![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am curious how many of you routinely consult the AF/D prior to every
IFR flight. The reason is, a well known FAA inspector at a recent safety seminar commented that those little green books were not of much use anymore, and that most pilots simply don't use them. I was surprised, because I've been in several occasions where certain important NOTAMs were no longer available once they were printed in the next AF/D publication cycle. For example, the NDB 19 approach at CYO has a current approach chart. There are no NOTAMs against it. But the NDB is no longer functioning. It has been decommisioned. I don't know of any way a pilot could get this information without a current AF/D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Andrew Sarangan wrote: For example, the NDB 19 approach at CYO has a current approach chart. There are no NOTAMs against it. But the NDB is no longer functioning. It has been decommisioned. I don't know of any way a pilot could get this information without a current AF/D. The notion that you can just document a problem and that's as good as fixing it is bunk. It happens all the time on software projects. The FAA seems to have bought into it in a big way. Permanent TFRs are a perfect example. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ben Jackson" wrote in message news:%6kOb.89954$na.49173@attbi_s04... In article , Andrew Sarangan wrote: For example, the NDB 19 approach at CYO has a current approach chart. There are no NOTAMs against it. But the NDB is no longer functioning. It has been decommisioned. I don't know of any way a pilot could get this information without a current AF/D. The notion that you can just document a problem and that's as good as fixing it is bunk. It happens all the time on software projects. The FAA seems to have bought into it in a big way. Permanent TFRs are a perfect example. There is a story behind that: You see, there once was an airliner, so safe that none had crashed in 18 years. Long ago an error had been made in validation rules and a waypoint identifier was removed from it's FMS database. (remove all doubles) Many years later, the problem was corrected in the data base and a decision was made to "fix the problem". Software was delivered, a service bulletin was released and there was much rejoycing. Six months later, the foreign NOTAM for the missing identifier was removed and the runway VOR was commissioned by AA 965. Unfortunately, the service bulletin was never applied to the airplane. So you see, from the perspective of the system, fixing a problem is not always a good plan. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message For example, the NDB 19 approach at CYO has a current approach chart. There are no NOTAMs against it. But the NDB is no longer functioning. It has been decommisioned. I don't know of any way a pilot could get this information without a current AF/D. The sectional chart notams are also in the AFD |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Ron Natalie" wrote: "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message For example, the NDB 19 approach at CYO has a current approach chart. There are no NOTAMs against it. But the NDB is no longer functioning. It has been decommisioned. I don't know of any way a pilot could get this information without a current AF/D. The sectional chart notams are also in the AFD Can anybody give me a real-life example of a flight where they ran into trouble because they hadn't gotten a sectional chart notam? I can see how you could die if you don't have current approach plate notams. But a sectional chart notam??? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... I can see how you could die if you don't have current approach plate notams. But a sectional chart notam??? Well, it wasn't limited to the chart notams, but we went through two sectional revisions here before a local tower got to the charts. Of course, the regular airport entry also noted to new info. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message For example, the NDB 19 approach at CYO has a current approach chart. There are no NOTAMs against it. But the NDB is no longer functioning. It has been decommisioned. I don't know of any way a pilot could get this information without a current AF/D. The sectional chart notams are also in the AFD Absolutely. AF/D contains items such as misprints on the sectional, frequency changes, towers etc... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Smith wrote in news:roy-2BA69A.19165718012004
@reader2.panix.com: Can anybody give me a real-life example of a flight where they ran into trouble because they hadn't gotten a sectional chart notam? Houston went through several sectional publications before they got the Class-B correct (the whole thing was "rotated" about 10 degrees). Fortunately, it was such a problem that they continued to list the notam on DUATS. A better example was out near San Angelo. There was an area out there that was restricted (for high power radar testing). After a while it became "published" and was in the back of the AF/D... but it still was NOT shown on the sectional. Not only was it illegal, but flying through a giant microwave oven can be hazardous to your health. ----------------------------------------------- James M. Knox TriSoft ph 512-385-0316 1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331 Austin, Tx 78721 ----------------------------------------------- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Smith wrote in message ...
Can anybody give me a real-life example of a flight where they ran into trouble because they hadn't gotten a sectional chart notam? I can see how you could die if you don't have current approach plate notams. But a sectional chart notam??? Well, I've twice had it happen that an airport I was flying to changed UNICOM frequency in the middle of a chart cycle. It was a published NOTAM, so not given as part of a standard FSS briefing, but it was not on the current sectional charts nor in the current AF/D. One I got off DUATS, one I missed. Hopefully everyone has their eyes peeled and it wasn't a matter of life and death, but it was definately inconvenient not to mention somewhat embarrassing ![]() ![]() Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinNotam - new Notam organizer tool | JetVision Software | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | December 14th 03 08:00 PM |
Misleading Notam | Greg Esres | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 3rd 03 04:16 AM |
Carefull of NOTAMS on NavCanada website | Ross Magnaldo | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 10th 03 11:46 PM |
ILS Notam question | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | August 22nd 03 11:53 PM |
"GPS Unreliable" NOTAM | Robert Henry | Instrument Flight Rules | 20 | July 23rd 03 01:00 AM |