"bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Still haven't heard anything from the FSDO, but not much time has
passed. I'll post with whatever they eventually flog me with, but in
the meantime here's some comments on the comments:

Q. Why would NOTAMs on another frequency or AWOS be easier to check
than the current methods?
A. Current methods require one to check a web page or make a phone
call, an extra effort rather different from simply checking another
frequency. It's not so much the time involved, but the relatively
different task.

You should maybe check NOTAMs at least once. Then you'd see just how many
there are, and how impractical it would be to include them on an existing
AWOS transmission or similar. I suppose you could set up a new system like
HIWAS, etc. with a dedicated NOTAM frequency, but it'd still be relatively
impractical (you'd have to listen to several minutes of NOTAMs just to be
sure you heard them all) and you'd run into the problem of taking up new
radio frequencies for something that really doesn't have to be an in-flight
information thing.

As far as the current methods requiring extra effort, well dang...there's a
lot of extra effort involved in flying. Just how little effort do you want
to put in? Compared to most of the other stuff involved in flying creating
"extra effort", checking NOTAMs is pretty minimal.

Q. Are there pilots that really check before EVERY flight?
A. Apparently so. And maybe I will join the ranks. But my computer
isn't on all the time and being Windoze takes a while to boot.

The fact that my computer isn't on all the time is why it takes at least
five minutes. Big deal. Turn on your computer, and then go put your flight
bag next to the door, or brush your teeth, or whatever, while it's booting.

Dialing
1-800-WX-BRIEF isn't difficult, maybe they could have a recording just
for major NOTAMs in the area (they already connect you to your regional
FSS station based on your calling phone number).

Sure, that would not be a bad idea at all. I haven't phoned for a briefing
in a long time (no Class B ADIZ around Sea-Tac, yet) so I don't know what
they offer, but a menu option to drop you into a NOTAM menu structure would
be useful. No need to limit it to TFRs...just make TFRs a category, and
include other stuff (like obstacles to navigation, chart NOTAMs, FDC, etc.)
on other menus.

Q. Don't you check weather before every flight?
A. X-country, yes, local, no. It's a California thing I guess...ya
gotta live here a summer to understand.

You just don't get it. Even here in Seattle, we often have weather that
makes it obvious that I don't need to check the *weather*. That's not the
point. A preflight briefing is more than weather. It's not "a California
thing". It's a lazy pilot thing.

Q. How would an email notification work, they don't know what airport
you're at?
A. Similar to AOPA's system, the FAA would setup a web page where
pilots voluntarily participating would submit their email address and
location (either state, zip code, or airport ID) and they would receive
emails for TFR and NOTAMs.

I would agree that an email notification system would be handy. It should
be simple enough to set up, and would serve a useful purpose. However...

This would help for the local flights where
many pilots don't get a briefing.

An email system does not get you out of getting a briefing. It just
provides a relatively convenient way to help you know about important
information. Email is fundamentally unreliable, and there's no way to prove
that you read the email that was sent to you, nor to ensure that you have
actually received all applicable NOTAM information.

Even if you have an email notification system, you would still need to get a
proper briefing before your flight.

[...] We might as well
recognize that for local VFR flights there are just a lot of pilots
that don't get briefings, so why not reduce the number of TFR
violations with a simple email system?

We might? What is your basis for claiming that "there are just a lot of
pilots that don't get briefings"? Near as I can tell, pilots are MUCH more
likely to be in the category of "always get a briefing" than "never get a
briefing".

BTW, there's an interesting report about TFR violations at
http://www.volpe.dot.gov/opsad/docs/tfranalysis.pdf. Here's a
statistic that caught my eye: "...2900 violations in the two years
between June 2002 and June 2004 alone."

Compared to the number of flights made during those two years, 2900
violations is a very small number.

Obviously the current system isn't working well. Why not be practical
and implement additional notification methods to reduce the violation
rate?

I have to agree with Peter R.'s reply: I see no proof here that "the current
system isn't working well". You're not using the current system. How does
your experience relate at all to how well it works?

Pete