The future of Digital NOTAMs
 

The future of DIGITAL NOTAMs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrH9...=results_video

I don't know what the timeline is for this MAGIC - but I for one CAN'T WAIT! :D Looking at pages of NOTAMS for up to 10 different airports (as an example) on a single flight is killing me smalls. ;)

That YouTube video is probably as close as you'll come to digital notams for the next decade. The FAA has been touting "NextGen" for over 20 years and so far has produced a big bag of nothing.

I can't wait. I hate spending 15 minutes on every turn going through multiple notams for a single airport. I feel like I am the only one doing this, when the other guy looks over and gives me the "what is he doing?".

Why would you have NOTAMs for 10 different airports on a single flight?

Even with Long Range Navigation/ETOPs alternates I've never had more than 8 -- and that was unusual.

Uhhhhh........because it is part of my job??? :)

On the first MORNING of my next trip KC - I will be visiting 8 different airports. I can't remember how many I will visit that afternoon. While inspecting a single VORTAC, I may visit 5-8 airports as an example in a single inspection.

Razorback VORTAC (RZC) is a good example:
KVBT VOR-A
KVBT VOR/DME-B
K5M5 VOR/DME RWY 13
KH34 VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 12
KH34 VOR/DME RWY 12
KROG VOR RWY 2
KROG VOR/DME RWY 20
KSLG VOR-A
KASG VOR RWY 18
KASG VOR/DME RWY 36

It isn't the length of your trip, but what you do between takeoff and landing. :D

Video is already 3 years old... so wouldn't hold breath. ;) But yes, I love the digital future and the possible amazing use of FIS-B services.

It is interesting that approach charts are still all formulated via text description and the FAA / Jeppeson are rendered from this (at least of 4 years ago), so superimposing the closed runways etc or all possible NOTAMS in an automated fashion may be quite difficult.

How do the airlines get NOTAMs from FIS-B/ADS-B? It is pretty trivial for us bugsmashers using the G1000 or even Foreflight/Garmin, etc. I have been amazed at the traffic I don't see when I first got my ADS-B setup.

Have any of you guys used the NextGen DataComm services yet (not just ERAM)? I think that will be widely operational in a few years, another huge game-changer.

You aren't the only one, you are the OTHER one. I get the same deer in the headlights look when I brief them.




Did anyone notice the closing music sounds like the introduction to Pushing Tin?

I remember one flight from Bangalore (VOBL) to Mumbai (VABB) when I had to go through 64 pages,...PAGES of NOTAMS! Unfortunately we were 20 minutes minutes late blocking out because of this. I remember one of the NOTAMS had been active for 9 years.
fbh

Oh yeah, those VORs need testing. How long are they slated to be around?
With everything going to RNAV RNP, I imagine a day very soon that flying an NDB or VOR approach in the USA will be a thing of the past.

During my trips I prefer to takeoff, eat, sleep, fly, eat, sleep, fly ,and then land.

I have a question you might be able to answer.

AC 90-108 Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Routes and Procedures discusses when you can and can't use RNAV systems to substitute for an inoperative NAVAID.

For example, you can't substitute an RNAV system for a out-of-service NAVAID when the navigation or procedure is NA (not authorized), when substituting for a final approach course, or substituting for a LOC or BCLOC final approach course.

With that being said, with the invention of RNAV RNP procedures, why would you still need to have raw data on a final approach course? The tolerances for an RNP approaches are tighter and safer than raw data VOR or NDB. Most operators today fly VOR and NDB approaches in LNAV/VNAV or similar fashion. If combined with RNP procedures, who cares if the NAVAID was working or not? Maybe not the right question. The FAA apparently cares. How about, why do they care? What am I missing?

In case the RNAV/GPS quits or loses required accuracy through satellite loss etc close to ground (sat becomes behind terrain.) Need to do missed by loc or VOR radial, or be able to track after proc turn. It is simply a redundancy thing.

A long time - so don't hold your breath on that KC.
I'm sorry if you seem to think my job isn't important.
You asked a question and I gave you an example.
I think we might have had this type of conversation in the pass when I mentioned that as a former tanker pilot, I would think you would have a greater understanding of the *support* required for YOU to accomplish your job. How far do you think you would get without the cast of thousands of supporting actors everyday KC?

The legacy NAS is still going to be around for probably the rest of my career - but who do you think is a part of getting all those RNAV procedures up and running too.
Yep - my organization is a last part in that cog too so I'm sure when the NDBs are gone - I'll still be checking other navigation systems.

Yep - life of an airline pilot - AND you still think you are underpaid :D

As to your other question, it is at least partly because not everyone is using RNAV. The NAS has to support ALL users - not just the airlines. Also - as you well know, GPS can be jammed and also has periods of unavailablility. Legacy NAS systems often backup those procedures.
For a more legal interpretation of the issues and why the FAA cares about this or that - I'd have to refer you to the policy makers. I am part of a flying crewdriver that makes sure things are working according to the tolerences set by those policy makers and to find problems in the system, and then in conjunction with other supporting players, we fix the system and ensure that it is operating back up to standards. Here is a blurb of our mission statement:

Considering that satellites can be affected by solar flares, hopefully not very soon.

Now, go back to sleep ;)

Update:
Due a schedule change - I'm now going to 11 different airports on Tuesday (all day).
and for the record - I'm doing a mix of a reconfiguration of runway lights/Night eval of an airport that hasnever had IFR service before, obstacle evaluations of RNAV approaches, a VORTAC inspection, a TACAN inspection, and an ILS at KICT, and GASP! an NDB at a small airport west of Wichita.

An update to the update. Make that 12 airports since I now see that the IAB TACAN has four approaches into McConnell AFB (which presently has only 11 NOTAMS itself so far!).

Nooooo! Anything, but please not a NDB into a small airport in Kansas!

Even top that off with a night eval of airport that has never had IFR service before? Yowsah!

Tip of the hat to you sir.

Negative transfer USMC. I wasn't saying anything about your job or its relevance. You seem to be bringing up feelings about the government shutdown. And I stand by my thoughts on that. But that is another thread.

I agree, the NAVAIDs need testing. My post(s) is more about with the increasing RNAV approaches, if you saw a time in the near future when VORs and NDBs will be decommissioned.

Likewise, the question about why you have to monitor an underlying NAVAID when using RNAV, but during an RNP there isn't any NAVAIDs.

Lots of things can happen to satellite signals. Same thing with VORs and NDBs. If you can do an RNP approach without an underlying NAVAID, why would you require it when flying a VOR or NDB approach and you have RNP capable systems on board?

I just noticed the second part of your reply. Thanks. :)

Do you think with the invention of GPS and RNAV systems, the costs of maintaining all of those NAVAIDs outweigh the benefits?

I understand a lot of people use them, especially the DOD.

I think it would be cheaper for the government to pay and upgrade all the airplanes without RNAV capability, than it would be to keep managing these NAVAIDs. Now we are paying for both systems when only one is required.

No - I think we both shared our feelings of the gov't shutdown in the previous threads.

If you are saying that I read to much into YOUR felings about NAVAID certification, then that is possible. We all know how hard it is to distiguish intent over the internet sometimes, but your quote of "Oh yeah, those VORs need testing.", I took that as you saying that it wasn't very important that that piece of *old* technology needed to be tested/certified or that it was worth the effort - especially in light of your follow on statements/questions about what is the use of them in the light of NEW NAS technologies.

I've written about the the future of the NAS as it is revelvant to our operations in other posts, but as I said above - oarts of the OLD NAS will be along for as long as I am in this job I'd be willing to wager. You can google MON (Minimum Operational Network) and read a little something about it if you are interested. I'll link just one of the many studies/papers out there on it:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ll/VOR_MON.pdf

NDBs? Decommissioning them as we speak and others are being powered down to increase th life of the station/facility.
ILSs? Around for a long time to come. Procedures is putting out aroud 500 new RNAV procedures per year - and these are just the approaches I think - not even those new RNAV SIDs/STARs or DME/DME procedures. ADS-B is taking up most of the Lear60 fleets time right now because they are the only airframe with the equipment mods.

Now - back to digital NOTAMs and our desire to see more of this technology - no matter how many airports you may see in a single day whether you fly ETOPS/International/Atlantic/Pacific or a flight between KOKC and KICT. :)

MON - Minimally Operation Network (VOR)
 

Duplicate post.

Seriously, my comment wasn't meant like that. I was confused as to why one would need so many NOTAMs. I'll probably never convince you of that. But it's ok, life goes on.

But I do think, even in keeping back on thread topic, the government must become as lean and as efficient as the commercial side of aviation. To be blunt, it's the government side that's slowing everyone down.

There's no reason in the datalinked world that we live in the NOTAM system couldn't be automated and beamed directly into the cockpit/EFBs and towers.

We're in interesting times. We have all of this new technology, but we're paying for and clinging onto the past. The government must make the obvious decision or we're just wasting money away.

Another interesting observation. Whenever I fly overseas, we're always flying an NADP1 departure. But it's very rare in the USA. I'd imagine that if the noise sensitive communities in the USA found out that pilots weren't flying the most advantageous takeoffs from a noise perspective, they'd be angry. But we don't fly them because we're not required to. Which goes back to the theme, our government is slow to make the necessary changes.

KC - we've been on this board long enough and shared opinions that if you say that you didn't mean it that way then there is no reason for me NOT to believe you. Life goes on in either case. :)

like many coporations KC - I believe the FAA, and gov't in general, is fat - but it is like the USAF in my opinion - fat at the top. We have FAR to many *managers* while the grunts (that would be me even in my new life) still blast away on a daily basis and are eventually loaded down with more and more. When you see more of the process from the inside though - you also come to realize that it is FAr bigger than just the FAA slowing down things. When I see new procedures or redesigns of airspace (or let's use the new DME/DME SIDs and STARs out of KIAH as an example) it is amazing how many hands are involved in that process OUTSIDE of the FAA - just about every aviation alphabet soup I could think of!

The reason for this link KC....but it is wrong to think that it is always the big bad FAA who is slowing things down. there are people (and users like me!) inside the FAA who's job it is too push this and get it out yet they run into financial, technological and political roadblocks at every turn. Peronally I just help push/intitue a new way for my organziation to submit changes to the TPPs and AF/D that is much more efficient and actually gives the flight inspector some feedback that the change will be made/considered/or rejected; yet I seem to have stepped on somebody's toes in the process and gotten *out of my lane* along the way. Luckily in this example I had the *new* boss on my side and it is going to happen anyways. (YEAH - small victory!) :D


.
I was amazed to find out how often it is the industry itself that resists some changes - most often due to MONEY! many of these new procedures we have been talking about are all about flow and maximizing flow/time/fuel/efficiency. If there is a great idea about something but it costs money - the airlines are the first to cry foul (think rest rules as an example).

NOTAMS *are* beamed to my EFB, in my cockpit, via FIS-B, on 978 Mhz...

:confused:

Can not verify the authenticity of the link, but saw this on another forum:

NOTAMs being sent to the cockpit or EFBs isn't anything new. I was talking about in the manner portrayed in the video. Does your EFB do this? If so, what brand and make is it?

All right... ???

G1000 - displays TFR areas as red shaded on the moving map, updated all via FIS-B near real-time (I think every 2-5 mins or so) parsed from the coordinates in the NOTAM. Most GA flightbag software has similar features - most popular now is foreflight, which will put graphical NOTAM up right on the sectional. NEXTRAD wx on screen with near real-time update on my moving map in G1000. In FF there is ability to have your current position rendered on approach charts, and I think the NOTAMS are also there graphically (or at least a little direct link on the next page.)

It seems as though you haven't played with any of these in the past year or two? Nextgen has made huge headway even since I've started flying, and ADS-B is all over the East. Once 2020 rolls around GA will be safer when out is required.

Nowdays the SA tools we GA pilots play with will be implemented sooner than stuff you guys use, but yeah, the technology is there with NextGen.

What specifically do you mean in the video? I doubt it is possible / desirable to display some of the others because NOTAMS are currently lightweight text transmission and so are approach charts, etc. which are rendered.

So, translating something like "TAXIWAY B CLOSED TO AIRCRAFT >100 FT WINGSPAN BETWEEN F AND H DUE TO VEGETATION" would be exceedingly difficult to "display" on the moving map. In fact, it would then depend on the type of aircraft you are operating whether to display, and any rendering on the airport taxiway diagram would be very prone to error compared to text.

Once you move NOTAMs away from text (these still have legacy of morse-based transmission similar to METAR), then you'd have to have a simple version plus a graphical in order to make it human readable without significant computing power.... With a full and lightweight NOTAM you would then have to make sure they are coordinated, and the complexity rises significantly.

The nice thing is that receivers now pretty much have full redundancy with GPS + GLONASS. I assume that commercial aircraft use all possible signals including Galileo system.

I remember back in my engineering days when some of the first GPS receivers started to incorporate the GLONASS signal, controversial! I remember seeing my first demo of the GPS in the 80's with text-only display.

Looks like it was bad programming.

Altus Positioning Systems Pinpoints Cause for GLONASS Default : GPS World

Well according to the video, they've developed a programming standard so that NOTAMs could be graphically displayed. I thought that was the intent of the video? "From Teletype to Graphical Display" For example, a taxiway closure or runway closed. And when the pilot looks at the chart, they see red on the part that's closed. That's what I was referring to.

I can only tell you why initially the FAA would not let you fly the APCH if the underlying navaid was ots. It was because when FMS, LORAN and GPS was first started all the existing non-rnav approaches were coded by the database providers i.e. Jeppesen, Swissair etc and dumped into the ARINC 424 data. These approaches were referred to as overlay approaches and were never flight checked by FMS or GPS aircraft in NAV to verify the database coding was correct. Back then flight check aircraft flew the approaches using the underlying navaid as guidance not as a NAV approach, not sure how they do it now. Because of this the FAA mandated you must be able to verify the course with RAW data in case the coding was wrong. When GPS or RMAV procedures are created they are tested using a FMS or GPS input and flown in NAV to verify the database coding is correct. I was fortunate to be a part of the ARINC 424 committee back in the early days when the industry was trying to figure out how to get where we are today.