Much easier than updating a website, which few people know how to do
I don’t like to disagree with you, but may I remind you that MS-Word, which many people can use, can be made to act as an HTML-editor? OK, the quality of the produced HTML is questionable, but it does render. Indeed if I were a volunteer at some airfield, I would sooner update a web page (though not using MS-Word) than to file a NOTAM.
Also, as pointed out, modifying the web page has immediate effect (if people consulting it think of refreshing their browser’s cache), whereas publishing a NOTAM must have a delay, and, worse, a delay beyond control.
Finally: how is it a NOTAM could not mention “runway soft” or such? Surely there’s a provision for free text in NOTAMs?
Nope; NOTAMs are not published directly by airport operators. The NOTAM office is in between and acts as a filter. There are rules for what is allowed content and what isn’t. As said, the reason is to avoid a flood of NOTAMs. An extreme example would be “airfield cafè closed due to cook on sickleave”. But as I said, even “runway soft” or “runway wet” are not considered “sufficient” to warrant a NOTAM. The underlying rules are in ICAO annex 15.
And no – there is nothing simpler than writing on a piece of white paper shifting it through the fax machine. Updating a website will always be more difficult.
the reason is to avoid a flood of NOTAMs
I thought that cat was out of the bag, with the invention of the i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t 
The notam system is now so full of bollox that very few pilots look at notams. Daily kite flying notams for example. Pilots get away with it because most fly only locally. In the UK for example you get away with it except in the summer when they have the air shows and those are the rare cases of prohibited zones.
But I agree that the notam system is the standard way of putting out airport info, and pilots just have to learn it if they want to fly seriously… together with sorting out decent mobile internet access which is also a challenge for many.
but may I remind you that MS-Word, which many people can use, can be made to act as an HTML-editor? OK, the quality of the produced HTML is questionable, but it does render. Indeed if I were a volunteer at some airfield, I would sooner update a web page (though not using MS-Word) than to file a NOTAM.
Of course it’s easy to update a website. You could even set up an SMS interface for doing it. The words RUNWAY WET (preceeded by a password, to prevent pranks) would appear in a free text box on the website. 10 mins’ work for Achim. But it’s not standard, and since most people would google for it, you also need to fix the SEO to make it come up top of the rankings. Most airports struggle to even run an email address which works for more than a few months.
boscomantico wrote:
Much easier than updating a website
Yeah right. All of our Flugdienstleiter know how to log in to the CMS and update the website, some of them retired gentlemen who didn’t grow up with computers. I’m fairly sure almost none of them know how to inject NOTAMs. Furthermore, there must be some sort of authentication with NOTAMs, or else anyone could inject NOTAMs for any place.
boscomantico wrote:
apart from the fact that there is a right way to do it, which is by NOTAM, for licensed airfields
Too bad none of the examples @Mooney_driver mentioned were licensed aerodromes (the legal category of them would be “Flugfeld”).
Are you now suggesting that all Aviosuperficie should now publish a bunch of NOTAMs?
boscomantico wrote:
“Runway wet” or “runway soft” are not approved as the message text
Too bad. Incidentally, would “north half of runway waterlogged, use south half” be approved? And what is the Q code for it? And how about “burial service from 14:00-14:30, please don’t overfly the local cemetary during that time”? What’s the Q code for that? Furthermore, the web site also publishes the mobile phone number of the Flugdienstleiter on duty, and that can change twice daily. Should that be published by NOTAM? Too bad there are only 26 letters in the alphabet, thus only 26 NOTAM series, max.
boscomantico wrote:
publish it within a couple of hours
Doesn’t sound like this is good enough, really. Also, as you said yourself much of the information content handy to have would not be permissible in the NOTAM system, so you’d still have to publish that part on the homepage. That then leads to the question why bother with the NOTAM system at all, for these airfields.
All the airfields MD mentioned are in the AIP (so I guess they are “licensed”, whatever their airfield license type may be) and thus covered by the NOTAM system.
A box with important information on a website can be updated in two minutes if the website is made with Wordpress or similar.
To get the right NOTAMS automatically all you need is an app which you can tell what Notams you want to receive. It’s that simple.
Do you publish or do they not publish NOTAMs???
Flyer59 wrote:
To get the right NOTAMS automatically all you need is an app which you can tell what Notams you want to receive. It’s that simple.
- or EasyVFR. The problem with a web page is that it is a web page, one of millions, but NOTAMs are all at one place. Also, people seem to go tired of updating web pages in a matter of weeks, eventually they are forgotten. How many of those web pages are phone friendly? NOTAM sites are, most of them.
boscomantico wrote:
Do you publish or do they not publish NOTAMs???
They do publish some NOTAMs, eg. runway closure due to repairs, but not weather related runway closures, nor operational messages, like who to ask for customs, etc.
So you’re better off consulting the webpage, there, you get all pertinent information on one page
