New NOTAM website - old site withdrawn

[7ECA]

Damndest thing, here many of us were hoping for some sort of a positive change around the AWWS site - maybe updating the interface and products into the twenty-first century with larger images, etc - instead we've taken a step backwards and find ourselves using a "new" site that garbles up NOTAM searches even more than previously possible. Go figure... And we're supposed to check NOTAMs before each flight, lest the TC 'fuzz hears about any screw ups.

[photofly]

We’re from the government; we’re here to help.

[goingnowherefast]

Just a few unofficial tips:
For airport notams, enter the code of the airport without any radius and it will show all notams associated with the airport. All notams have a radius of action depending on the type so for example a VOR that's 20 nm away will show.
If you are looking for notams for a flight, enter your route including airports, fixes, etc. and put a small route radius. All notams inside that radius will show. Problem for now is, all notams for all airports along that route radius will also show, not very pertinent for many types of operations. One of the goal of ICAO format is that eventually it will allow some sort of filters when searching based of altitude, flight rules, etc. In the mean time, just screen the list by looking at the left column and skip any notams that is irrelevant.
Take note that some isolated notams are not yet georeferenced so may appear randomly.
CFPS is (unfortunately) work in progress.

I suggest that the "work in progress" should have been completed before release to the public.

With such a disorganized mess, an actual import NOTAM will eventually be missed and cause an issue. While TC Enforcement might not understand, I suspect the TSB and the tribunal might get it. Yes the pilot didn't check that specific NOTAM, but the crap interface contributed to the error.

[HiFlyChick]

I hope that everyone who took the time to post in this thread will voice their concerns directly to Nav Canada. I sent a message in on their web site, but I see where they posted notice of the change on Facebook, there are no comments, only shares and thumbs-up icons. If we want to see an improvement in any reasonable time frame, we need start making noise to Nav Canada, not just grouching to each other!

[goingnowherefast]

I have mentioned it to NavCanada.

I also suggested submitting SMS reports with our various companies, but nobody seemed to agree.

[Gannet167]

I believe all the Canadian Notams can be accessed from the Defence Internet Notam Service site. The format is slightly different but gets the job done.

https://www.notams.faa.gov/

[leftoftrack]

not sure why every pilot in Canada doesn't phone FSS and ask for all the notams at the applicable airports. after 45 min with each caller, something would have to change on their end

[AirFrame]

not sure why every pilot in Canada doesn't phone FSS and ask for all the notams at the applicable airports. after 45 min with each caller, something would have to change on their end

It would. "NOTAMS are available online. Goodbye!"

[leftoftrack]

unable to access it. please do yyour job

[anofly]

hold on, the flight service specialists are great people always trying to be helpful. They are probably about as consulted as pilots were about this change.

[HiFlyChick]

hold on, the flight service specialists are great people always trying to be helpful. They are probably about as consulted as pilots were about this change.

That's true, but they're one of the front line faces of Nav Canada, and their personal complaints won't carry as much weight as them being able to say "I had calls from x number of angry customers today that took me x number of minutes to answer!"

[anofly]

i sort of feel, and think, the new notam method is a "lawyers version" . Not that I dont like lawyers, but its like a core dump of every darn thing that can ever possibly affect a flight with little intelligence applied....giving you the same taf, metar, radar, etc multiple times does nothing to help you, and makes sifting thru all the more error prone....

[goingnowherefast]

I wonder how the "userfriendliness" would stand up in court? Yes it is a big steaming data dump, but to shift through hundreds of bits of shit, the max grounded 14 times, and the important runway NOTAM only mentioned once would have to be obvious to a judge. We're looking for a needle in the NOTAM haystack, and you don't know if the needle is even there.

[CpnCrunch]

I just use the old site for weather, and the new one for the NOTAMs, and it seems to work fairly well that way.

[piperdriver]

The new NOTAM site is an absolute abortion!

[7ECA]

An interesting CADORS that references the new and "improved" NOTAM system.

2020-02-06
Narrative:
Aviation Incident Report #16479: Parks Canada was conducting avalanche control operations in Rogers Pass on December 4, 2019. Avalanche control activities in this area are a joint operation with the Parks Canada Avalanche Control Section and the Canadian Armed Forces. Control is carried out using artillery shelling of Avalanche Start Zones with a 105mm Howitzer. A NOTAM was in place starting at approximately 1530Z and running through to 0700Z the following day. At approximately 2150Z, Avalanche Control staff noted a Alpine Helicopters Inc. Bell 212 (C-GGSO) flying through the Rogers Pass area. Operations were halted until the helicopter had left the area. On December 6, 2019, Parks Canada spoke with an official from Alpine Helicopters Inc., who confirmed that they do have a helicopter with that call sign and that it was in the Rogers Pass Area on December 4. Later on, the pilot who had been flying the helicopter contacted Parks Canada and said that they had checked on NAV CANADA's website and did not see a NOTAM in place for the Rogers Pass area. It was later confirmed with NAV CANADA that a NOTAM was in place, but Parks Canada officials were told that NAV CANADA's new website was not user friendly and that it might be causing problems for pilots searching for NOTAMs.

[goingnowherefast]

Thank god he didn't fly a 737 max through the Rogers Pass Area. I'm sure he read that notam about 6 times while missing an actual important one.

[CpnCrunch]

Looking at the NOTAMs today for a 50nm flight, I got the 737 NOTAM, 2 NOTAMS about Iraq, 2 about Iran, and 2 about ATC services flying to USA. Although I noticed that setting the radius 1nm at least cuts out the duplicate Iran and Iraq NOTAMs so I only get one of each!

[7ECA]

Just for the hell of it, I pulled the NOTAMs for "just" CYPK.

Twelve NOTAMs are listed, of those at most six are actually relevant to CYPK (although one is about ball markers and another about a tower light being out) the other six, well I get to read that the PAL is out at Williams Lake, Iran and Iraq aren't the best destinations at the moment, ADS-B in the US of A, the 737Max crap, and finally that the MEA on an airway that runs between Williams Lake and Victoria has changed. Cool...

[JasonE]

I have just started calling for NOTAMs. If everyone did that perhaps the site would get improved. Accessing it on a mobile device is near impossible, so I call.