Real world NOTAM in an ATIS

[Zain Khan]

I have been getting conflicted responses in terms of advertising a Notice to Airmen / Airwomen from the real world into an ATIS on VATSIM, some divisions do it with VATIS such as VATUSA but in my division VATNZ my Operations Director got back to me saying that it is not allowed to put a real world NOTAM in the ATIS since it is a breach of VATSIM policy. 

The NOTAMs in my ATIS I was thinking of replicating is like this NOTAM (obtained from a real world Internet Flight briefing service provided by the ATS provider in my country that being New Zealand):

B2974/20     FROM:  03 JUN 2020 01:13  TO:   02 AUG 2020 17:00 
REF AIP NZAA AD 2-31.1
RWY WIP EAST IS ACTIVATED. MNM RWY OCCUPANCY NOT APPLICABLE.
RWY 23L DISP THR. RWY 05R REDUCED LEN. FULL LEN TKOF NOT AVBL.
REF NZAA AD 2-70.30Y AND NZAA AD 2-70.31Y AERODROME RWY 05R/23L WIP
EAST FOR DISPLACED THR, REDUCED LENGTH OPERATIONS AND DECLARED
DISTANCES
REF AIP ENR 1.6-21, RWY 23L MSAW APPROACH PATH MONITORING WILL CEASE
AT 2.6NM FROM DISPLACED THR
RWY 23L DEP AVBL FM TWY A3 INTERSECTION - FOLLOW DASHED CENTRELINE 
FOR LINE-UP
TORA TODA ASDA
2600M 2775M 2600M
RWY 23L SEQUENCED STROBES NOT AVBL DUE WIP
RWY 23L GREEN TDZ LIMIT LGT INSTALLED 810M FM DISPLACED THR
TAXIWAYS A1A, A1, A2 AND A3A CLSD DUE WIP
TWY A BTN TAXIWAYS B1 AND B2 RESTRICTED TO CODE C AND SMALLER
RWY 23L APCH AVBL:
LOC/DME E RWY 23L
VOR/DME E RWY 23L
RWY 05R APCH AVBL:
VOR/DME E RWY 05R
RNAV (GNSS) E RWY 05R
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 05R (CAUTION REDUCED LEN)
RNAV (RNP) X RWY 05R (CAUTION REDUCED LEN)
RWY 23L APPROACH: 'DISPLACED THRESHOLD' ATC READBACK REQUIRED
RWY 05R APPROACH AND LINE UP CLR: 'REDUCED LENGTH' ATC READBACK 
REQUIRED
NOTE: ILS/DME E RWY 05R OR LOC/DME E RWY 05R NOT AVBL
BRIEFING PACK AVBL FROM AUCKLANDAIRPORT.CO.NZ/AIRFIELD-WORKS

And it is being advertised in the real life ATIS:

ATIS NZAA U 0323
APCH: LOC DME E
RWY: 23 LEFT
RWY COND: DRY
OPR INFO: CTN, DTHR. REDUCED RWY LEN. LDA 2435 M. RWY WIP EAST. REF Y
PAGES AND NOTAM B 2974.
WIND: 200/17KT
VIS: 20 KM
WX: SH IN VCY
CLD: FEW 2200 FT FEW 3000 FT BKN 5000 FT
TEMPERATURE: 14 DEW POINT: 9
QNH: 1017 HPA
2000 FT WIND: REP 220/27KT
ON FIRST CTC WITH NZAA ATC NOTIFY RCPT OF U.

 

Just to query on the VATSIM scope and to follow VATSIM policy, would it be allowed under VATSIM policy to mention this NOTAM in an ATIS and act upon the NOTAM while controlling on the network and asking pilots on the network whether they would like to run operations with the NOTAM or normal operations with the NOTAM not in effect to them?

[Joshua Jenkins]

In your example of the ATIS that is being published in real life it asks pilots to go read the NOTAMs. Unfortunately on VATSIM, as a controller, you can’t expect pilots to have access to or to read the NOTAMs for an airport they’re flying into/out of. However, if you were to insert the complete or the most relevant parts of the NOTAM into the ATIS I don’t see how it would break the CoC. Unless, of course, the NOTAM itself states something that goes directly against the CoC.
 

You also can’t deny an aircraft service on the basis of a NOTAM unless it would impact the safety of another flight. For example, (and this is totally arbitrary) a controller at a class B airport cannot deny a VFR aircraft takeoff from said airport assuming it doesn’t impact the safety of other flights even if there was a NOTAM in real life prohibiting VFR traffic at said airport). 
 

Now obviously, that NOTAM you listed is way to lengthy to put into an ATIS message so you would have to condense it to its most important elements to effectively put it into your ATIS.
 

At my FIR we often put in NOTAMs to our ATIS such as visual approaches not authorized to taxiway closures to ILS systems being unusable due to repairs. However, you do have to follow your FIR’s individual rules otherwise you would be in violation of the CoC (C2).

 

Cheers!

[Kirk Christie]

This would be the policy they are referring too, 

https://www.vatsim.net/documents/global-controlleratis-information-policy#:~:text=Beyond the one line of,than 76 characters in length.

Quote

Operational information should include only information that is applicable in the VATSIM environment.  Real-world operational information that cannot be effectively implemented on VATSIM (e.g., lighting and/or equipment outages) should not be included in any ATIS information.

 

Edited June 7, 2020 at 09:34 AM by Kirk Christie

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

It is up to you (or your local division policies) if you want to simulate NOTAM’s which can be simulated on VATSIM. The policy referred to above is in regards to NOTAM’s which cannot be simulated on VATSIM (G/S Unservicable, radio frequencies out of use etc). Closed taxiways, runway usage or other operational NOTAM’s that can be simulated are not in breach of VATSIM policy, as long as you are not interfering or inhibiting people from flying or Enjoying the network. 🙂 Notifying of NOTAM’s that you can and want to simulate is okay. 🙂

[Kirk Christie]

From what I understand he wants to replicate this bit, mostly because in his post he did not specify what NOTAM he was attempting to replicate....

22 hours ago, Zain Khan said:

OPR INFO: CTN, DTHR. REDUCED RWY LEN. LDA 2435 M. RWY WIP EAST. REF Y PAGES AND NOTAM B 2974.

In the real world they would use markings on the ground to indicate a displaced threshold like so.

 

So the question is, how do you replicate that in the SIM and get pilots to land on the remaining 2435m with no way for them to judge the distance in their SIM, and no way to indicate the displaced threshold.

For departures you can ask a pilot to take off from the intersection prior to the displacement, but what is the point of trying to simulate it when you can't offer it to both arriving and departing planes?

[Andreas Fuchs]

I understand you cannot force pilots to use or not use parts of a runway, because in our SIMs there are no works and accompanying markers visible. There's a discussion going on about this on with VATNZ and currently most people oppose simulating the runway works, unless pilots ask for it or agree to it.

[Matthew Bartels]

When it comes to NOTAMS that can be simulated, I usually just control with the NOTAM in place and issue control instructions accordingly. 9 times out of 10, the pilots follow along without a care as to why operations may not be normal and just comply. On that 10th time when they request something clearly in contradiction of the NOTAM, I will advise the of the NOTAM. That usually gets them to play along. If they insist, you can either grin and bear it and issue the clearance or in FAA land use the magic "Proceed as requested, departure/arrival to X will be at your own risk" 😀

[Tobias Dammers]

One more thing worth noting is the rule that says you can't simulate real-world emergencies / incidents. So if the real-world NOTAM is due to an ongoing incident, propagating it into VATSIM would, at least technically, be a violation.

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

10 hours ago, Tobias Dammers said:

the rule that says you can't simulate real-world emergencies / incidents

Where is that rule, @Tobias Dammers? I can't remember seeing that in that rule..

[Andreas Fuchs]

I think Tobias meant re-enact real-world emergencies and incidents.

Quote

A17 - The re-creation of, or organization of events recognizing real world disasters, tragedies, or other such events, particularly those which resulted in loss of life, are not permitted. In addition callsigns that VATSIM has deemed prohibited shall not be used at any time. (View Restricted Callsigns)

 

[Kirk Christie]

3 hours ago, Mats Edvin Aaro said:

Where is that rule, @Tobias Dammers? I can't remember seeing that in that rule..

Short memory Mats? You/VATSIM pretty quick to stomp on this fly in citing A17.

 

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

9 hours ago, Kirk Christie said:

Short memory Mats? You/VATSIM pretty quick to stomp on this fly in citing A17.

If my "short" memory serves me right, this topic was about having real world NOTAM's in the ATIS'es, not about A(17) in general. And that implied that there were something in the ATIS policy stating that you cannot have incident related NOTAM's, which I was actually curious to know since I cannot remember reading that. Pulling in other A(17) violations here isn't really relevant...

EDIT: I see I read Tobias' comment incorrectly. I thought he meant that there was something in the ATIS policy which included real world incidents, not pulling in A(17) seperately. I stand corrected. 🙂

[Andreas Fuchs]

Better seek clarification from VP SUP before somebody gets punished for taking this thread here as reference.

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

I will forward this to VP SUP for clarification, but as I see it now, here are the points you should follow:

• - Having real world NOTAM's is okay as long as they are operationally possible and relevant to the network. Things that cannot or should not be simulated on the network shall not be included.
   
• - NOTAM's regarding incidents, accidents or other real world tragedies are not possible to simulate on the network, and shall therefore not be included. This also includes NOTAM's that might cause severe operational impact on the network/inhibiting users from flying.

[Nicholas Cavacini]

On 6/17/2020 at 6:48 AM, Mats Edvin Aaro said:

I will forward this to VP SUP for clarification, but as I see it now, here are the points you should follow:

• - Having real world NOTAM's is okay as long as they are operationally possible and relevant to the network. Things that cannot or should not be simulated on the network shall not be included.
   
• - NOTAM's regarding incidents, accidents or other real world tragedies are not possible to simulate on the network, and shall therefore not be included. This also includes NOTAM's that might cause severe operational impact on the network/inhibiting users from flying.

This is correct.

[Andreas Fuchs]

3 hours ago, Nicholas Cavacini said:

NOTAM's regarding incidents, accidents or other real world tragedies are not possible to simulate on the network, and shall therefore not be included.

Although this is just a way to "wind around the issue". In the end it is an A(17), because it is directly related to this paragraph.

Anyways, we now have clear guidance, thanks for chiming in.