Narrative:

I'm writing this safety report out of concern for the NOTAM system. Our incident highlights the disregard of the importance of this system from all who play a part in bringing this information to the end user; the pilots. This extends from the author of the NOTAM to the dispatcher to ATC (to include clearance delivery; departure control and center) to the pilot. This particular incident happened to us on 2 consecutive days. It read 'msp schep 1 departure oneill transition: not applicable except for aircraft equipped with suitable RNAV system with GPS. Onl TACAN azm OTS.' our aircraft does not have GPS so the NOTAM applies to our flts. We contacted our dispatch and they did re-file our flight plan and assisted us but also did state that the onl TACAN was working so this NOTAM should not affect us. While talking to msp clearance; we explained why we could not accept this clearance because of this NOTAM. Clearance in msp told us that they use this departure all the time. From the pilot's point of view; we are trying to comply with the NOTAM but are met with resistance when trying to comply. I do not know how long this NOTAM has been in the system but how many flts without GPS were given this clearance? My experience with NOTAMS over the yrs; unfortunately; leads to complacency regarding NOTAMS. Multiple times I have found outdated ones and also some that were very difficult to understand. A common occurrence is to find a NOTAM that does apply to an approach procedure or SID only to find that the change has already been corrected and printed on the approach chart. This can only lead to some concern of 'what are we missing?' as the NOTAM implies a change to printed procedures. Another of the reasons; I believe; that as pilots we tend to overlook NOTAMS many times lies in the fact that most of the time they do not apply to our specific flight or route and in our example the printed NOTAMS from our ACARS printer was 3 ft long and only 1 line applied to us. When we do this over and over for yrs; the importance gets lost. I have also found 'misprints' and; perhaps in our case; the RNAV system and GPS should have read our GPS; but it would be dangerous for pilots to try and figure out 'what was really meant' so we are led to comply with the exact wording. As far as I can determine; our case was not a real safety issue. I felt I needed to express concern for the NOTAM system. I'm not sure how to correct this problem; but maybe an idea would be to separate the NOTAMS into categories. Separate departure NOTAMS; arrival NOTAMS; and airport ground NOTAMS; so as to reduce the length and number which would also reduce the time it takes to print from ACARS.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR PLT NOTES THAT OUTDATED; INAPPLICABLE; CONFUSING; AND INACCURATE NOTAMS CAUSE COMPLACENCY AMONG PLTS REGARDING NOTAM PREFLT CONSIDERATIONS.

Narrative: I'M WRITING THIS SAFETY RPT OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE NOTAM SYS. OUR INCIDENT HIGHLIGHTS THE DISREGARD OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS SYS FROM ALL WHO PLAY A PART IN BRINGING THIS INFO TO THE END USER; THE PLTS. THIS EXTENDS FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE NOTAM TO THE DISPATCHER TO ATC (TO INCLUDE CLRNC DELIVERY; DEP CTL AND CTR) TO THE PLT. THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT HAPPENED TO US ON 2 CONSECUTIVE DAYS. IT READ 'MSP SCHEP 1 DEP ONEILL TRANSITION: NOT APPLICABLE EXCEPT FOR ACFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYS WITH GPS. ONL TACAN AZM OTS.' OUR ACFT DOES NOT HAVE GPS SO THE NOTAM APPLIES TO OUR FLTS. WE CONTACTED OUR DISPATCH AND THEY DID RE-FILE OUR FLT PLAN AND ASSISTED US BUT ALSO DID STATE THAT THE ONL TACAN WAS WORKING SO THIS NOTAM SHOULD NOT AFFECT US. WHILE TALKING TO MSP CLRNC; WE EXPLAINED WHY WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THIS CLRNC BECAUSE OF THIS NOTAM. CLRNC IN MSP TOLD US THAT THEY USE THIS DEP ALL THE TIME. FROM THE PLT'S POINT OF VIEW; WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTAM BUT ARE MET WITH RESISTANCE WHEN TRYING TO COMPLY. I DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG THIS NOTAM HAS BEEN IN THE SYS BUT HOW MANY FLTS WITHOUT GPS WERE GIVEN THIS CLRNC? MY EXPERIENCE WITH NOTAMS OVER THE YRS; UNFORTUNATELY; LEADS TO COMPLACENCY REGARDING NOTAMS. MULTIPLE TIMES I HAVE FOUND OUTDATED ONES AND ALSO SOME THAT WERE VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. A COMMON OCCURRENCE IS TO FIND A NOTAM THAT DOES APPLY TO AN APCH PROC OR SID ONLY TO FIND THAT THE CHANGE HAS ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED AND PRINTED ON THE APCH CHART. THIS CAN ONLY LEAD TO SOME CONCERN OF 'WHAT ARE WE MISSING?' AS THE NOTAM IMPLIES A CHANGE TO PRINTED PROCS. ANOTHER OF THE REASONS; I BELIEVE; THAT AS PLTS WE TEND TO OVERLOOK NOTAMS MANY TIMES LIES IN THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE TIME THEY DO NOT APPLY TO OUR SPECIFIC FLT OR RTE AND IN OUR EXAMPLE THE PRINTED NOTAMS FROM OUR ACARS PRINTER WAS 3 FT LONG AND ONLY 1 LINE APPLIED TO US. WHEN WE DO THIS OVER AND OVER FOR YRS; THE IMPORTANCE GETS LOST. I HAVE ALSO FOUND 'MISPRINTS' AND; PERHAPS IN OUR CASE; THE RNAV SYS AND GPS SHOULD HAVE READ OUR GPS; BUT IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR PLTS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT 'WHAT WAS REALLY MEANT' SO WE ARE LED TO COMPLY WITH THE EXACT WORDING. AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE; OUR CASE WAS NOT A REAL SAFETY ISSUE. I FELT I NEEDED TO EXPRESS CONCERN FOR THE NOTAM SYS. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO CORRECT THIS PROB; BUT MAYBE AN IDEA WOULD BE TO SEPARATE THE NOTAMS INTO CATEGORIES. SEPARATE DEP NOTAMS; ARR NOTAMS; AND ARPT GND NOTAMS; SO AS TO REDUCE THE LENGTH AND NUMBER WHICH WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE TIME IT TAKES TO PRINT FROM ACARS.

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.