Is it possible to split a NOTAM in two messages in case it is too long to fit in a single message?











up vote
7
down vote

favorite












Would it be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two different NOTAMs with the same year, series and number regarding the same subject and informing //PART 1 OF 2 PARTS// and //PART 2 OF 2 PARTS// in the NOTAMs bodies to inform that they are parts of a single NOTAM?










share|improve this question




















  • 2




    Have you considered that a NOTAM might not be the best choice for promulgating such a lengthy tome? Perhaps editing for brevity may be the answer here, or reconsidering if it is worthwhile to feed to hapless airmen the world over?
    – UnrecognizedFallingObject
    Nov 21 at 12:28






  • 1




    I understand that a NOTAM should not be that long and that it should be edited for brevity. Still, I would like to know if it would be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two NOTAMs with same year, series and number if they refer to the same subject.
    – cvasques
    Nov 21 at 12:33






  • 1




    I have seen it done before but i forgot where.
    – vasin1987
    Nov 21 at 16:09















up vote
7
down vote

favorite












Would it be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two different NOTAMs with the same year, series and number regarding the same subject and informing //PART 1 OF 2 PARTS// and //PART 2 OF 2 PARTS// in the NOTAMs bodies to inform that they are parts of a single NOTAM?










share|improve this question




















  • 2




    Have you considered that a NOTAM might not be the best choice for promulgating such a lengthy tome? Perhaps editing for brevity may be the answer here, or reconsidering if it is worthwhile to feed to hapless airmen the world over?
    – UnrecognizedFallingObject
    Nov 21 at 12:28






  • 1




    I understand that a NOTAM should not be that long and that it should be edited for brevity. Still, I would like to know if it would be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two NOTAMs with same year, series and number if they refer to the same subject.
    – cvasques
    Nov 21 at 12:33






  • 1




    I have seen it done before but i forgot where.
    – vasin1987
    Nov 21 at 16:09













up vote
7
down vote

favorite









up vote
7
down vote

favorite











Would it be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two different NOTAMs with the same year, series and number regarding the same subject and informing //PART 1 OF 2 PARTS// and //PART 2 OF 2 PARTS// in the NOTAMs bodies to inform that they are parts of a single NOTAM?










share|improve this question















Would it be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two different NOTAMs with the same year, series and number regarding the same subject and informing //PART 1 OF 2 PARTS// and //PART 2 OF 2 PARTS// in the NOTAMs bodies to inform that they are parts of a single NOTAM?







notam icao-sarps aim






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 21 at 21:40

























asked Nov 21 at 11:33









cvasques

456




456








  • 2




    Have you considered that a NOTAM might not be the best choice for promulgating such a lengthy tome? Perhaps editing for brevity may be the answer here, or reconsidering if it is worthwhile to feed to hapless airmen the world over?
    – UnrecognizedFallingObject
    Nov 21 at 12:28






  • 1




    I understand that a NOTAM should not be that long and that it should be edited for brevity. Still, I would like to know if it would be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two NOTAMs with same year, series and number if they refer to the same subject.
    – cvasques
    Nov 21 at 12:33






  • 1




    I have seen it done before but i forgot where.
    – vasin1987
    Nov 21 at 16:09














  • 2




    Have you considered that a NOTAM might not be the best choice for promulgating such a lengthy tome? Perhaps editing for brevity may be the answer here, or reconsidering if it is worthwhile to feed to hapless airmen the world over?
    – UnrecognizedFallingObject
    Nov 21 at 12:28






  • 1




    I understand that a NOTAM should not be that long and that it should be edited for brevity. Still, I would like to know if it would be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two NOTAMs with same year, series and number if they refer to the same subject.
    – cvasques
    Nov 21 at 12:33






  • 1




    I have seen it done before but i forgot where.
    – vasin1987
    Nov 21 at 16:09








2




2




Have you considered that a NOTAM might not be the best choice for promulgating such a lengthy tome? Perhaps editing for brevity may be the answer here, or reconsidering if it is worthwhile to feed to hapless airmen the world over?
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Nov 21 at 12:28




Have you considered that a NOTAM might not be the best choice for promulgating such a lengthy tome? Perhaps editing for brevity may be the answer here, or reconsidering if it is worthwhile to feed to hapless airmen the world over?
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Nov 21 at 12:28




1




1




I understand that a NOTAM should not be that long and that it should be edited for brevity. Still, I would like to know if it would be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two NOTAMs with same year, series and number if they refer to the same subject.
– cvasques
Nov 21 at 12:33




I understand that a NOTAM should not be that long and that it should be edited for brevity. Still, I would like to know if it would be in accordance with ICAO norms to issue two NOTAMs with same year, series and number if they refer to the same subject.
– cvasques
Nov 21 at 12:33




1




1




I have seen it done before but i forgot where.
– vasin1987
Nov 21 at 16:09




I have seen it done before but i forgot where.
– vasin1987
Nov 21 at 16:09










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote



accepted










Multi-part NOTAMs seem to be part of ICAO standard, as far as googling reveals. I can’t seem to find a definitive reference though.



An example - and from experience a relatively reliable one - for a multi-part NOTAM is the infamous Sydney crane list, at time of writing in NOTAM H6002/18, which at the moment comes in three parts and has the part listing in field A):




H6002/18 NOTAMR H5974/18

Q) YMMM/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/999/3357S15111E008

A) YSSY PART 1 OF 3

B) 1811190334

C) 1811300500 EST

E) OBSTACLE CRANES AT FLW LOCATIONS

239FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.58NM FM ARP

497FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 3.82NM FM ARP

220FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.38NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

413FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.09NM FM ARP

410FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.14NM FM ARP

577FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 4.65NM FM ARP

685FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 4.26NM FM ARP

249FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 2.98NM FM ARP

413FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 3.18NM FM ARP

224FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 1.53NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

500FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 3.42NM FM ARP

953FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 5.26NM FM ARP

623FT AMSL BRG 006 MAG 4.54NM FM ARP

PART 1 OF 3




Found at FAA pilot briefing site.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
    – Sean
    Nov 21 at 17:09






  • 3




    As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
    – Harper
    Nov 21 at 18:12








  • 2




    To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 21 at 18:56






  • 4




    The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
    – Zach Lipton
    Nov 21 at 21:21






  • 2




    For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 6:57











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57325%2fis-it-possible-to-split-a-notam-in-two-messages-in-case-it-is-too-long-to-fit-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
12
down vote



accepted










Multi-part NOTAMs seem to be part of ICAO standard, as far as googling reveals. I can’t seem to find a definitive reference though.



An example - and from experience a relatively reliable one - for a multi-part NOTAM is the infamous Sydney crane list, at time of writing in NOTAM H6002/18, which at the moment comes in three parts and has the part listing in field A):




H6002/18 NOTAMR H5974/18

Q) YMMM/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/999/3357S15111E008

A) YSSY PART 1 OF 3

B) 1811190334

C) 1811300500 EST

E) OBSTACLE CRANES AT FLW LOCATIONS

239FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.58NM FM ARP

497FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 3.82NM FM ARP

220FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.38NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

413FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.09NM FM ARP

410FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.14NM FM ARP

577FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 4.65NM FM ARP

685FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 4.26NM FM ARP

249FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 2.98NM FM ARP

413FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 3.18NM FM ARP

224FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 1.53NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

500FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 3.42NM FM ARP

953FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 5.26NM FM ARP

623FT AMSL BRG 006 MAG 4.54NM FM ARP

PART 1 OF 3




Found at FAA pilot briefing site.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
    – Sean
    Nov 21 at 17:09






  • 3




    As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
    – Harper
    Nov 21 at 18:12








  • 2




    To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 21 at 18:56






  • 4




    The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
    – Zach Lipton
    Nov 21 at 21:21






  • 2




    For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 6:57















up vote
12
down vote



accepted










Multi-part NOTAMs seem to be part of ICAO standard, as far as googling reveals. I can’t seem to find a definitive reference though.



An example - and from experience a relatively reliable one - for a multi-part NOTAM is the infamous Sydney crane list, at time of writing in NOTAM H6002/18, which at the moment comes in three parts and has the part listing in field A):




H6002/18 NOTAMR H5974/18

Q) YMMM/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/999/3357S15111E008

A) YSSY PART 1 OF 3

B) 1811190334

C) 1811300500 EST

E) OBSTACLE CRANES AT FLW LOCATIONS

239FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.58NM FM ARP

497FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 3.82NM FM ARP

220FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.38NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

413FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.09NM FM ARP

410FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.14NM FM ARP

577FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 4.65NM FM ARP

685FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 4.26NM FM ARP

249FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 2.98NM FM ARP

413FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 3.18NM FM ARP

224FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 1.53NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

500FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 3.42NM FM ARP

953FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 5.26NM FM ARP

623FT AMSL BRG 006 MAG 4.54NM FM ARP

PART 1 OF 3




Found at FAA pilot briefing site.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
    – Sean
    Nov 21 at 17:09






  • 3




    As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
    – Harper
    Nov 21 at 18:12








  • 2




    To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 21 at 18:56






  • 4




    The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
    – Zach Lipton
    Nov 21 at 21:21






  • 2




    For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 6:57













up vote
12
down vote



accepted







up vote
12
down vote



accepted






Multi-part NOTAMs seem to be part of ICAO standard, as far as googling reveals. I can’t seem to find a definitive reference though.



An example - and from experience a relatively reliable one - for a multi-part NOTAM is the infamous Sydney crane list, at time of writing in NOTAM H6002/18, which at the moment comes in three parts and has the part listing in field A):




H6002/18 NOTAMR H5974/18

Q) YMMM/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/999/3357S15111E008

A) YSSY PART 1 OF 3

B) 1811190334

C) 1811300500 EST

E) OBSTACLE CRANES AT FLW LOCATIONS

239FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.58NM FM ARP

497FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 3.82NM FM ARP

220FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.38NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

413FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.09NM FM ARP

410FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.14NM FM ARP

577FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 4.65NM FM ARP

685FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 4.26NM FM ARP

249FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 2.98NM FM ARP

413FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 3.18NM FM ARP

224FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 1.53NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

500FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 3.42NM FM ARP

953FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 5.26NM FM ARP

623FT AMSL BRG 006 MAG 4.54NM FM ARP

PART 1 OF 3




Found at FAA pilot briefing site.






share|improve this answer














Multi-part NOTAMs seem to be part of ICAO standard, as far as googling reveals. I can’t seem to find a definitive reference though.



An example - and from experience a relatively reliable one - for a multi-part NOTAM is the infamous Sydney crane list, at time of writing in NOTAM H6002/18, which at the moment comes in three parts and has the part listing in field A):




H6002/18 NOTAMR H5974/18

Q) YMMM/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/999/3357S15111E008

A) YSSY PART 1 OF 3

B) 1811190334

C) 1811300500 EST

E) OBSTACLE CRANES AT FLW LOCATIONS

239FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.58NM FM ARP

497FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 3.82NM FM ARP

220FT AMSL BRG 002 MAG 1.38NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

413FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.09NM FM ARP

410FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 3.14NM FM ARP

577FT AMSL BRG 003 MAG 4.65NM FM ARP

685FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 4.26NM FM ARP

249FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 2.98NM FM ARP

413FT AMSL BRG 004 MAG 3.18NM FM ARP

224FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 1.53NM FM ARP OBST UNLIT

500FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 3.42NM FM ARP

953FT AMSL BRG 005 MAG 5.26NM FM ARP

623FT AMSL BRG 006 MAG 4.54NM FM ARP

PART 1 OF 3




Found at FAA pilot briefing site.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 21 at 21:47









cvasques

456




456










answered Nov 21 at 13:29









Cpt Reynolds

2,1251914




2,1251914








  • 4




    Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
    – Sean
    Nov 21 at 17:09






  • 3




    As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
    – Harper
    Nov 21 at 18:12








  • 2




    To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 21 at 18:56






  • 4




    The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
    – Zach Lipton
    Nov 21 at 21:21






  • 2




    For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 6:57














  • 4




    Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
    – Sean
    Nov 21 at 17:09






  • 3




    As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
    – Harper
    Nov 21 at 18:12








  • 2




    To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 21 at 18:56






  • 4




    The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
    – Zach Lipton
    Nov 21 at 21:21






  • 2




    For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 6:57








4




4




Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
– Sean
Nov 21 at 17:09




Also an example of the nigh-incomprehensibility of NOTAMs.
– Sean
Nov 21 at 17:09




3




3




As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 18:12






As a railroad person who's seen many a hard-to-read train order, I recognize I'm looking at an extreme case, but still. That would never pass muster on rail: firstly the topic would be an Order or Notice in full page format. But even as a train order, it would require deployment of a technology (invented by George Westinghouse) called the "carriage return" or "newline". I am unable to demonstrate here in a comment.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 18:12






2




2




To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
– Cpt Reynolds
Nov 21 at 18:56




To be fair, everywhere I‘ve seen this NOTAM, the carriage returns were in the right places. I couldn’t get them to work in the quote on the iPhone app, though.
– Cpt Reynolds
Nov 21 at 18:56




4




4




The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
– Zach Lipton
Nov 21 at 21:21




The standard US stadium security NOTAM is three parts too. Greece and Turkey like to carry on an entire diplomatic spat in the NOTAM database. The NTSB chair recently called the system "messed up" and "garbage" thanks to this kind of nonsense.
– Zach Lipton
Nov 21 at 21:21




2




2




For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
– Federico
Nov 22 at 6:57




For next time, you can enter "newlines" with "<space><space><enter>"
– Federico
Nov 22 at 6:57


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57325%2fis-it-possible-to-split-a-notam-in-two-messages-in-case-it-is-too-long-to-fit-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Актюбинская область

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure