Computer failure at FAA halts all flight operations

[nocturnalaviator]

Nothing like having unlit high obstructions loom out of the darkness and go flying past you while orbiting or maneuvering to land someplace.

These NOTAMS mean as much to airline people, as much as NOTAMS about Cat II/III approach minima changes mean to me.

Sounds like the Power Tower Penetrator out at Gaithersburg last month or so. Wonder if he checked his Notices to Air Mission(s) that flight?

 

[Wardogg]

 

[nocturnalaviator]

View attachment 68994

Sure! Gotta see if the restaurant is going to be open. Besides, do you unlit twr bro? Betcha that unusable course off the XYZ VOR will screw your day up. Better make sure ya check that! The mayor son Connor is out with his brand new UAS at or below 300 AGL... Oh my gawwwd.

 

[Flagship_dxer]

Ive wondered why airline dispatchers can’t or don’t only put pertinent to operation info in the NOTAM releases to crews, and have been told that for liability reasons, they can’t. Not sure the validity of that, or not. I mean, our dispatchers highlight/check pertinent NOTAMS that are in the whole stack anyway, but the rest of them still have to be there apparently.

I dont know an airline where dispatchers physically attach NOTAMs to the release. It is almost always a software generated package. If dispatchers had to highlight NOTAMs and attach only pertinent ones, the workload would need to drop significantly. Just about every airline has their dispatchers make contact with crews prior to departure if there is a NOTAM or two that is important for them to know.

On international dispatch desks, releases would take 5-6 hours to do a single release if dispatchers manually had to sort through all the different FIR NOTAMs and highlight only the pertinent ones. FIRS like Fukuoka and Incheon have novels for NOTAM reports.

 

[tcco94]

 

[DropTank]

They’ve come out saying it’s not a hack or cyberattack

Same as it ever was, convoluted I/T system dependent on a single server that went by by.
The backup was stored on an 8" floppy.

 

[mrivc211]

 

[Wardogg]

View attachment 69001

My favorite one yet. And the most accurate.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

They weren’t looking anyway…

 

[SteveC]

They weren’t looking anyway…

And you know this how?

 

[knot4u]

They weren’t looking anyway…

And you know this how?

These are two weird posts but it does show a pattern. @Cherokee_Cruiser says "they", who is they? I don't know, there was no context. Immediately @SteveC responds questioning the validity about what @Cherokee_Cruiser knows about something? Regardless of the subject it's obvious steve wants to somehow discredit cc, I don't know why.

 

[mwflyer]

These are two weird posts but it does show a pattern. @Cherokee_Cruiser says "they", who is they? I don't know, there was no context. Immediately @SteveC responds questioning the validity about what @Cherokee_Cruiser knows about something? Regardless of the subject it's obvious steve wants to somehow discredit cc, I don't know why.

Up until this post, I had never considered you a troll. Looking for a fight? Absolutely, but trolling, naw. You’ve just crossed over.

and save yourself the response of telling me you don’t care about my opinion of you. I already know that.

 

[SteveC]

View attachment 69001

My favorite one yet. And the most accurate.

They weren’t looking anyway…

Three posts in a row, referencing Part 91 ops and Notams...

And you know this how?

^^^references CC's post saying that Part 91 pilots don't look at Notams.

These are two weird posts but it does show a pattern. @Cherokee_Cruiser says "they", who is they? I don't know, there was no context. Immediately @SteveC responds questioning the validity about what @Cherokee_Cruiser knows about something? Regardless of the subject it's obvious steve wants to somehow discredit cc, I don't know why.

I'm asking how CC knows that Part 91 pilots don't read NOTAMS. I don't recall him having done that kind of flying, thus my question.

Let me know if I'm going too fast for you...

 

[knot4u]

Three posts in a row, referencing Part 91 ops and Notams...

^^^references CC's post saying that Part 91 pilots don't look at Notams.


I'm asking how CC knows that Part 91 pilots don't read NOTAMS. I don't recall him having done that kind of flying, thus my question.

Let me know if I'm going too fast for you...

Than why didn't you just ask him why he thinks 91 pilots don't read NOTAMs? Context and direct language are important, especially in any sort of disagreement.

 

[SteveC]

Than why didn't you just ask him why he thinks 91 pilots don't read NOTAMs? Context and direct language are important, especially in any sort of disagreement.

Sorry, I made the assumption that the context of the previous posts made it clear.

I'll try to keep my audience in mind going forward.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Holy cow. It was a simple dig at Part 91, just like how I call 91 and 135 corporate as Corpies (corporate weenies).

Stop getting so offended.

 

[knot4u]

Sorry, I made the assumption that the context of the previous posts made it clear.

I'll try to keep my audience in mind going forward.

I'm just a dumb airplane mechanic.

 

[SteveC]

Holy cow. It was a simple dig at Part 91, just like how I call 91 and 135 corporate as Corpies.

Stop getting so offended.

If you're responding to me (I can't tell from the context), I'm just curious what drove the comment, not offended.

Otherwise, disregard.

 

[fholbert]

I'm just a dumb airplane mechanic.

I can finally “like“ one of your posts.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The standing joke at 121 airlines is even we don’t read NOTAMS (not true, but for some guys, they don’t).

Re: AC A320 SFO, Allegiant at ND air show.

And that’s WITH having NOTAMS in the flight information packet already.


I’m basing my comments on the amounts of YouTube videos I’ve seen with 91 being, well, 91ing. Things like the amounts of violations that most 121 are exempt from for scheduled 121 service (eg, many TFRs).