Any way to find out WHY there's a NOTAM for...

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
31,404
Location
Michigan
Display Name
The Ed
Home Airfield
9D9 / 6Y9 / 88TN
Both RNAV procedures into an airport when nothing has changed at the airport?

!FDC 8/6669 9D9 IAP HASTINGS, Hastings, MI.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, AMDT 2...
LPV DA NA, LNAV/VNAV DA NA, CIRCLING CATS A/B/C NA.
1804101815-1811201815EST

!FDC 8/6652 9D9 IAP HASTINGS, Hastings, MI.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, AMDT 2 ...
PROCEDURE NA 1804101806-1811201806EST
 
Call the local FSDO and ask if they know.
 
Pending elimination? That's what they did to the VOR approach into KUAO. After the tower went in, the missed on the VOR had us buzzing the tower. A few months after the tower officially opened, the VOR approach was NOTAM'd NA until the next cycle, and was completely gone when the new plates were issued.
 
Well these are GPS approaches so I have no idea why they would be getting rid of GPS approaches
 
If I was the airport operator, I'd be calling the FSDO to find out what was going on. Our VOR approach (now decommissioned) was repeatedly NOTAMed NA due to various reasons: failed flight check, flight check delayed or not scheduled in time, obstructions penetrating protected areas (trees), obstructions impeding VOR signal, etc. We've also had issues with impending restrictions on GPS approaches due to increased obstruction scrutiny. For GPS approach issues, it's frequently a recent obstruction survey that requires remediation before the restriction can be lifted.
 
EdFred said:
Both RNAV procedures into an airport when nothing has changed at the airport?

!FDC 8/6669 9D9 IAP HASTINGS, Hastings, MI.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, AMDT 2...
LPV DA NA, LNAV/VNAV DA NA, CIRCLING CATS A/B/C NA.
1804101815-1811201815EST

!FDC 8/6652 9D9 IAP HASTINGS, Hastings, MI.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, AMDT 2 ...
PROCEDURE NA 1804101806-1811201806EST
Click to expand...

The only thing left to do is LNAV to RWY 12. I can’t think of anything that would account for that.
 
chemgeek said:
If I was the airport operator, I'd be calling the FSDO to find out what was going on. Our VOR approach (now decommissioned) was repeatedly NOTAMed NA due to various reasons: failed flight check, flight check delayed or not scheduled in time, obstructions penetrating protected areas (trees), obstructions impeding VOR signal, etc. We've also had issues with impending restrictions on GPS approaches due to increased obstruction scrutiny. For GPS approach issues, it's frequently a recent obstruction survey that requires remediation before the restriction can be lifted.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that, but the LPV, LNAV/VNAV, and CIRCLING to RWY 12 along with all of RWY 30 being Notamed out while the LNAV to RWY 12 remains in service seems odd.
 
murphey said:
Call the local FSDO and ask if they know.
Click to expand...
The FSDO wouldn't have a clue. But, if you ask them nicely, they might be able to provide you with the telephone number of the Central Service Area (CSA) Flight Procedures Team (FPT). Someone at the FTP would have the answer.
 
I didn't notice that there was an ending date/time (in November) on the NOTAM on my first trip through this thread... Seems to imply there's something wrong with it that they're aware of and working to fix.
 
Thanks Russ! Since I'm emailing the FAA, I should hear from them around, oh, November 21st, right? :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I didn't notice that there was an ending date/time (in November) on the NOTAM on my first trip through this thread... Seems to imply there's something wrong with it that they're aware of and working to fix.
Click to expand...

All NOTAMs are now required to have end times, to eliminate the zombie "Until Further Notice" NOTAMs that used to clog up the system. By the end of the effective time, they will either have fixed the issue and cancel the NOTAM, issue a new one with new effective times, or possibly the existing approach chart will expire and the need for the NOTAM will be negated.
 
midwestpa24 said:
All NOTAMs are now required to have end times, to eliminate the zombie "Until Further Notice" NOTAMs that used to clog up the system. By the end of the effective time, they will either have fixed the issue and cancel the NOTAM, issue a new one with new effective times, or possibly the existing approach chart will expire and the need for the NOTAM will be negated.
Click to expand...
The time limit for "temporary" FDC NOTAMs is 244 days. They used to let some of them drag on for many years, until someone decided to enforce the policy.
 
Well, I got out to the airport last night, and discovered why it's NA - and it's for IMO a stupid reason. They removed the displaced threshold on 30. Didn't pay attention what they did on end of 12 since I was well off the runway by then. Got an email back from the FAA this morning, they didn't tell me why other than "the runway isn't ready" but the flight check is on Saturday. I thought the paint truck that caught fire and exploded on Friday was just restriping the runway, but the old 30 is gone, and the new one is at the end of the runway now.
 
EdFred said:
Well, I got out to the airport last night, and discovered why it's NA - and it's for IMO a stupid reason. They removed the displaced threshold on 30.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily stupid - Many things in the TERPS are based on where the end of the runway is, IIRC. Hopefully @aterpster can enlighten us, but when you move the end of the runway, you move all of the obstacle clearance planes and such.

At least it sounds like they're going to have it resolved quickly, and your runway is longer now!
 
Yeah, but what I'm thinking is base the current approach on where the displaced was. There's no penetration because that plane is already clear. And so what if the glide slope / approach path is 500' down the runway, where it has been for the past 2 years. When the next issuance of the approach comes out, just change it then. Don't make it unusable for a month, when it's still perfectly safe to fly.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but what I'm thinking is base the current approach on where the displaced was. There's no penetration because that plane is already clear. And so what if the glide slope / approach path is 500' down the runway, where it has been for the past 2 years. When the next issuance of the approach comes out, just change it then. Don't make it unusable for a month, when it's still perfectly safe to fly.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that a pilot who's not based there won't know where he's "supposed" to land, and is going to aim at the threshold when he sees it, potentially in a very low visibility situation where an obstacle that penetrates what will be the new clearance plane would not be particularly visible.

I agree that it should have been coordinated better. Update the procedure for what the runway will be like and flight check it, and then go out at 9 AM on Thursday morning of the new chart cycle and paint the runway. (Er, 10 AM for you I guess). No downtime, but all safety bases covered.
 
Why not a NOTAM that says the obstacle clearance is based on a point nnn feet down the runway (the old displaced location) rather that make it NA for a month? On the LPV you're going to be following that glide slope anyway. Or is it because it's the FAA, and simple solutions don't exist in federal bureaucracies?
 
EdFred said:
Why not a NOTAM that says the obstacle clearance is based on a point nnn feet down the runway (the old displaced location) rather that make it NA for a month? On the LPV you're going to be following that glide slope anyway. Or is it because it's the FAA, and simple solutions don't exist in federal bureaucracies?
Click to expand...

I think the issue is what happens after you get to DA, not anything while you're still on the glideslope. It's not like obstacles magically appear when you move the runway threshold, but it does change obstacle clearance *below* DA. We all know the 50 foot/200 feet per nm rule, this is kind of the same thing only on the approach side, where we don't really have the same visibility into it.
 
EdFred said:
Why not a NOTAM that says the obstacle clearance is based on a point nnn feet down the runway (the old displaced location) rather that make it NA for a month? On the LPV you're going to be following that glide slope anyway. Or is it because it's the FAA, and simple solutions don't exist in federal bureaucracies?
Click to expand...
Far be it for me to defend the FAA, but they are absolutely right on this one.
 
I'm going to disagree on that just based on knowing the area, and what is on the approach ends of the runways. (nothing that moving the threshold a couple hundred feet will be impacted by) Yeah, I know it won't hold true for EVERY approach change out there. But in this case (and others), common sense should prevail over procedure.
 
EdFred said:
I'm going to disagree on that just based on knowing the area, and what is on the approach ends of the runways. (nothing that moving the threshold a couple hundred feet will be impacted by) Yeah, I know it won't hold true for EVERY approach change out there. But in this case (and others), common sense should prevail over procedure.
Click to expand...
Since when has common sense ever been a guiding principle at FAA? :rofl:
 
EdFred said:
Why not a NOTAM that says the obstacle clearance is based on a point nnn feet down the runway (the old displaced location) rather that make it NA for a month? On the LPV you're going to be following that glide slope anyway. Or is it because it's the FAA, and simple solutions don't exist in federal bureaucracies?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a very simple solution. The NOTAM would also have to say procedure NA for commercial operations, and runway markings not correct, etc etc.
It might be simple and serve you well who knows the local area, but the national airspace system and it's procedures are meant to be used also by people who are not familiar with the local area.

Using common sense "I don't think there are any obstacles there so let's just ignore the procedure and put out a non-standard NOTAM for this" is a very slippery slope.

Just like @aterpster said, FAA is 100% right on this one.
 
Meh. Its so flat around the airport it would be like issuing an AIRMET for mountain obscuration in Kansas. And they would know that from the last time they did a check flight. Raise the DH 100' for as little as the moved the th and nothing would have penetrated the plane based on that. I still disagree with them being right on this particular NA.
 
The obstructions are often unintuitive. Cell phone towers, even highway light standards can penetrate one or more protected surfaces. In FAA's obstruction database you find all kinds of weird stuff. At one airport we got an increase in minimums based on a church steeple 4 miles away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top