Narrative:

Prior to departure I noted the fpr had us descend to FL270 in taipei airspace. There have been disputes between taiwan and china over airspace so I assumed this might be the case or it might be because we were crossing major north-south airways and we were required to descend to avoid conflict. There was a note on the fpr about not climbing above fl 270 but it further said to reference fly safe NOTAM. That reference said if I was flying between certain cities .. And .. I was also using certain airways; then it applied. I was not flying between said cities so I determined the NOTAM was not applicable. In cruise; when taipei ATC did not mandate a descent to a lower altitude; I notified dispatch. Their response was to reference the fpr and thus the NOTAM already mentioned. The dispatcher further communicated via ACARS that 'ATC had good information about your capabilities. It is their decision as to how they will safely separate aircraft from that point. However; if at any time you feel they put you in a compromising position reference the NOTAM; [a safety report] is your feedback tool'. Aircraft were constantly passing above and below us so I assumed ATC couldn't descend us even if they wanted to because of the traffic. There was nothing in the NOTAM or ATC's actions that gave me concern or made me feel my safety had been compromised. Shortly after passing APU; we were cleared direct to atoti waypoint. This meant we were not on any airway so; again; the NOTAM didn't apply. The NOTAM system has been known to be flawed for a long time. In the past; management comments have stated they are aware and intended to fix the problem. The reality is that this hasn't happened. While a pilot may not fly a given route more than once per year; someone is looking at airports; airways; NOTAMS; etc. Every single day. They become the subject matter experts. That is where someone should be assigned to monitor issues that are relevant to a given route and decide to delete information that is useless (and thus a distraction) while emphasizing information that is important. India is the worst but most any airport/route could be a candidate. Until management elects to make this a safety of flight issue; NOTAMS will remain a weak point in our flight operations. I suggest dispatch employ resources to make real improvements in the way NOTAMS are provided to flight crew so all can get to the meat of the matter without having to read things about landing fees; fish delivery flights being restricted; etc. In the general aviation world; NOTAMS are broken down into categories such as: runways; nav aids; taxiways; etc. Not all our flights are conducted in areas where computers and internet are available prior to departing. Many international flights require preflight duties to take place in the cockpit. We are behind in making NOTAMS easier to sift through when we have a limited amount of time to read all the documentation required to conduct a given flight. We are attempting to read reams of paperwork in a cockpit 'office' while maintenance; immigrations; ramp leaders; etc. Are coming in and distracting the crew. I don't think [the company] could design a better environment for distractions if they tried. While some aspects of the pre-departure environment can never be controlled; there continue to be missed opportunities to mitigate the pre-departure chaos. Management has apparently elected to pass on the responsibility of dealing with this to the crew in lieu of taking steps to support the crew through actions such as NOTAM improvements.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The Captain of a wide body cargo aircraft addressed his concerns over the massive quantities and difficulties associated with reviewing; understanding; digesting; and implementing the overwhelming number of items associated with long range flight planning. He further cited the shortcomings of the flight deck during ground servicing and payload boarding as a particularly inappropriate office space for conducting flight planning.

Narrative: Prior to departure I noted the FPR had us descend to FL270 in Taipei airspace. There have been disputes between Taiwan and China over airspace so I assumed this might be the case or it might be because we were crossing major north-south airways and we were required to descend to avoid conflict. There was a note on the FPR about not climbing above FL 270 but it further said to reference Fly Safe NOTAM. That reference said if I was flying between certain cities .. AND .. I was also using certain airways; then it applied. I was not flying between said cities so I determined the NOTAM was not applicable. In cruise; when Taipei ATC did not mandate a descent to a lower altitude; I notified Dispatch. Their response was to reference the FPR and thus the NOTAM already mentioned. The dispatcher further communicated via ACARS that 'ATC had good information about your capabilities. It is their decision as to how they will safely separate aircraft from that point. However; if at any time you feel they put you in a compromising position reference the NOTAM; [a safety report] is your feedback tool'. Aircraft were constantly passing above and below us so I assumed ATC couldn't descend us even if they wanted to because of the traffic. There was nothing in the NOTAM or ATC's actions that gave me concern or made me feel my safety had been compromised. Shortly after passing APU; we were cleared direct to ATOTI waypoint. This meant we were not on any airway so; again; the NOTAM didn't apply. The NOTAM system has been known to be flawed for a long time. In the past; management comments have stated they are aware and intended to fix the problem. The reality is that this hasn't happened. While a pilot may not fly a given route more than once per year; someone is looking at airports; airways; NOTAMS; etc. every single day. They become the subject matter experts. That is where someone should be assigned to monitor issues that are relevant to a given route and decide to delete information that is useless (and thus a distraction) while emphasizing information that is important. India is the worst but most any airport/route could be a candidate. Until management elects to make this a safety of flight issue; NOTAMS will remain a weak point in our flight operations. I suggest Dispatch employ resources to make real improvements in the way NOTAMS are provided to flight crew so all can get to the meat of the matter without having to read things about landing fees; fish delivery flights being restricted; etc. In the general aviation world; NOTAMS are broken down into categories such as: Runways; Nav Aids; Taxiways; etc. Not all our flights are conducted in areas where computers and internet are available prior to departing. Many international flights require preflight duties to take place in the cockpit. We are behind in making NOTAMS easier to sift through when we have a limited amount of time to read all the documentation required to conduct a given flight. We are attempting to read reams of paperwork in a cockpit 'office' while maintenance; immigrations; ramp leaders; etc. are coming in and distracting the crew. I don't think [the company] could design a better environment for distractions if they tried. While some aspects of the pre-departure environment can never be controlled; there continue to be missed opportunities to mitigate the pre-departure chaos. Management has apparently elected to pass on the responsibility of dealing with this to the crew in lieu of taking steps to support the crew through actions such as NOTAM improvements.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.