Leidos briefing TMI
I really like the Leidos briefings which are a big improvement over the old DUATS system. However the briefings are still cluttered up with a generous amount of TMI that makes it more difficult to ensure you see what you really need. It's similar to an issue with the NOTAM system that I know alphabet groups are pushing on but I haven't seen anything about Leidos briefings. I have sent feedback using their link, some examples follow. I'm curious if others or AOPA have noted this and sent feedback on these or anything else?
- Quadruplicate information in METARS. If a station nearest the departure or destination is specified as an alternate, the METAR shows up twice at the top, then twice again in the route listing. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to happen in the TAFs.
- Convective Outlooks: Dumps all the convective activity for the entire country, seemingly no way to limit this other than turning it off altogether. Maybe a checkbox "Only show convective activity within 200nm" could be in the Abbreviated briefing tab. The map showing the whole country is worthwhile however as it can be read at a glance.
- Abbreviated Briefing check boxes - only some are persistent across sessions, shouldn't they all be? For example High altitude turbulence always comes up checked, so low flyers like me need to uncheck it every time to avoid more TMI.
- Spurious UAS TFR NOTAMS. For example I am planning a flight today and its giving me a couple of pages of NOTAMS that only apply to UASs. It should be able to tell from the route brief that my type aircraft is one that carries human beings. Admittedly these particular NOTAMS do say at the end "THE FAA RECOMMENDS THAT ALL ACFT OPR CHECK NOTAMS FREQUENTLY FOR POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THIS TFR PRIOR TO OPS WI THIS REGION", so maybe it's more of a TMI NOTAM issue (which I know the alphabet groups are pushing to fix). But even so the only bit that's needed for other than UASs is that part at the end.  Maybe another (persistent) checkbox in the abbreviated briefing tab?
- Duplicate NOTAMS if enroute and alternate destinations are the same. I can kind of see the logic in this since each is listed in a separate block. Nevertheless it seems like they could be combined in some logical way.

Admittedly part of this is nit-picking from me as a software developer who gets annoyed seeing obvious problems that should be relatively easy to resolve in SW. Whatever, I just hope that someone at Leidos will consider taking the time to go through the briefing output with an eye towards clearing out the obvious and unnecessary TMI.


 
4 Replies
As the head of the NTSB recently said…”NOTAMS are garbage.”  You have outlined the reasons why.  Unfortunately, buried inside all that useless and irrelevant information may be a nugget upon which your life depends.  So, we continue to wade through multiple pages for a fifteen minute flight over to the next county, while muttering under our breath at how stupid and antiquated the system is.
Dean Brock
16 Posts
AMEN!  Thanks for putting all that into words!!  Lets hope things change.

From these two responses I guess I'm not the only one. I just hope other people are using the Leidos feedback link or survey to articulate the issues. I'm sure there's a lot more specific TMI than what I outlined and I wish AOPA would put together a working group or something to help Leidos collect actionable data on what their customers need and don't need.

NOTAMS – AT what point is a NOTAM considered “published”?  Our local non-towered airport's AWOS-3 has ALL the NOTAMS that are “published” which takes more time than the actual info needed.  The airport's sponsor ops office says they get conflicting info from “airports” (FAA's airports division? ) that they must broadcast all of them.  I've sent the ops office a list of “published” NOTAMs but to no avail … what say you ?