Narrative:

Specialists at FAA FSS are required to collect information critical to aviation safety and to disseminate this information to pilots by means of the NOTAM system. Some examples of NOTAMS are: outage of navaids, runways closed, crash equipment OTS, communication frequencys out, radar services out, runway threshold displacement, special airshow events, etc. Reports of unsafe landing area conditions, such as disabled aircraft on the runway and poor/nil braking action are included in the NOTAM system. Airport management has always had final responsibility and authority/authorized to report unsafe landing conditions. In the past, where unsafe conditions were seen or reported, and airport management was not available (after-duty hours, out of town, on vacation, etc), FSS specialists were given some professional discretion to get the information out to the pilots immediately and to coordinate with airport management at the first possible opportunity. Over the yrs, this had proven to be a safe, efficient, and effective system. It did put extra responsibility on the backs of FSS specialists and required a good working relationship and understanding between the FSS and airport mgrs. Often, this understanding was formalized in LOA's. But working conditions change. The FAA automated its FSS's and greatly expanded their territories. The green bay, wi, automated FSS, for example, includes responsibility for the entire state of wisconsin and the upper peninsula of michigan. It came as quite a surprise when the FAA notified us that we could no longer issue NOTAMS when we received reports of unsafe braking action and were unable to coordinate immediately with the airport mgrs. Since the majority of our information is received through direct radio communication with the pilots, the unsafe condition information was reduced to the status of a pilot report (PIREP). There is a world of difference between a PIREP and a NOTAM. A PIREP is kept in the WX reporting system for 1 hour and automatically dropped. A NOTAM is kept in the system until the condition has changed or is corrected, then is manually cancelled. The decision to make this change from NOTAM to PIREP, as seems typical with the upper reaches of FAA management, was made without the benefit of input from employees (air traffic controllers) or, as far as we know, the customers (pilots). We were told unofficially that the FAA made the change because the issuance of a braking action NOTAM effectively closed the airport to some commercial and charter aircraft operations. In other words, business before safety, and lives should take a back seat to profit.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FSS RPTR COMPLAINS ABOUT FAA RULE NOT TO ISSUE A NOTAM CONCERNING RWY BRAKING ACTION BASED ON PLT RPTS. THIS RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE ARPT MGMNT.

Narrative: SPECIALISTS AT FAA FSS ARE REQUIRED TO COLLECT INFO CRITICAL TO AVIATION SAFETY AND TO DISSEMINATE THIS INFO TO PLTS BY MEANS OF THE NOTAM SYS. SOME EXAMPLES OF NOTAMS ARE: OUTAGE OF NAVAIDS, RWYS CLOSED, CRASH EQUIP OTS, COM FREQS OUT, RADAR SVCS OUT, RWY THRESHOLD DISPLACEMENT, SPECIAL AIRSHOW EVENTS, ETC. RPTS OF UNSAFE LNDG AREA CONDITIONS, SUCH AS DISABLED ACFT ON THE RWY AND POOR/NIL BRAKING ACTION ARE INCLUDED IN THE NOTAM SYS. ARPT MGMNT HAS ALWAYS HAD FINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTH TO RPT UNSAFE LNDG CONDITIONS. IN THE PAST, WHERE UNSAFE CONDITIONS WERE SEEN OR RPTED, AND ARPT MGMNT WAS NOT AVAILABLE (AFTER-DUTY HRS, OUT OF TOWN, ON VACATION, ETC), FSS SPECIALISTS WERE GIVEN SOME PROFESSIONAL DISCRETION TO GET THE INFO OUT TO THE PLTS IMMEDIATELY AND TO COORDINATE WITH ARPT MGMNT AT THE FIRST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY. OVER THE YRS, THIS HAD PROVEN TO BE A SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE SYS. IT DID PUT EXTRA RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BACKS OF FSS SPECIALISTS AND REQUIRED A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP AND UNDERSTANDING BTWN THE FSS AND ARPT MGRS. OFTEN, THIS UNDERSTANDING WAS FORMALIZED IN LOA'S. BUT WORKING CONDITIONS CHANGE. THE FAA AUTOMATED ITS FSS'S AND GREATLY EXPANDED THEIR TERRITORIES. THE GREEN BAY, WI, AUTOMATED FSS, FOR EXAMPLE, INCLUDES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN. IT CAME AS QUITE A SURPRISE WHEN THE FAA NOTIFIED US THAT WE COULD NO LONGER ISSUE NOTAMS WHEN WE RECEIVED RPTS OF UNSAFE BRAKING ACTION AND WERE UNABLE TO COORDINATE IMMEDIATELY WITH THE ARPT MGRS. SINCE THE MAJORITY OF OUR INFO IS RECEIVED THROUGH DIRECT RADIO COM WITH THE PLTS, THE UNSAFE CONDITION INFO WAS REDUCED TO THE STATUS OF A PLT RPT (PIREP). THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BTWN A PIREP AND A NOTAM. A PIREP IS KEPT IN THE WX RPTING SYS FOR 1 HR AND AUTOMATICALLY DROPPED. A NOTAM IS KEPT IN THE SYS UNTIL THE CONDITION HAS CHANGED OR IS CORRECTED, THEN IS MANUALLY CANCELLED. THE DECISION TO MAKE THIS CHANGE FROM NOTAM TO PIREP, AS SEEMS TYPICAL WITH THE UPPER REACHES OF FAA MGMNT, WAS MADE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF INPUT FROM EMPLOYEES (AIR TFC CTLRS) OR, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THE CUSTOMERS (PLTS). WE WERE TOLD UNOFFICIALLY THAT THE FAA MADE THE CHANGE BECAUSE THE ISSUANCE OF A BRAKING ACTION NOTAM EFFECTIVELY CLOSED THE ARPT TO SOME COMMERCIAL AND CHARTER ACFT OPS. IN OTHER WORDS, BUSINESS BEFORE SAFETY, AND LIVES SHOULD TAKE A BACK SEAT TO PROFIT.

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.