Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BGR.Airport, ME
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I wanted to file a report over the NOTAM package that our carrier uses for operational procedures for our standard flights. This particular flight had questionable weather at BGR and an alternate was given for PWM. However; BTV has the same direction runways. Because of the significant length of the NOTAMs and the similarity of the runways; I found it difficult to tell which airport some of the NOTAMs were referring to. It was possible to decipher the correct airport; but very difficult especially when we are trying to fly on-time and have all of our normal operational pressures. I took the time to accurately identify the NOTAM for the ILS to runway 33 missed approach at BGR however; it was not easy. I could have easily read that as referring to BTV ILS 33. The NOTAM package is very difficult to read as the NOTAM context jumps around from one airport to another and does not easily show which airport the NOTAMs are referring to. The also jump around context referring to taxiways; approaches and departures and it's hard to follow the context even when I know it's for the specific airport.In addition to this particular flight; this problem is systematic for all of the [Company] flights. The NOTAM packages for each and every flight have gotten significantly longer and I fear as a result; pilots legitimately aren't reading all of them as a human factors response to something that is very difficult to reconcile.A week ago or so; I did a trip that involved flights out of [3 airports]. While reviewing the NOTAMs; I discovered alternate missed approaches for almost all of the runways at all of these airports for various reasons. It is my belief that due to the nature of our current NOTAM package; a large percentage of our pilot group is simply not reading the NOTAMs; or at least not in an effective way so that they are comprehended properly. That would mean that we have a hole in our safety net and there are errors out there waiting to happen. Because of problems of interpretation and even comprehension of the massive amount of NOTAMs being given in an irregular order and in extreme detail; I recommend that the [Company] NOTAM package be formatted in a more readable way so that approaches; departures; arrivals and taxiway NOTAMs are separated and labeled by airport and category. This would seem to me to be an obvious format that we would want so that we can comprehend what we are reading consistently as we read through the package. I believe this to be a significant problem and when bringing it up to a management representative; I was told to use the report program for this concern. While legal requirements are currently being met with this format; I do not believe human factors regarding the effectiveness of the NOTAM package are being considered in the decision making. Please help; so that we can much easier read and comprehend the NOTAMs relevant to our flights.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported his company's confusing NOTAM format which presents large amounts of route and airport data in a random fashion making reading and comprehension difficult. NOTAM usability is questionable yet probably FAA acceptable.