Narrative:

I was acting as first officer of flight into msp. It was my leg to fly and prior to entering the approach environment, I began to brief the ILS 29L to msp. As I began to brief the missed approach instructions from the approach plate, the captain and the so said that they believed that an fdc NOTAM, included with our paperwork, indicated a change to the missed approach. In order to clarify this it was suggested, and all agreed, to ask the controller to verify the proper instructions in the event of a missed approach. We were given instructions and an uneventful landing was made at msp. After taxiing clear of runway 29L, the captain then instructed me to ask the ground controller to check the NOTAM in question. The controller said she would. After arrival at the hotel, the so reread the NOTAM and noticed that the missed approach instructions we had questioned were, in fact, for another runway at msp (the NDB to runway 4). We agreed that, due to the imbedded text format of the NOTAM, it was very difficult to discern which data was for which runway. Later that day, mr X from company safety called to inform me that, apparently, msp had mistaken our request for clarification of the missed approach for a request to actually do the missed approach. I explained the details to mr X and he said he also had trouble understanding the NOTAM. He said he would relay the information to the proper authorities. On fri I was contacted by mr Y of flight management, he asked me to submit a NASA report concerning the above. He instructed me to re- contact mr X for the details. I called mr X immediately and he informed me that something new had developed. It appears that the NOTAM provided to us by company was cancelled in 1991. He said he was working diligently to rectify this situation and avoid having it happen again. He reiterated that he agreed the text of the NOTAM was difficult to interpret and commended us for asking the controller for clarification. Mr X agreed that we had no way of knowing the NOTAM had expired, but assured me that improvements were being implemented to make sure our crews have the most up-to-date information available. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states when flight crew calls up WX on computer there is a box in lower right corner which enables pilots to call for fdc NOTAMS. Since the company built this into the system, flcs believe information to be timely. Unfortunately, there is 1 person on an 8 hour shift who enters the NOTAMS. Not a good system in a 24 hour operation. Company flight safety officer was appalled when situation brought to his attention. Set up immediate backup system for NOTAMS to be entered and to purge expired ones. Options now being weighed to go to outside service that will give constant revisions or to create a NOTAM department at company. Reporter has suggested that NOTAMS not be printed in text form but to develop a format with l-hand portion indicating runway referenced, then information regarding that runway. Then a line space and same procedure for next runway information. It would allow flight crew to identify runway for which approach is being made immediately instead of hunting through the text.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC DID NOT READ NOTAM PRIOR TO APCH, THEN ASKED ATC TO GIVE IT TO THEM. NOTAM INFO PROVIDED BY COMPANY NOT CURRENT.

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS FO OF FLT INTO MSP. IT WAS MY LEG TO FLY AND PRIOR TO ENTERING THE APCH ENVIRONMENT, I BEGAN TO BRIEF THE ILS 29L TO MSP. AS I BEGAN TO BRIEF THE MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE APCH PLATE, THE CAPT AND THE SO SAID THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT AN FDC NOTAM, INCLUDED WITH OUR PAPERWORK, INDICATED A CHANGE TO THE MISSED APCH. IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THIS IT WAS SUGGESTED, AND ALL AGREED, TO ASK THE CTLR TO VERIFY THE PROPER INSTRUCTIONS IN THE EVENT OF A MISSED APCH. WE WERE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS AND AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG WAS MADE AT MSP. AFTER TAXIING CLR OF RWY 29L, THE CAPT THEN INSTRUCTED ME TO ASK THE GND CTLR TO CHK THE NOTAM IN QUESTION. THE CTLR SAID SHE WOULD. AFTER ARR AT THE HOTEL, THE SO REREAD THE NOTAM AND NOTICED THAT THE MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS WE HAD QUESTIONED WERE, IN FACT, FOR ANOTHER RWY AT MSP (THE NDB TO RWY 4). WE AGREED THAT, DUE TO THE IMBEDDED TEXT FORMAT OF THE NOTAM, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DISCERN WHICH DATA WAS FOR WHICH RWY. LATER THAT DAY, MR X FROM COMPANY SAFETY CALLED TO INFORM ME THAT, APPARENTLY, MSP HAD MISTAKEN OUR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE MISSED APCH FOR A REQUEST TO ACTUALLY DO THE MISSED APCH. I EXPLAINED THE DETAILS TO MR X AND HE SAID HE ALSO HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE NOTAM. HE SAID HE WOULD RELAY THE INFO TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES. ON FRI I WAS CONTACTED BY MR Y OF FLT MGMNT, HE ASKED ME TO SUBMIT A NASA RPT CONCERNING THE ABOVE. HE INSTRUCTED ME TO RE- CONTACT MR X FOR THE DETAILS. I CALLED MR X IMMEDIATELY AND HE INFORMED ME THAT SOMETHING NEW HAD DEVELOPED. IT APPEARS THAT THE NOTAM PROVIDED TO US BY COMPANY WAS CANCELLED IN 1991. HE SAID HE WAS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO RECTIFY THIS SIT AND AVOID HAVING IT HAPPEN AGAIN. HE REITERATED THAT HE AGREED THE TEXT OF THE NOTAM WAS DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET AND COMMENDED US FOR ASKING THE CTLR FOR CLARIFICATION. MR X AGREED THAT WE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THE NOTAM HAD EXPIRED, BUT ASSURED ME THAT IMPROVEMENTS WERE BEING IMPLEMENTED TO MAKE SURE OUR CREWS HAVE THE MOST UP-TO-DATE INFO AVAILABLE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES WHEN FLC CALLS UP WX ON COMPUTER THERE IS A BOX IN LOWER R CORNER WHICH ENABLES PLTS TO CALL FOR FDC NOTAMS. SINCE THE COMPANY BUILT THIS INTO THE SYS, FLCS BELIEVE INFO TO BE TIMELY. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS 1 PERSON ON AN 8 HR SHIFT WHO ENTERS THE NOTAMS. NOT A GOOD SYS IN A 24 HR OP. COMPANY FLT SAFETY OFFICER WAS APPALLED WHEN SIT BROUGHT TO HIS ATTN. SET UP IMMEDIATE BACKUP SYS FOR NOTAMS TO BE ENTERED AND TO PURGE EXPIRED ONES. OPTIONS NOW BEING WEIGHED TO GO TO OUTSIDE SVC THAT WILL GIVE CONSTANT REVISIONS OR TO CREATE A NOTAM DEPT AT COMPANY. RPTR HAS SUGGESTED THAT NOTAMS NOT BE PRINTED IN TEXT FORM BUT TO DEVELOP A FORMAT WITH L-HAND PORTION INDICATING RWY REFED, THEN INFO REGARDING THAT RWY. THEN A LINE SPACE AND SAME PROC FOR NEXT RWY INFO. IT WOULD ALLOW FLC TO IDENT RWY FOR WHICH APCH IS BEING MADE IMMEDIATELY INSTEAD OF HUNTING THROUGH THE TEXT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.