3 inch, 1000 abbreviated code words on airspace boundaries and a 4 inch, 14,000 accronyms on a military exercise, 2000 miles away”.
Judge – “Sorry chaps; strict liability, here, have a criminal record and join the queue at Centre-Link”.
![[Image: 8751248915_4dec29e3b3_b.jpg]](https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7395/8751248915_4dec29e3b3_b.jpg)
Toot – toot.
Sumwalt - “That's what Notams are: they’re a bunch of garbage that no one pays any attention to,” adding that they’re often written in a language that only computer programmers would understand.
I’d have agree; on pure ‘safety’ grounds. To stay legal you are obliged to plough through a massive amount of data; HO + Area + destination + alternate etc. There are reams of the stuff. The very real risk to a flight is that you miss an important one; the very real risk for the provider is that if an incident can be sheeted home to them; then, someone’s rice bowl will get broken.
The ‘cover your 6’ mentality Australian aviation law has produced generates this sort of arse covering overkill. NOTAMs and MET should be provided in plain English, simple, concise and relevant. The amount of ‘code’ one is obliged to translate in a weather briefing is mind boggling – same-same NOTAM’s.
With today’s computer power and systems; would it not be possible to generate a ‘package’ of Met and Notam data pertinent to the flight plan? A simple package, in plain language, with only the essentials (just the facts Ma’am). They way things are, the current system is self defeating; too much guff, not enough ‘stuff’ – so crew just collect the huge pile of paper, scan for the ‘bits’ that matter and bin the rest at the end of the day. Easy to miss an essential on page 33.
Crew - “But, but that was one line on page 149 M’Lud; in code, hidden between a 3 inch, 1000 abbreviated code words on airspace boundaries and a 4 inch, 14,000 accronyms on a military exercise, 2000 miles away”.
Judge – “Sorry chaps; strict liability, here, have a criminal record and join the queue at Centre-Link”.
Toot – toot.