Narrative:

On the way over to zspd (shanghai) I had pakn (king salmon) as an alternate. Both the 13 series notams were incorrect. In the case of 13/2 there is a runway 12 at pakn; but the NOTAM (a very recent one) refers to parallel runways 12R/12L that as far as I know have never existed. In the case of 13/99 there is no runway 11; but I suspect that the NOTAM is so old (2005) that the runway identifier has changed perhaps at some point. Obviously this NOTAM needs to be reviewed and updated. I contacted the company NOTAM desk and passed the same information along to them to correct and/or delete the notams. I have had too many issues with notams flying to the far east this year. Separate; but associated with this issue are the requirements for 'ETOPS alternates' ('ETOPS alternate' replaced the previous ETOPS term 'suitable airport' back in 2008). According to the FAA an 'ETOPS alternate' must 'have the capabilities; services; and facilities to safely support the operation. The weather conditions at the time of arrival should provide assurance that adequate visual references will be available upon arrival at decision height (DH) or minimum descent altitude (MDA); and that the surface wind conditions and corresponding runway surface conditions will be acceptable to permit the approach and landing to be safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative. I have had issues previously with the issue of dispatch monitoring of runway field conditions of some of our northern tier alternates (polar and/or ETOPS) and the ability of crews being able to safely land at even minimum fuel dump weights 'with an engine and/or systems inoperative' under certain conditions let alone complying with the additional requirements for polar alternates. I must question how thorough a review and monitoring is being accomplished for ETOPS alternates if you can have runway NOTAMS in place for an extended period of time for an ETOPS alternate that are obviously wrong. My general concern is whether once an airfield is designated an ETOPS/polar alternate that little else other than checking weather requirements for the listed approaches against the forecast weather is accomplished on a daily basis.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B777-200 pilot reports that operational information provided for ETOPS alternates is dated and; in some cases; grossly in error.

Narrative: On the way over to ZSPD (Shanghai) I had PAKN (King Salmon) as an alternate. Both the 13 series NOTAMs were incorrect. In the case of 13/2 there is a Runway 12 at PAKN; but the NOTAM (a very recent one) refers to parallel Runways 12R/12L that as far as I know have never existed. In the case of 13/99 there is no Runway 11; but I suspect that the NOTAM is so old (2005) that the runway identifier has changed perhaps at some point. Obviously this NOTAM needs to be reviewed and updated. I contacted the company NOTAM desk and passed the same information along to them to correct and/or delete the NOTAMs. I have had too many issues with NOTAMs flying to the Far East this year. Separate; but associated with this issue are the requirements for 'ETOPS alternates' ('ETOPS alternate' replaced the previous ETOPS term 'suitable airport' back in 2008). According to the FAA an 'ETOPS Alternate' must 'have the capabilities; services; and facilities to safely support the operation. The weather conditions at the time of arrival should provide assurance that adequate visual references will be available upon arrival at decision height (DH) or minimum descent altitude (MDA); and that the surface wind conditions and corresponding runway surface conditions will be acceptable to permit the approach and landing to be safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative. I have had issues previously with the issue of Dispatch monitoring of runway field conditions of some of our northern tier alternates (Polar and/or ETOPS) and the ability of crews being able to safely land at even minimum fuel dump weights 'with an engine and/or systems inoperative' under certain conditions let alone complying with the additional requirements for Polar alternates. I must question how thorough a review and monitoring is being accomplished for ETOPS alternates if you can have runway NOTAMS in place for an extended period of time for an ETOPS alternate that are obviously wrong. My general concern is whether once an airfield is designated an ETOPS/Polar alternate that little else other than checking weather requirements for the listed approaches against the forecast weather is accomplished on a daily basis.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.