Page 1 of 46. Showing 457 results (0.014 seconds)
Re: [SAA.NEW] Ad-hoc special activity area - creation (NOTAM)
Thanks Tomas, I have corrected the table in accordance with 2.3.9.3 of OPADD 4.1.Re: [SAA.NEW] Ad-hoc special activity area - creation (NOTAM)
With regard to section "Text NOTAM production rules", subsection "Several NOTAMS possible": in the table row related to case when ConcernedAirspace is NIL and ConcernedAerodromes are assigned, the description reads "automatically identify the FIR(s) in which the area is located (geographical query). Produce a "first"Re: [RDD.CHG] Runway declared distance(s) - change
The new SNOWTAM coding rules explicitly require that a separate NOTAM for declared distance changes is issued, if the runway has a reduced length due to snow/ice contamination. To add an example that involves two events - SFC.CON and RDD.CHG, with the second one being the consequence of the first one.Re: [RDD.CHG] Runway declared distance(s) - change (NOTAM)
Current requirement of PANS-AIM for the accuracy of the declared distances is 1 m and the publication resolution is 1m/1ft, I would expect any dynamic data to follow the same principle.Re: [RDD.CHG] Runway declared distance(s) - change (NOTAM)
Is there any guidance regarding the Accuracy value for a RWY declared distance change? Am I correct to assume that this value will only ever be for instance 10 m? I am asking because of the value validation so that it can be limited for instance to 2 or 3 characters (e. g. no point leaving it possible for the user to dRe: General Principles
The intended general baseline is 5.1.1 indeed. The GNSS.UNS is clearly marked in assumptions for baseline data as reliant on 5.2 due to GNSS model references (maybe a more outstanding "header" of the page might be in order etc. For 5.1 compatibility, I think the most appropriate is to highlight the workarounds as in e.Re: General Principles
Formally speaking, does it mean that, when 2nd edition is "released", it will be precised for each scenario what is the "required" AIXM 5 version ? Or something equivalent ? (e.g. all scenarios but GNSS ones are based on AIXM 5.1.1) Thank you for the precision.Re: General Principles
5.2 shall be referenced here as well for the GNSS model related issues.Re: Digital NOTAM Specification
Needs to be updated.Re: Item E, F, G - vertical limits
WGS-84 is not an option for F) and G) fields recommended by OPADD (ref. to 2.3.23.8 of OPADD 08/04/2009)