Fast online Notams

[drauk]

The Notam facility at fly.dsc.net is now pretty well tested now and has been very well received. You can use it to get a route brief online in less than 30 seconds. The URL to read more about it is:

http://fly.dsc.net/u/Notams

As explained therein, unfortunately there is no reliable free source of the Notam data which makes the job quite difficult. As such you should be very careful to check the indication at the top of each briefing to see if it is using the current data. And even then, of course, it's not "official".

Both area and route briefs are very quick. It covers quite a few FIR, not just the UK ones. There are lots of output filters and the results are designed to be easy to read. You can also plot whatever you find on a Google Map. Lastly the text briefs have been shown to be useable even on a PDA or Blackberry browser, over a slow connection.

Here's a couple of screen shots.

http://fly.dsc.net/images/mapbrief.png

http://fly.dsc.net/images/textbrief.png

[rustle]

Excellent work again, drauk. :D

Flight planning and graphical NOTAMs in one place ;)

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Why, oh why can't systems like this be the norm, rather than left to individuals to improve on the 'correct' and 'official' systems available (with no graphical presentation, just reams of text gobbledegook)?

Makes the AIS NOTAM site look pretty inadequate.

Well done to all involved, and I hope the UK AIS suits sit up and see what can be achieved..:D

Chuf :ok:

[Ni Thomas]

Thanks it's very useful. Nice work - Clever chap.
But... isn't there always a 'but'? :hmm:
Can it do a route from UK to France?
I ask this as every time I enter EGHH to LFRC I get routed from Bournemouth to some place that makes whiskey - Lamphroig (or sumfink)
Cheers

[drauk]

Can it do a route from UK to France?

Yes. Change the country drop down list box from 'UK' to 'Any'.

[rustle]

Can it do a route from UK to France?
I ask this as every time I enter EGHH to LFRC I get routed from Bournemouth to some place that makes whiskey - Lamphroig (or sumfink)
Cheers

You need to change the "country" in the top box to plan outside the UK.

Change it to "any" and it will allow you to cross international boundaries.

[IO540]

Let's say I do a route from AAA to BBB (where BBB is a navaid) and there is another navaid called BBB in Mongolia (often the case), how is this resolved? The ais.org.uk software picks the nearer one, which seems to work but I am just curious.

[Ni Thomas]

Thanks folks - I'm glad that someone does take the time to read the instructions!
An even more useful tool - Good on yer :D

[drauk]

Let's say I do a route from AAA to BBB (where BBB is a navaid) and there is another navaid called BBB in Mongolia (often the case), how is this resolved? The ais.org.uk software picks the nearer one, which seems to work but I am just curious.

First off, this is one advantage of picking a country when planning, rather than setting "Any". However, if you're planning a route involving more countries then read on...

Any ambiguities are ultimately resolved by you being shown a list of what matches what you entered and you choosing which you want. If you put in 'LAM' you get the VOR by Stapleford just north of London, but you also get the the NDB in Iran.

It does apply a bit of logic to try to pick the right one for you though. If you've entered a waypoint where there is only one match (as is often the case if you're using Navaids) then it will look for a match for this waypoint in the same country. So for example, if you plan a route from EGTR to LFAT and use LAM as a turning point it will choose the LAM in the UK over the one in Iran. If however you are routing from Tehran to Dubai, it'll choose the NDB in Iran. Using the nearest would also work, but is more work computationally, though not really significantly.

Ultimately this exact thing is the purpose of the very rough and ready graphical representation of your route at the bottom of the plan screen - so you can see if your route looks "sensible". If you're planning Norwich to Southend and the yellow line seems to go to India first you've probably not got the right waypoints.

[IO540]

Excellent work Drauk.

Best to not mention this on your CV if applying for a job at NATS though ;)

Another suggestion, along the lines of "in for a penny, in for a pound": airways handling.

EGKK MAY R8 DVR L9 KONAN L607 RUDUS L984 ASKIK Z74 DONIS L603 CHIEM P995 ARNOS P735 GILIN LJLJ

:)

[Say again s l o w l y]

That is fantastic, about time I may add. Wake up NATS and others.

Well done! Big pat on the back from me.

[drauk]

IO540, as with most things with this stuff, the trouble with airways is the data. If someone gives me the lat/lon of all the airways then it'd be no big deal to add that function. Until then, just enter the VORs that define the airways (which will be okay but for the kinks in them). Actually I guess an intersection database would probably get us most of the way there.

[stickandrudderman]

fan-bleedin-tastic!:ok:

[Choxolate]

Excellent facility - as they say it is the "Poodles Privates"

[Floppy Link]

Cojones del perro

awesome

[mark147]

IO540, as with most things with this stuff, the trouble with airways is the data. If someone gives me the lat/lon of all the airways then it'd be no big deal to add that function. Until then, just enter the VORs that define the airways (which will be okay but for the kinks in them). Actually I guess an intersection database would probably get us most of the way there.
You can get this information from the Eurocontrol database.
Go to http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/ register for EAD Basic, log in, wait some time for lots of Java to load, select 'SDO reporting', wait another while, then you can generate reports of various things including upper and lower airspace routes.
The routes are not given in lat/long but by referencing navaids / waypoint names which you'd then have to deal with. You can download the database of those too though.

Regards,

Mark

[007helicopter]

incredible !!!

[gingernut]

Wow, it will improve the safety and enjoyment of my flying.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Just done my QXC and used it to double check my calcs before I set off.
Also downloaded airfield plans for each airfield so no stumbling around for exits and holds when i got there.
Instructor also mightily impressed with it and added to list of favourites.
First class site and facility.

[IO540]

IO540, as with most things with this stuff, the trouble with airways is the data. If someone gives me the lat/lon of all the airways then it'd be no big deal to add that function. Until then, just enter the VORs that define the airways (which will be okay but for the kinks in them). Actually I guess an intersection database would probably get us most of the way there.

I see somebody has already answered this so I will just add that it "should" be easy to get all this data, worldwide, because somebody has done an airways overlay for the NASA World World Wind software. It must be there somewhere. I would start with DAFIF but that database will be closed to the public (courtesy of Osama BL) this autumn. After that, EAD Eurocontrol is the next place to look.

[Dannyboyblue]

Blimey how much better is this than the ais website!!!

I put in a route that is very simple, which AIS could not handle, and it came back straight away with no probs. Very cool.

DBB

[LowNSlow]

Superb. Well done that man. :D :D

[simonrennie]

This worked fine on the desktop but the map will not display on my IPAQ 4700 just a white space, no idea how to fix it at the moment but a great help as a PPL

[drauk]

Not sure exactly what problems you're having on your PDA. Certainly the Google maps won't display on it, but the textual information should be fine. I have tried it on a PocketPC and a Blackberry and it works fine on each of those.

If you let me have some more details I can investigate further.

[jamesbond6]

hi!

drauk, I was wondering what limits you from expanding this system to another FIRs to the east - I mean Scandinavia, Germany, Poland. Is it just a database limit, or there is no good source, as you mentioned?

And I don't know how you measure the reliability of notams source, but is the https://www.notams.jcs.mil/ so bad?

Regards,
Michal

[drauk]

There is no database limit, it's just about the source of the data. We already get dozens of FIR from the AIS website and it didn't seem wise to burden them still further for FIR that very few users need. However, if there is enough interest I am happy to add them.

As for the source of Notams that you mention, I have no idea how reliable that source is. The trouble with that one is that it doesn't include the Q-line, the mechanism by which we determine the area of influence for any Notam. As such, that particular source isn't much use to me.

[Mike Cross]

And I don't know how you measure the reliability of notams source, but is the https://www.notams.jcs.mil/ so bad?
This is the US Department of Defense NOTAM system and there is nothing whatever wrong with using it for briefing for flights originating in US airspace. However I suspect that's not what you are doing.

The trouble with that one is that it doesn't include the Q-line, the mechanism by which we determine the area of influence for any Notam. As such, that particular source isn't much use to me.Wrong answer. If you select "RAW" rather than "Report" for the output this is what you get.
Y7744/04 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QXXXX/IV/NO/EW/000/020
A) EGTT B) 0403191445 C) UFN
D) H24
E) LFA 17, NIGHT SECTOR 3B (W) WARNING. CREWS ARE TO BE AWARE THAT TWO ANEMOMETER MASTS HAVE BEEN ERECTED AT THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS: N5352.26 W00312.09 N5351.36 W00317.40 N.B DURING THE HOURS OF DARKNESS THE TWO ANEMOMETER MASTS MAY NOT BE LIT
F) SFC G) 265FT AMSL


The Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which ICAO member States are signatories lays down the standards for NOTAM. Individual States are able to group NOTAM into series (in the above example Y7744/04 indicates it is Series Y) and decide which series are distributed internationally and which are not. In addition other States can decide which series they want to subscribe to. The whole system works on the basis that each State provides briefing services only for flights originating within its own airspace.

As an example, France, in AIP GEN 3.1.3.2 (http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/PDF_AIPparSSection/AIP%20FRANCE/GEN/3/0610_GEN%203.1.pdf) states:-
3.1.3.2 THE NOTAM
a) The NOTAM series
Depending on the subject, NOTAM are issued in the following series:
Series A: Information of a general international scope and concerning
more particulary long range flights (for international publication).
Series B: Information of a limited international scope and concerning
more particulary other flights (restricted international publication limited
to the European region).
Series D: containing information on other aerodromes used for international
flights. Publication is restricted to the countries involved within the
scope of SCHENGEN agreements (Germany, Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal,
Sweden, Iceland and Norway).

If therefore you took a NOTAM brief from outside the Schengen countries for a flight within France (e.g. you briefed from UK AIS for a flight to a small airfield in France, clearing customs at Calais) you would not see any of the Series D NOTAM.

If you want to make sure you are covered, your information should originate from the AIS of the State within whose airspace the flight originates. The correct way of briefing in the above example would be to take your briefing from a recognised UK source for the flight to Calais and from a French source for the onward flight from Calais to your destination.

Incidentally, there is EC legislation in the offing that will probably require providers of AIS information to be certified. The CAA's response to the "Common Requirements" in resect of AIS is here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/952/ANSP%20Questionnaire%20Annex%204.pdf)

Mike

[rustle]

Incidentally, there is EC legislation in the offing that will probably require providers of AIS information to be certified. The CAA's response to the "Common Requirements" in resect of AIS is here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/952/ANSP%20Questionnaire%20Annex%204.pdf)

Mike
The code writers / programmers of the AIS website in the UK should definitely be certified. ;)

[drauk]

Actually, asking for raw output does show the Q-line but it doesn't always show the coordinates of the area concerned, so it still remains unsuitable.

Incidentally, there is EC legislation in the offing that will probably require providers of AIS information to be certified. The CAA's response to the "Common Requirements" in resect of AIS is here.

Well that will be the end of my site and all the people who tell me they check them now they're easier to check will presumably go back to not checking them.

[Mike Cross]

Well that will be the end of my site and all the people who tell me they check them now they're easier to check will presumably go back to not checking them.
No reason why it should be. A simple answer would be for you not to handle the data. As far as I can see you won't need to be certified unless you provide the data, so:-

How about you provide software tools that run on the user's PC rather than on your website? The user then downloads the data and uses your tools to display it. This is the approach used by Ian Fallon with Notam Plot.

Alternatively you "go commercial". The CAA seems to be looking at using a very light hand on the tiller here, the main requirements being conformance to some fairly simple standards and an acreditted Quality System. People like AvBrief and Navbox will have to go this route because they process the data themselves.

As I'm sure you appreciate, this is proposed EU legislation. Some might suggest that some of the commercial concerns whose names can be gleaned by studying Eurocontrol's output could be behind it. I couldn't possibly comment.;)

Mike

[drauk]

I've no interest in building an offline version. It would be a huge download because fly.dsc.net uses a large database of waypoints. It wouldn't work on PCs and Macs and PDAs, etc. etc. And anyway, there are others available already.

I'd have no problem conforming to some quality standards if this were a commercial project, but this is resolutely non-commercial, so that isn't going to happen here.

As for it being EU legislation, I can see your point. Perhaps all that fly.dsc.net will amount to then is demonstrating that an acceptable fast and easy presentation of Notams isn't difficult.

[Mike Cross]

Mmmm...

Can't see an easy solution to that. My first thought was a Client/Server solution where the user downloads from a certified ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider) such as UK AIS and then submits the data to your site for processing and you then present him with the output. However I can see that this would cause a problem with threading and increased traffic levels at your end. (Please be aware that I am no programmer).

Perhaps we need to wait for the legislation to develope before we can look at ways of working within its strictures.

Alternatively maybe you could work with an ANSP who would cover the certification requirments in exchange for your traffic bringing some benefit to them. I think this is the thinking behind Avbrief's tie-ups with both Navbox and Notam Plot. I'm sure Avbrief make no profit from acting as the data source but they may get some benefit by association, i.e. it brings their products to the notice of potential customers.

The alternative of course is that a commercial provider just nicks your ideas in order to provide a paid for service, which would be a poor reward for all of your hard work.

Mike

[PartOrbit]

Very good system.

Just downloaded the Full UK AIP seems like there are numerous pages out of sequence, not alphabetical, making it difficult to find some details. Anything we can do about this?

For example the entry for Manchester (EGCC) starts at page 185 for a couple of pages, the rest then start at page 571

Cheers

[drauk]

Anything we can do about this?

Yep, I can send you the several hundred documents and you can sort them by hand!!!!

Seriously though, it's an automated process, based on the filename. Perhaps one day we'll add some additional logic so that it's done differently, but it's not really a priority I'm afraid.

[IO540]

Mike

The whole system works on the basis that each State provides briefing services only for flights originating within its own airspace.

I thought we did this one to death in various places already.

Assuming that you have a plane with sufficient range then any route could be flown with a UK departure.

So UK AIS must deliver enroute notams for any route, anywhere.

You could then land at any airport capable of receiving international traffic.

So UK IAS must deliver airport notams for all airports capable of receiving international traffic.

I know what you are getting at (e.g. briefing a flight from Germany to Spain using an AIS website in Mongolia) are officially frowned upon because everybody would congregate on the one website that is most usable; such is the internet...) but the reality is that the information cannot be restricted in that way.

The only restriction I know of, and the only one which I have ever seen you or anybody else list definitively, is the French domestic (D series) notams which they deliberately do not distribute to non-Schengen states, presumably on the basis that nobody outside Schengen could fly there anyway. But then if you fly to little fields within France, you also have to speak French...


As for the certification of AIS providers, I could get very cynical about this.

The UK Met Office has a good weather model for the UK but it is not made available to GA - except for TAFs/METARs (which you can get from anywhere anyway), MSLP charts (likewise), the famous F215 and similar very basic stuff, of minimal use for IFR. They don't release the really good stuff like the 3D model which would enable vertical profile forecasts to be generated. This kind of stuff is sold to commercial weather briefing packagers, who are obviously not going to stick it on a free website.

The only bits of the UKMO data that "leak out" in various corners of the internet are ones which the UKMO has to supply to other countries, and some of them choose to publish it. Like http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html which (University of Wyoming) is where you find ascent (skew-t) data for the UK and Europe :)

So a lot of people, and most of the "unofficial" weather websites, use the American-run worldwide GFS data.

I reckon this certification is something which the weather data industry has lobbied for, to protect the resale of their data in the face of more and more stuff slowly finding its way onto the internet.

I also reckon that this certification is going to be meaningless, in the context of any amateur website, and also in the context of any website hosted outside the EU. They might just have to get their data feed from somewhere outside the EU.

Crude protectionism, that's all it is.

For me, I just love to find the occassional nugget like http://www.meteox.com weather radar (warning: N Italy feed seems to have been pulled, which is why N Italy looks very clean) and http://pages.unibas.ch/geo/mcr/3d/meteo/ which AIUI was just somebody's PhD project but which is the sort of stuff which the UKMO should provide to all pilots.

[Mike Cross]

No disagreement IO

The French example is just one I know of. If I can't line up other examples It doesn't mean they don't exist now or can't exist in the future. The fact is that if you took a snapshot of the NOTAM database of State A and compared it with a snapshot of the NOTAM database of State B you would find differences. The safest way is therefore to do what the rules expect and take a brief from a service that uses the database of the State within which your flight originates.

WRT the certification of ANSP's, it would be up to a Court to decide whether or not the briefing you took complied with the requirement of Art 52 of the ANO
52 The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall take all
reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;.......

I'm only the messenger, I don't write the rules, I was just trying to ensure that drauk knows the way the authorities are moving.

Mike

[IO540]

Fortunately Art 52 is massively non-specific :)

I would be amazed if somebody briefing from GFS got done; the data from GFS is no more and no less random than the data from the UKMO. But - depending which website you use - it's potentially far more complete and that would make a very compelling pro-safety argument; a good lawyer would make mincemeat of the other side by drawing attention to the data which the UKMO witholds in order to make money.

But not a lot of people know about Art 52; I am sure that most UK PPLs really do believe that you have to brief from the UKMO to be legal. A bit like carrying paper charts - no law (in the UK) requiring that either.

[martello]

la bite d'ane ( to add to the cohones list) (thats french of course - nothing to do with nihbahs)
Anyway can I - as an ex IT man - add my worship tothelist - it si a thoroughly excellent site - very intuitive and summarises stuff in an easily digested way - It is so excellent I can't believe it wont be charged for soon.

[funfly]

What I find particularly appealing about Druik's site is the graphic NOTAM presentation.
I don't fly every day (in fact since selling my aircraft I don't even fly every week!) but what I do do is take a look at the local NOTAM's most days - just out of interest. It's so easy to see what is going on.
I find that I am getting a 'feel' of what NOTAMs are around and it all seems a lot easier to remember - as opposed to getting a full brief just when I am about to fly. I can understand how 'regular' pilots find it so much easier to take in NOTAM information that us 'irregular' pilots.
This daily routine has not been suggested before and would be impossible using the AIS site, but is an approach that helps me and one I would recommend.
When you check your emails check http://fly.dsc.net/u/Map

P.S. Druik, it looks better without the advert!

[drauk]

P.S. Druik, it looks better without the advert!

Better without the advert it may look, but I've not asked for nor received a single penny from anyone for running the site 24/7 for several years. You don't seriously expect me not to take up an inch of my screen space with notice of my own aeroplane for sale do you?!

[funfly]

'course not - its a pity my last comment detracted from the main point of my submission eh?

If I, and many others, are prepared to pay use Avbrief, pay to update NotamPro and pay to update our GPSs , then I don't know why we would be unwilling to pay for the use of your service.

Nothing wrong with being commercial:)

Why not take a poll? (no not pill !) (or maybe take a pill as well !)

[drauk]

No need for that - just get someone to buy the aeroplane and the ad will go away!

http://fly.dsc.net/fs/n22nn

[funfly]

Just sold mine:) - recommend ebay, not to actually get a sale but the publicity is fantastic.

[Bert Stiles]

Apologies for repeating the question on this sticky.

Is there a way of defining the route you want as a Lat/Long or WPT/DIST?

BS.

[drauk]

Is there a way of defining the route you want as a Lat/Long or WPT/DIST?

No.

Out of interest, why do you want to?

[Bert Stiles]

Drauk,

My UK routes involve 5 hour tours of both FIRs at low and high level, VFR and IFR. Turning points are 70 - 80% defined by Lat and Long over sea areas - some coastal, but equally likely to be near the boundaries. Over land I use Lat and Long as well. Radial and distance from a navaid could be used, but that involves more work on my part to translate the turning points.

Your graphical plot receives high praise so I'm interested in trying it out. Many people would say that if you feed the right information in to the NATS Narrow Route Brief you'll get what you want - I beg to differ, but at the moment its the best thing on offer - it will accept Lat and Long, won't produce a plot and generates a forest if you do the sorts of routes I mean. It can be (f)rigged to cut down the forest, but to ensure total coverage the saving is relatively small.

I've tried a couple of other plotted presentations, but they sometimes suffer from a lack of discrimination when listing particular classes of notam, eg after the main plotted information, a list of remaining, unplottable, notams will give several tens of frequency and SSR code changes - fair enough - then in the same list "oh by the way" an unlit mast of 250' asl at X somewhere in the Thames Estuary - which should be plottable and I would want to know about.

I presume Lat and Long would be difficult?

BS

[EESDL]

knew it was too good to be true,....................

[LH2]

And if I may take up an old discussion, with reference to the posts by Mike Cross (yes, I'm aware you're only the messenger) regarding where and how to get the data, etc., I have a couple thoughts:

* Why can't ICAO (or even individual aviation authorities) come up with a system for the data to be distributed electronically, in machine readable form, directly from the national aviation authorities to the end user (to be crude, think an XML-based web service)? Is there any initiative at all in this respect, which I would have thought a rather obvious move?

* As far as certified data providers go, why would the provider, rather than the originator of the data, be in need of certification? Can't quite understand that one without my cynic hat on.

[Mike Cross]

Hi LH2

The XML initiative is a thing called AIXM (Aeronautical Information Exchange Model) being developed by Eurocontrol with support from the FAA. It's been under development for some time and a quick Google will turn up more information.

ANSP certification is something out of EASA and is to my mind something of a joke. The CAA have taken a light touch with it and seem more concerned with the financial stability of the ANSP than anything else (a similar approach to their major work in consumer protection for air travellers). It's not difficult to justify a need for standards on the part of the data handler. To give you an analogy, it's perfectly possible to turn a perfectly good and wholesome food product into something toxic by poor handling. The main focus is however more on the provision of Air Traffic Services than NOTAM. It's not really an issue at the moment for people like drauk but we need to keep an eye on it.

What's caused the problem for drauk and others is their decision to develop something based on PIB (Pre-Flight Information Bulletins) rather than the raw data. The result is that when the format of the PIB and the method of getting it changes (as it has) you're faced with a major re-write of your own software. The raw data is to a standard ICAO format which has not changed.

The decision has been forced on them by the fact that provision of PIB is free while a raw data feed has to be paid for. An exception is Notamplot, which gets a free feed from Avbrief who pay for a raw data feed. Other commercial briefing services and the airlines also use a raw data feed, which they pay for. This inhibits the provision of a free data feed. Those who pay for it would understandably be upset if someone else got it for free. A further complication is that the data is in theory the property of the originator.

NATS have been helping drauk explore the possibility of getting a feed of the raw data and Eurocontrol have come up with what I think is a pretty reasonable cost. The trouble is that we can't expect someone like drauk to put his hand into his own pocket to pay for it, no matter how reasonable the cost might be.

I've been in correspondence with Eurocontrol to see if we can come up with a framework for something that would allow NATS to provide a raw data feed for UK and near european FIR's to "no charge" service providers in a way that would avoid conflict with commercial interests. You'll appreciate that this won't be easy. The response is encouraging but it's certainly not something that can be done overnight. First we need to get Eurocontrol, who hold the database, to agree in principle, then we need to get the CAA to agree to fund NATS so they can commission EAD to write the software.

I hope this explanation of AOPA UK's current activity in this area is helpful.

Mike

[LH2]

Hi Mike,

thanks for your informative reply, which I shall revisit at some latter point. Excuse the brevity for now but I'm rather pressed for time these days.

NATS have been helping drauk explore the possibility of getting a feed of the raw data and Eurocontrol have come up with what I think is a pretty reasonable cost

Would it be possible for you to expand a little bit on that? Also, approximately what would "a reasonable cost" be? PM, if you wish.

[IO540]

I've been in correspondence with Eurocontrol to see if we can come up with a framework for something that would allow NATS to provide a raw data feed for UK and near european FIR's to "no charge" service providers in a way that would avoid conflict with commercial interests.

Precisely whose commercial interests?

The name wouldn't start with a "J" by any chance?

There is NO mandate in this game to support any commercial interest. This data should be free at the point of delivery.

[Mike Cross]

LH2

If you're asking "how much?" then I'd prefer not to be explicit as I was simply copied in on the correspondence and not the main addressee. You'll have to take my word that it was not unreasonable. However, no matter how low it is it would still be money out of the personal pocket of the person who's providing a service for free. That's why I was exploring the possibility of getting NATS to fund access not only for drauk but also for anyone else providing a free service.

IO

No one precisely and I have no idea who you mean by "J" unless it's Jeppesen.
At the moment it's an entirely level playing field. Anyone wanting access to raw data to provide a briefing service can get it for a fee. NATS, the airlines, and the commmercial briefing services all pay for access to the data held by EAD. The alternative is to maintain your own database, populated by a feed from the AFTN and subscribing to NOTAM from all of the ICAO States. Until recently that's what NATS did. They've now decided that it is more efficient to share a common European database rather than run their own.

CAA funds NATS to deliver PIB in accordance with the UK's obligations under the Chicago Convention. NATS does it by paying EAD to provide the website that forms the delivery mechanism. CAA in return recovers the costs from en-route charges. The majority of GA pilots don't pay these charges and get the NATS service free. The only real difference betweeen what NATS are doing and what any other briefing service is doing is that NATS are paying EAD to run the NATS website, whereas other commercial briefing services simply pay for access to the data and then run their own websites.

To my mind you cannot create an unfair situation where some users pay for access to the same product and others do not. EAD is a commercial organisation and if you want them to do the job without charging fees then they would need to be funded to do so. It's a little outside AOPA UK's remit to suggest that the governments of the Eurocontrol countries should provide funding to a commercial organisation. It would in any case be a daft idea because it would be practically impossible to prevent commercial concerns outside the funding States from gaining access to what is a worldwide database.

The way to deal with access for "free to user" providers IMHO is for sponsored access with some restrictions. The sort of thing I have in mind is to limit it to European rather than worldwide data, to limit access to providers of free to user services for leisure pilots that are not bundled with any paid-for product, and not to allow the data to be passed on to a third party for re-use. The avenue I'm exploring is for CAA to provide funding to allow NATS to sponsor access.

This is a long and carefully thought out reply to a simple question. I hope it illustrates to you that apparently simple ideas end up requiring a lot of careful consideration.

[ahs]

Mike

Firstly - Thank you for your efforts to persuade the CAA to provide a raw data feed.

But I'm not sure I entirely agree with your arguments on the commercial nature of NOTAM provision. It seems to me that if anyone has to pay for NOTAM distribution then it should logically be the originators of the NOTAMs - they are the cause of the "problems" so they should be the ones to pay. Obviously this is a complete non-starter for safety reasons, but I don't see this automatically means that we should have to pay to receive the information. If someone wants to reserve a chunk of airspace for their own use why should I need to pay to get a map of where it is?

Secondly there is an important distinction between using the NOTAM data for personal information and re-distributing it for commercial gain (however small.) In the second case it is reasonable you have to pay a fee, but not I think in the first case. In fact, this is the situation that already exists. NATS terms and conditions state that you must not "modify or download the Website or its contents (except caching or as necessary to view Content)." This is the important element in avoiding the unfair situation you mention, the format of the data seems to me irrelevant.

Your idea of a free, but restricted service, for the leisure pilot seems a good idea if it gets around the problem. The best of luck getting the CAA to agree.

Cheers,
Alan