Narrative:

Planned an IFR training flight to tacoma narrows (tiw). I know from previous experience that MDA on NDB-35 approach has been changed by NOTAM due to local cranes on bridge. I had also been told that briefers are not obliged to provide fdc NOTAMS unless asked specifically; and if an fdc NOTAM is more than 28 days old; it becomes 'published' and falls off the FSS briefer's list; so I should specifically ask for 'published' or 'provided' NOTAMS as well. On this day; I had current commercial charts (even checked chart NOTAMS) and got a briefing. Asked the briefer specifically for fdc and printed NOTAMS. Briefer told me that printed NOTAMS were my responsibility -- I should get the book at my base operations. I insisted; and was eventually provided with the NOTAM date -- the MDA had been increased by 120 ft. This NOTAM is labeled temporary by FAA; but it had been issued 5 months ago (early december) and is likely to be in place for a long time. You don't build a suspension bridge quickly. Because it is 'temporary;' the commercial chart does not publish it. Because it is more than 28 days old; briefers are not enthusiastic to get it for you. But this is critical safety data! On may/mon/05 I reported this story to sea FSDO appm. He promised to 'fix it.' an hour later; I got a call from a supervisor at sea AFSS who said he had reviewed the tape of my briefing and agreed that I did not get appropriate service. The situation would be dealt with. When MDA on an approach is changed by NOTAM for a good reason like an obstruction; it should not matter how the NOTAM was issued or how old it is. I should be given that information when I ask for a briefing planning an IFR flight to that airport. FAA seems to be treating this as a 'customer service' problem (or maybe a labor relations problem). What I'm reporting is a safety problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28 PLT EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING INCOMPLETE BRIEFING BY SEA FSS DEALING WITH APCH MINIMUM CHANGES TO TIW.

Narrative: PLANNED AN IFR TRAINING FLT TO TACOMA NARROWS (TIW). I KNOW FROM PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE THAT MDA ON NDB-35 APCH HAS BEEN CHANGED BY NOTAM DUE TO LCL CRANES ON BRIDGE. I HAD ALSO BEEN TOLD THAT BRIEFERS ARE NOT OBLIGED TO PROVIDE FDC NOTAMS UNLESS ASKED SPECIFICALLY; AND IF AN FDC NOTAM IS MORE THAN 28 DAYS OLD; IT BECOMES 'PUBLISHED' AND FALLS OFF THE FSS BRIEFER'S LIST; SO I SHOULD SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR 'PUBLISHED' OR 'PROVIDED' NOTAMS AS WELL. ON THIS DAY; I HAD CURRENT COMMERCIAL CHARTS (EVEN CHKED CHART NOTAMS) AND GOT A BRIEFING. ASKED THE BRIEFER SPECIFICALLY FOR FDC AND PRINTED NOTAMS. BRIEFER TOLD ME THAT PRINTED NOTAMS WERE MY RESPONSIBILITY -- I SHOULD GET THE BOOK AT MY BASE OPS. I INSISTED; AND WAS EVENTUALLY PROVIDED WITH THE NOTAM DATE -- THE MDA HAD BEEN INCREASED BY 120 FT. THIS NOTAM IS LABELED TEMPORARY BY FAA; BUT IT HAD BEEN ISSUED 5 MONTHS AGO (EARLY DECEMBER) AND IS LIKELY TO BE IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME. YOU DON'T BUILD A SUSPENSION BRIDGE QUICKLY. BECAUSE IT IS 'TEMPORARY;' THE COMMERCIAL CHART DOES NOT PUBLISH IT. BECAUSE IT IS MORE THAN 28 DAYS OLD; BRIEFERS ARE NOT ENTHUSIASTIC TO GET IT FOR YOU. BUT THIS IS CRITICAL SAFETY DATA! ON MAY/MON/05 I RPTED THIS STORY TO SEA FSDO APPM. HE PROMISED TO 'FIX IT.' AN HR LATER; I GOT A CALL FROM A SUPVR AT SEA AFSS WHO SAID HE HAD REVIEWED THE TAPE OF MY BRIEFING AND AGREED THAT I DID NOT GET APPROPRIATE SVC. THE SIT WOULD BE DEALT WITH. WHEN MDA ON AN APCH IS CHANGED BY NOTAM FOR A GOOD REASON LIKE AN OBSTRUCTION; IT SHOULD NOT MATTER HOW THE NOTAM WAS ISSUED OR HOW OLD IT IS. I SHOULD BE GIVEN THAT INFO WHEN I ASK FOR A BRIEFING PLANNING AN IFR FLT TO THAT ARPT. FAA SEEMS TO BE TREATING THIS AS A 'CUSTOMER SVC' PROB (OR MAYBE A LABOR RELATIONS PROB). WHAT I'M RPTING IS A SAFETY PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.