RussR
Final Approach
Minor rant.
I love Foreflight and use it every day, but I'm not a big fan of Foreflight's NOTAM decoding. Sometimes it's nice, but often it makes some NOTAMs (especially FDC NOTAMS) harder to read, at least for me. I acknowledge that I am somewhat biased, having worked extensively with NOTAMS for years and being familiar with the abbreviations. But still, today this one showed up:
ALS INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE SAN LUIS VALLEY RGNL/BERGMAN FLD, ALAMOSA, CO. ILS OR LOC RUNWAY 2, AMENDMENT 3... PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS, APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM VORTAC OUT OF SERVICE. EXPIRATION ESTIMATED. FDC 5/7165
What the heck is an Approach Lighting System VORTAC, I asked myself. At first I thought maybe the Approach Lighting System was out of service in addition to the VORTAC - that would be useful information. But no, Foreflight is just autodecoding the ID for the VORTAC, which is ALS, as the "ALS" that stands for Approach Lighting System.
Then of course it always spells out Distance Measuring Equipment when it sees the abbreviation DME. I think DME is common enough to not need to be spelled out, after all, it doesn't spell out VOR or GPS. But since it does, you get it referring to a VOR/DME procedure as a VOR/DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT approach, which seems silly. One example of a NOTAM that this makes hard to read is this one at KWWR:
WWR INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE WEST WOODWARD, WOODWARD, OK. VOR/DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT-A, AMENDMENT 7C... TERMINAL ROUTE FROM TUDPE/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (INITIAL APPROACH FIX) CW TO LUZGY/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (IF) MINIMUM ALTITUDE 4100. TERMINAL ROUTE FROM EZKUP/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (INITIAL APPROACH FIX) CCW TO LUZGY/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (IF) MINIMUM ALTITUDE 4100. MMB VORTAC (INITIAL APPROACH FIX) TO LUZGY/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (IF) MINIMUM ALTITUDE 4100. WIND TURBINE FARM, UP TO 3028 MEAN SEA LEVEL, 5.79NM NE OF TUDPE INITIAL APPROACH FIX (2020-WTW-1091-OE). EXPIRATION ESTIMATED. FDC 4/8222
And why does it feel the need to spell out IAF but not IF? MSL?
And then there's the common decoding of "NOT MNT" as "NOT MONITOR, MONITORING, OR MONITORED", which 100% of the time in my experience means "not monitored". Clearly they're using a glossary lookup for this decoding, but I have never seen it actually mean "VOR NOT MONITOR" (which doesn't even make sense itself) or "VOR NOT MONITORING".
The NOTAM system has a lot of problems, absolutely. But I don't feel like Foreflight is helping make it any easier with its autodecoding of many of the abbreviations.
What other silliness have you seen as a result of FF's decoding of NOTAMS?
I love Foreflight and use it every day, but I'm not a big fan of Foreflight's NOTAM decoding. Sometimes it's nice, but often it makes some NOTAMs (especially FDC NOTAMS) harder to read, at least for me. I acknowledge that I am somewhat biased, having worked extensively with NOTAMS for years and being familiar with the abbreviations. But still, today this one showed up:
ALS INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE SAN LUIS VALLEY RGNL/BERGMAN FLD, ALAMOSA, CO. ILS OR LOC RUNWAY 2, AMENDMENT 3... PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS, APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM VORTAC OUT OF SERVICE. EXPIRATION ESTIMATED. FDC 5/7165
What the heck is an Approach Lighting System VORTAC, I asked myself. At first I thought maybe the Approach Lighting System was out of service in addition to the VORTAC - that would be useful information. But no, Foreflight is just autodecoding the ID for the VORTAC, which is ALS, as the "ALS" that stands for Approach Lighting System.
Then of course it always spells out Distance Measuring Equipment when it sees the abbreviation DME. I think DME is common enough to not need to be spelled out, after all, it doesn't spell out VOR or GPS. But since it does, you get it referring to a VOR/DME procedure as a VOR/DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT approach, which seems silly. One example of a NOTAM that this makes hard to read is this one at KWWR:
WWR INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE WEST WOODWARD, WOODWARD, OK. VOR/DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT-A, AMENDMENT 7C... TERMINAL ROUTE FROM TUDPE/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (INITIAL APPROACH FIX) CW TO LUZGY/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (IF) MINIMUM ALTITUDE 4100. TERMINAL ROUTE FROM EZKUP/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (INITIAL APPROACH FIX) CCW TO LUZGY/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (IF) MINIMUM ALTITUDE 4100. MMB VORTAC (INITIAL APPROACH FIX) TO LUZGY/MMB VORTAC 7.00 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (IF) MINIMUM ALTITUDE 4100. WIND TURBINE FARM, UP TO 3028 MEAN SEA LEVEL, 5.79NM NE OF TUDPE INITIAL APPROACH FIX (2020-WTW-1091-OE). EXPIRATION ESTIMATED. FDC 4/8222
And why does it feel the need to spell out IAF but not IF? MSL?
And then there's the common decoding of "NOT MNT" as "NOT MONITOR, MONITORING, OR MONITORED", which 100% of the time in my experience means "not monitored". Clearly they're using a glossary lookup for this decoding, but I have never seen it actually mean "VOR NOT MONITOR" (which doesn't even make sense itself) or "VOR NOT MONITORING".
The NOTAM system has a lot of problems, absolutely. But I don't feel like Foreflight is helping make it any easier with its autodecoding of many of the abbreviations.
What other silliness have you seen as a result of FF's decoding of NOTAMS?
