ICAO Standards<\/h4>\n
There have been various revisions to terminology used within NOTAMS, in order to bring the FAA issued ones more in line with that of ICAO.<\/p>\n
Braking action will no longer be termed as \u201cgood\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Which is good, because \u2018good\u2019 doesn\u2019t really mean an awful lot. What\u2019s good for one aircraft might not be for the next.\u00a0This is part of an update in Change to Field Conditions (FICON)<\/strong> reporting and a second change is that FICONs will not be issued for closed runways.<\/p>\n This is in line with the new Global Reporting Format<\/a> for runways which ICAO brought into force in November 2021.<\/p>\n “Unserviceable\u201d is being clarified<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Where certain systems are not functional, the impact<\/strong> of this on the primary systems which they are a component of will be identified. For example, if the runway alignment lights are u\/s a NOTAM stating this doesn\u2019t give us much information on what the reduced condition of the full ALS is. So NOTAMS will clarify this better.<\/strong><\/p>\n Housekeeping<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Because it is getting so much attention, we figured we would add a little perspective here on it.<\/p>\n A NOTAM is still a NOTAM<\/strong>. We\u2019ve not heard anyone ever call it anything except that. But what it stands for has changed – rather than Notices to Airmen, it now stands for Notices to Air Missions.<\/strong><\/p>\n A very quick history lesson on the NOTAM – they first came into being in 1947<\/strong> after the Convention on International Civil Aviation. There was even a special NOTAM meeting in 1949 which was when AIS really came into being.\u00a0<\/span>But NOTAMs themselves actually originated from the older Notice to Mariner\u00a0<\/strong>system, set up for\u00a0navigational safety in the seas. Later, SNOWTAMs came into being (1968) and then they branched out into ASHTAMs (1980s).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Here is an old Notice to Mariner, or NOM if you prefer.<\/p><\/div>\n What I find interesting with the NOM is just how close this one (written in 1858) is to some of our modern day NOTAMs. All wordy and full of complex and confusing bearing to work out, similar to the Lat\/Long ones we see nowadays.<\/p>\n Anyway, why the change in terminology?<\/strong> Well, because \u2018Airmen\u2019 is not very inclusive of any other gender. Now, a lot of folk feel this change is unnecessary and we aren\u2019t going to weigh in on either side. All we have to say on the matter is:<\/p>\n If you are looking for further discussion on the FAA\u2019s move to gender neutral language then you can find a link here to the FAA \u2018Medium\u2019 page<\/a> where the discuss this.<\/p>\n\n
The Acronym<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ops.group\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/NotAM.gif\")
\n
JO 7930.2S CHG 2<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ops.group\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Screenshot-2021-12-06-at-13.37.16.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ops.group\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Screenshot-2021-12-06-at-13.37.08.png\")