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?

  • 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 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.

  • 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

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.