The NOTAM/NATS/AIS meeting, 15th November. Vote here.

[bpilatus]

I have been reading the NOTAM posts, but I think something should be done sooner.

What do you think?

What if nothing happens after the meeting in November what happens next?

[Flyin'Dutch']

I think it would be counterproductive to get into the way of the people that are sorting this thing out.

I believe the CAA is very much on the case.

Have to say that I am less than impressed with the lack of real progress to date.

Yes it does stumble a bit less often than before (I think) but no it still does not give easy access to the appropriate information.

MHO of course

FD

[sennadog]

Wait until after the meeting and in the meantime petition the relevant parties. I may have misinterpreted your option regarding contacting newspapers but IMO this would not lead to a satisfactory outcome - you can just imagine a journo sensationalising the whole issue and the ensuing mess that could cause.

If the outcome of the meeting is less than satisfactory it will be a good opportunity to get behind the PFA/AOPA etc and other bodies so that collectively GA grows some balls in the UK and our opinions are heard.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

dunno, probably. But then my wife thinks that 3 minutes is too long!:)

[maggioneato]

What can we do? Understand there is a meeting on 15th Nov,wonder how long will it take after that to implement whatever is agreed, if anything is agreed,suspect it will take longer to sort out, than it did to mess it up. :(

[alphaalpha]

I agree with Sennadog. Contacting newspapers and politicians could well cause more (unpredictable) problems than it solves. The meeting is next week. Let us use that time to ensure that the attendees of the meeting (Mike and Russell and NATS and the CAA) are aware of our views.

However, we do not want a fragmented set of opinions which are hard to implement. IMHO the best action this week is a simple email to the parties which supports the proposals as written in the Telecall website.

It seems to me that both NATS and CAA want to sort out the problem and we should help them put the main fixes in place quickly. Fine tuning can be done later.

If the GA community is not happy with the result of the meeting, there will be plenty of views aired on this forum about what to do next.

[singaporegirl]

I agree with Sennadog too, at least with regard to newspapers. GA has an problem with its safety image as it is (judging by the number of my friends who are always quick to tell me with mock horror about yet another light aircraft that has gone down :mad: ). And you can imagine all those Nimbys who will add to their complaints about noise - 'And they don't even know which areas they should be avoiding...'.

Whipping Boy's SATCO, your wife is very unusual: most women take completely the opposite view! :D

[FlyingForFun]

Until recently, I had a lot of confidence in Mike and Russel's ability to get the whole mess sorted out. Now, though, I'm not too sure - nothing to do with Mike and Russel's capabilities, but the fact that the software vendors appear to be refusing to get involved really isn't a good sign. I agree that it wouldn't be commercially viable for them to start talking to us without the AIS as a go-between, but they certainly should be attending official meetings, listening to our views, and then discussing the options with the AIS.

Not sure what the best thing to do is, though.

FFF
---------------

[rustle]

FFF - why don't you ask Thales directly?

Email: [email protected]

If they tell you, let us know.

If they don't, we know already.

[Rod1]

FFF

The big worry is NATS IT. We have not been able to enter into any direct dialog with them on the proposals. With the meeting coming rapidly closer the 4 of us are likely to find a significant amount of time has been wasted which could have brought this sorry tale to a close in less time than it will take if the first comments we get are at the meeting.

We do not know if the proposals have been passed on to Thales officially for costing and time framing, or what NATS IT have in mind at all:(

Rod

[ModernDinosaur]

Yes, 3 months is far too long. Would you wait three months for a set of faulty traffic lights stuck on "all green" to be repaired?

Sadly, GA in the UK doesn't have the teeth it needs to be able to do very much at the moment. Mike and Russell are doing about as much as they can - sadly they don't seem to be getting all that much help from AOPA or the PFA who really should be fighting this battle for us.

I'm a member of both AOPA and the PFA, and I am one of the pilots who suffered a missing NOTAM with the result that I nearly became part of an airshow. I reported this to the AIS, FlyOnTrack, the PFA, AOPA and MOR'd the AIS website.

AIS were interested, were aware that there were problems, but said they could do much about it, not even return to the old A-series bulletins.

FlyOnTrack were very helpful, with several phone conversations, and it was they who suggested the MOR.

The PFA replied with a standard "thank you for your email" email. AOPA and the CAA couldn't even manage to acknowledge receipt of my comments.

Now where is GA's representation? AOPA and the PFA have both failed, as far as I am concerned, and they are the recipients of my hard earned cash. I shall be thinking long and hard about renewing next year. The CAA, at least privately, seems quite concerned, as they should be. FlyOnTrack is very concerned, thank goodness - I don't think we would be anywhere like as far towards a solution without their support. Even NATS/AIS seem to be trying to improve things.

If the organisations supposed to represent GA, and funded to do so, fail so completely in such a serious situation as the current NOTAM problems, what recourse do we have? Concerned, public spirited, private individuals - who, fortunately, seem to be doing a very good job with relatively little official support and almost no funding.

Would going to the press and/or Parliament help? No. It would turn a major safety-critical mess into a game of "pin the blame on the donkey". At the moment the best the GA community can do is support Mike and Russell in every way it can, and lobby AOPA and the PFA to take a more pro-active role in sorting this mess out before someone dies.

Cheers,

MD - currently grounded due to lack of reliable NOTAMs.

[rustle]

ModernDinosaur

Some time ago Mike and I sent all out proposals and website details to AOPA and the PFA.

To date we have heard nothing from AOPA.

"Unofficially" Rod(1) is representing PFA at the meeting on 15/11, but he's wearing the 'all GA' hat, the same as the rest of us. (Andy is BGA)

PFA have suggested that we use their magazine to publish meeting outputs to those who don't PPRuNe.

BGA have links on their website pointing to ours.

We've spoken at length to the FoT Team, and you're aware of our discussions with CAA: SRG, DAP and SDD

We have emailed Thales, and their response was not to discuss UK AIS website issues with us, they will only discuss with NATS.

We have approached NATS IS/IT, and their response was not to discuss UK AIS website issues with us, they will only discuss with AIS.

We have (obviously) spoken at length with AIS, and they will speak to anyone. Helpful and resourceful, but not IT people.

Most of the non-IT issues have been or are being resolved. AIS are actively pursuing the originators to try and resolve the "clutter". They are also refining the processes by which NOTAM are included in the various "briefings".

We have set up monitoring (every five minutes) which shows when the website is unavailable - both Mike and I get emails every day with the stats...

I would venture to suggest that WHEN AIS get all the non-IT issues cleared up, and IF the IT side gets sorted, the UK will have the best NOTAM briefing system in the world. AGAIN.

Oh, and by the way:

...with relatively little official support and almost no funding
It's fair to say that originally we had zero support, now I believe that AIS, CAA, PFA, BGA, PPL/IR Europe are on-side and assisting where they are able. (Sincere apologies if I missed anyone)

Funding? We both still have day jobs if that's what you mean :D

You can buy us a beer if things get back to normal - celebrations all around

Russell

[ModernDinosaur]

Thanks for replying, Russell - my apologies if my comments mis-represented the true state of affairs, especially regarding the contribution from the PFA.

Funding? We both still have day jobs if that's what you mean :D

Erm - not quite ;)

You can buy us a beer if things get back to normal - celebrations all around

I think I, along with many other GA pilots, owe you both slightly more than one beer. Prepare to get very, very drunk!

Cheers,

MD.

[Rod1]

Update for you

The MP Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what representations he has received from UK pilots who have to log onto the Swedish air traffic service in order to obtain UK NOTAM for safety and time critical information owing to faults on the UK NATS website.[R]

Still nothing from NATS IT!!

Rod

[rustle]

In the spirit of MP activity, here's a copy of my letter to my MP sent 12 September 2002:

================================

I want to call your attention to the recent changes in NOTAM service that has been implemented by NATS/AIS (National Air Traffic Services/Air Information Services)

NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) are a vital service by which current operational matters are made known to pilots. Recent examples affecting myself are a change in instrument approach procedures at Farnborough, a large crane operating close to Blackbushe, various “temporary restricted areas” (TRA’s) due to scene-of-crime investigations or foot-and-mouth etc., and parachute jumps and Red Arrows displays in the vicinity of Farnborough/Blackbushe/Camberley.

In the interests of flight safety, it is critical that pilots should be able to get this kind of information easily.

I’m sure I don’t need to explain that the outcome of not having this information could be disastrous.

Until 21st August 2002 NOTAMS were promulgated by daily navigation bulletins that were very easy to get from the AIS website. (www.ais.org.uk)

These are known as A1 & A8 bulletins.

The A1/A8 NOTAMS were sorted by Latitude (first) then by Longitude, such that finding NOTAMs that may affect your flight was relatively simple: You knew the Lat/Long co-ordinates of the area where you would be flying so you checked those NOTAMs.

The changes made by NATS on their website have made information very much harder to get and use.

The output is no longer sorted by Lat/Long, but by “type” and alphabetically by ICAO code. (Most airfields worldwide have an ICAO code, all UK fields starting EG. So Heathrow is EGLL, Farnborough is EGLF, Gatwick is EGKK, and Blackbushe is EGLK etc.)

Sorting alphabetically by ICAO is useless when you are attempting to get some situational awareness of an area, as the codes do not work that way!

The other major issue with the new system is “missing” NOTAMs – there are many reported cases of data appearing in the old A1/A8 format, but not appearing on the new issue…


During 2002, the CAA commissioned an independent trio of pilots into a team, known as the “On Track Team”

The following text is taken from their website (www.flyontrack.co.uk)

We are a team of three independent (non CAA) pilots, who have been asked by the CAA to have a fresh look at the whole subject of Airspace Infringements from the pilot’s perspective, under a project entitled “On Track”.

Although there is considerable information through the normal reporting system, less detail is available on why infringements happen. It is only after we know why they occur that improvements to “the system” can be made. “On Track” aims to collect as much of this detail as possible, to identify causes and promote suggested improvements.

The “On Track” initiative was the first time General Aviation (“GA”) pilots could contribute, anonymously if required, to a safety “forum” – especially in the realm of airspace “busts”.

The scale of disappointment of the NATS changes is easy to see if one has a look at the comments on the “On Track” message board.

The “New AIS Service” thread dwarfs anything else on there.

Comments are not only from GA pilots but air traffic controllers (ironically some employed by NATS).

Were that insufficient feedback, there is a thread running on PPRuNe (Professional Pilot’s Rumour Network) in the Private Flying forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66083)

This thread now has over 120 contributions again with many from air traffic controllers as well as pilots.

The situation is very dangerous. Some airfields are without NOTAM information. Some pilots are without NOTAM information.

The A1 & A8 bulletins which we relied upon previously are still produced daily by NATS/AIS. They have simply ceased to be available to GA pilots or regional airfields. This adds insult to injury.

The A1 & A8 data is available to “MARS” terminals – these terminals are in all BAA airfields, Jersey, and several other locations – and the underlying data (including the Lat/Long info) is still input by NATS/AIS.
(MARS = Met. and AIS Retrieval System)

It is because of the numerous shortcomings of the new AIS website, and the knowledge that A1/A8 data is still available that GA and others are increasingly frustrated with NATS.

Yesterday, 11/9/2002, NATS released a statement regarding the new offering, and it failed to address one issue that had been raised either directly to NATS or via one of the forums mentioned above. (Which NATS insist they are monitoring)

See: http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/en/image/NATS_Statement_11-09-2002.pdf

I have raised an “MOR” (Mandatory Occurrence Report) regarding NATS/AIS due to the failings of the new system. This forces the CAA Safety Data Department to investigate further.

I am aware that several other pilots either have done, or will do, the same.

I have also written to the Air Accident Investigation Board (“AAIB”) to ask if they can lend some weight to our request for changes at NATS/AIS.

Without some additional pressure, hopefully from yourselves, we cannot possibly fight our corner.

So what do we, GA pilots, actually want?

1. A return to the daily A1 & A8 NOTAM briefings, available on the AIS website – as described above, this data already exists so a simple URL will solve this problem. (This at least until all of the problems with the new system are resolved)
2. A reasoned reply to all of the (growing) requests from ATC and pilots, and not “spin” per the current announcement.
3. Some dialogue between NATS/AIS and the users of the system! If the old website had mentioned this new service offering* most of these issues would never have arisen.
* The changes to AIS information were announced in an AIC (Air Information Circular) in May 2002. Ref: AIC 54/2002 (Yellow 85) 30 May
4. A genuine trial-period, so that users can use both old and new systems, gain confidence that nothing is missing, and learn how to use the new system properly

Please help us!

Please ask the Minister concerned why this situation has been allowed to spiral out of control.

Please ask NATS/AIS what they are actually doing about the situation.

Many thanks for your time, and assistance.

Signed.

================================

And here's the response received:




================================


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK


================================

Ah yes, British democracy at its finest. :p

So to answer your question, bpilatus, don't waste your time.

[dodgylanding]

Could we change the title of this thread?

I don't read every thread that turns up, and this one didn't look particularly interesting, so I didn't know it was about NOTAMS. If I'd known, I'd have voted earlier.

"What should we do about NOTAMS" might get more hits, and more votes.

[rustle]

Good idea - anything to get more than a handful of votes has to be a Good Thing.

BRL, is this possible?!

[BRL]

There you go, I hope this is ok. If not let me know and i will change it again. Stuck it for a few days too. :)

[Keef]

I finally got round to reading PPRuNe from my holiday hideaway, and was shocked to notice on there the total absence of activity from AOPA on this topic.

I went to the AOPA AGM and pressed them to appoint another full-time staffer to be "Communications Person". The suggestion was listened to politely, and various promises made.

None of the promises were in the minutes when they finally came out. None of them has been acted on in any way. I think AOPA is moribund as far as the members can see (it may be doing good things, but not visibly and not enough).

I've written to AOPA to point out the serious criticism implied here, but it might be an idea if a few other AOPA members did the same.

When I get back home, I might post a PPRuNe item on AOPA and what needs to be done to get it into the 21st Century. I've done a lot of thinking and a bit of research...

Not relevant for NOTAMs - but DO lob a firecracker in their direction!

[rustle]

Hi Keef :)

I'm not an AOPA member so I can't complain...

But I am extremely surprised that they haven't said anything about it at all: either to us directly, here on PPRuNe, or on their website.

BRL,

Much better title - seems to have done the trick. Thanks

Does this mean that 40 people have written to their MPs and/or newspapers?

[BRL]

Does this mean that 40 people have written to their MPs and/or newspapers?
I hope so. Just in case people are stuck for something to say, i have copied this from your post on page 1.

All you lot have to do is copy/paste it into Word than print it out and send it off......Easy :) I want to call your attention to the recent changes in NOTAM service that has been implemented by NATS/AIS (National Air Traffic Services/Air Information Services)

NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) are a vital service by which current operational matters are made known to pilots. Recent examples affecting myself are a change in instrument approach procedures at Farnborough, a large crane operating close to Blackbushe, various “temporary restricted areas” (TRA’s) due to scene-of-crime investigations or foot-and-mouth etc., and parachute jumps and Red Arrows displays in the vicinity of Farnborough/Blackbushe/Camberley.

In the interests of flight safety, it is critical that pilots should be able to get this kind of information easily.

I’m sure I don’t need to explain that the outcome of not having this information could be disastrous.

Until 21st August 2002 NOTAMS were promulgated by daily navigation bulletins that were very easy to get from the AIS website. (www.ais.org.uk)

These are known as A1 & A8 bulletins.

The A1/A8 NOTAMS were sorted by Latitude (first) then by Longitude, such that finding NOTAMs that may affect your flight was relatively simple: You knew the Lat/Long co-ordinates of the area where you would be flying so you checked those NOTAMs.

The changes made by NATS on their website have made information very much harder to get and use.

The output is no longer sorted by Lat/Long, but by “type” and alphabetically by ICAO code. (Most airfields worldwide have an ICAO code, all UK fields starting EG. So Heathrow is EGLL, Farnborough is EGLF, Gatwick is EGKK, and Blackbushe is EGLK etc.)

Sorting alphabetically by ICAO is useless when you are attempting to get some situational awareness of an area, as the codes do not work that way!

The other major issue with the new system is “missing” NOTAMs – there are many reported cases of data appearing in the old A1/A8 format, but not appearing on the new issue…


During 2002, the CAA commissioned an independent trio of pilots into a team, known as the “On Track Team”

The following text is taken from their website (www.flyontrack.co.uk)

We are a team of three independent (non CAA) pilots, who have been asked by the CAA to have a fresh look at the whole subject of Airspace Infringements from the pilot’s perspective, under a project entitled “On Track”.

Although there is considerable information through the normal reporting system, less detail is available on why infringements happen. It is only after we know why they occur that improvements to “the system” can be made. “On Track” aims to collect as much of this detail as possible, to identify causes and promote suggested improvements.

The “On Track” initiative was the first time General Aviation (“GA”) pilots could contribute, anonymously if required, to a safety “forum” – especially in the realm of airspace “busts”.

The scale of disappointment of the NATS changes is easy to see if one has a look at the comments on the “On Track” message board.

The “New AIS Service” thread dwarfs anything else on there.

Comments are not only from GA pilots but air traffic controllers (ironically some employed by NATS).

Were that insufficient feedback, there is a thread running on PPRuNe (Professional Pilot’s Rumour Network) in the Private Flying forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showth...&threadid=66083)

This thread now has over 120 contributions again with many from air traffic controllers as well as pilots.

The situation is very dangerous. Some airfields are without NOTAM information. Some pilots are without NOTAM information.

The A1 & A8 bulletins which we relied upon previously are still produced daily by NATS/AIS. They have simply ceased to be available to GA pilots or regional airfields. This adds insult to injury.

The A1 & A8 data is available to “MARS” terminals – these terminals are in all BAA airfields, Jersey, and several other locations – and the underlying data (including the Lat/Long info) is still input by NATS/AIS.
(MARS = Met. and AIS Retrieval System)

It is because of the numerous shortcomings of the new AIS website, and the knowledge that A1/A8 data is still available that GA and others are increasingly frustrated with NATS.

Yesterday, 11/9/2002, NATS released a statement regarding the new offering, and it failed to address one issue that had been raised either directly to NATS or via one of the forums mentioned above. (Which NATS insist they are monitoring)

See: http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/en/image/..._11-09-2002.pdf

I have raised an “MOR” (Mandatory Occurrence Report) regarding NATS/AIS due to the failings of the new system. This forces the CAA Safety Data Department to investigate further.

I am aware that several other pilots either have done, or will do, the same.

I have also written to the Air Accident Investigation Board (“AAIB”) to ask if they can lend some weight to our request for changes at NATS/AIS.

Without some additional pressure, hopefully from yourselves, we cannot possibly fight our corner.

So what do we, GA pilots, actually want?

1. A return to the daily A1 & A8 NOTAM briefings, available on the AIS website – as described above, this data already exists so a simple URL will solve this problem. (This at least until all of the problems with the new system are resolved)
2. A reasoned reply to all of the (growing) requests from ATC and pilots, and not “spin” per the current announcement.
3. Some dialogue between NATS/AIS and the users of the system! If the old website had mentioned this new service offering* most of these issues would never have arisen.
* The changes to AIS information were announced in an AIC (Air Information Circular) in May 2002. Ref: AIC 54/2002 (Yellow 85) 30 May
4. A genuine trial-period, so that users can use both old and new systems, gain confidence that nothing is missing, and learn how to use the new system properly

Please help us!

Please ask the Minister concerned why this situation has been allowed to spiral out of control.

Please ask NATS/AIS what they are actually doing about the situation.

Many thanks for your time, and assistance.

Signed.

[Evo]

Rustle, I'm not defending your MP but I suspect that the letter is so long that it exceeded his/her attention span. I've fired off an edited copy to my MP, but the original was more than two pages of 10 point text. I cut it down to less than one without missing much out, so hopefully that will get some response. I'm not holding my breath, but at least I've done something....

[rustle]

Evo,

My MP is a "her", and she's in the opposition (! :rolleyes: !), so she's got plenty of time to read 2-page letters :D

Nice one though - mail me a copy if you like - I have a massive folder of "feedback" should anyone doubt it on Friday ;)

[BRL]

Evo Any chance of posting your edited text here?

[rustle]

Have a read of this:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=notam+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/cm021105/text/21105w02.htm#21105w02.html_wqn5

(Extract follows)

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the state of faults on the UK NATS website; and when the faults will be rectified;[R] [79443]
5 Nov 2002 : Column 148W
(2) what representations he has received from UK pilots who have to log onto the Swedish air traffic service in order to obtain UK NOTAM for safety and time critical information owing to faults on the UK NATS website.[R] [79442]

Mr. Jamieson: National Air Traffic Services Ltd. introduced a new on-line information system in late August, replacing the former manual system. The change was made after extensive consultation with users. The new system is intended to provide much wider access to pre-flight information, thereby enhancing safety, but some general aviation users who are accustomed to the manual system have not found it easy to adapt.
The system is provided with back-up facilities and, while—as with most other similar websites—it may be necessary to suspend operation for very short periods, I am assured that the continuity of service will not be significantly compromised.


So who was consulted? Who is this Jamieson character who, basically, is suggesting that the problems are OUR fault?

Come on folks - this is outrageous:mad:

[BRL]

Unreal or what.!! :mad: :confused: :eek: :mad: :confused: :eek: :rolleyes:

[Warped Factor]

See reply re Jamieson on the NOTAM thread in the ATC forum.

WF.

[Philip Whiteman]

There have been a number of postings critical of AOPA: as editor of the organisation's journal, General Aviation I can assure you that Martin Robinson has been active in contacting AIS and the other parties involved. His early involvement suggested that those involved had realised quite how badly they had gone wrong right from the start. On the understanding that the AIS team knew what had to be put right and were working hard to correct the problems, AOPA - rightly or wrongly - decided to avoid taking a public position in berating people who had made and owned up to mistakes that they seemed to be working hard to rectify.

Martin will be attending tomorrow's meeting (15 Nov) to firmly express AOPA's views on the joint NATS/AIS resposibility to produce an adequate and workable Notam system. There, of course, be a full report in GA—so AOPA members will soon learn what has been done on their behalf.

Interestingly, although there has been a request for comments on AOPA's website for some time, not one person has used this route to make their views known.

[rustle]

Philip

...active in contacting AIS and the other parties involved...
Which "others"?
When?

...to firmly express AOPA's views...
What are AOPA's views that will be firmly expressed?

Thanks in advance.

[Keef]

Philip wrote:

"Interestingly, although there has been a request for comments on AOPA's website for some time, not one person has used this route to make their views known."

While I don't read the AOPA website as often as others (I have to dig out my membership card to find my number to log on), I don't recall seeing anything there about making views known on this (or indeed on much else).

I just looked again and couldn't find it.

Might be an idea to hide it less efficiently.

I was very surprised to hear that AOPA has been involved in discussions with AIS on this, as all the reports I've read about discussions and meetings with AIS have mentioned the same four people...

[Aussie Andy]

I tried to login once - used the number on my card... no luck. Sent email to "help" address provided and got back a message saying basically "well it should work!?".. NO USE AT ALL! Have given up..

PW: take note mate!

[Philip Whiteman]

I take note of all your comments. Those concerned with the website should be aware of them, but I will pass them on to AOPA as a matter of course...

It will be easier to expand on AOPA's position when Martin gets his notes from today's meeting to me, although you will understand that my prime responsibility is to knock them into shape for inclusion in the December issue of General Aviation (currently in production).

I am sorry that AOPA is not so hot on PR, because much more is going on than most people realise. (AOPA has an information officer, but no formal PR arrangement.) When I first came to aviation magazine editing, it was quite a revelation to discover how active the organisation is in speaking up for light aviation. There is only a handfull of full-time officers, but they work very hard.

We might debate chickens and eggs regarding the scale of representation, but the fact remains that, if more people joined...

[Mike Cross]

For an update on the meeting that took place at AIS Heathrow on Friday please go to:-
http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais/news!.htm

Then get back here and start posting!

Mike

[Evo]

Received a reply to my letter -

Dear ....

Thank you for your letter and the very clear explanation about the difficulties you are experiencing with NATS/AIS.

I would be happy to take this matter up with the Rt Hon John Spellar MP, the Minister responsible for aviation, and would like to include a copy of your letter. Would you please confirm that you have no objection to this <contact details snipped>.

Yours sincerely, Andrew Tyrie MP

So that's something. Rustle, could you drop me a note to confirm that you have no objections (as you wrote it - I just cut bits out :) ) and I will get back to him.

[rustle]

How many ministers of aviation do we have :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Talk about cooks and broth...

There's darling, jamieson, and now spellar!

(Maybe one is for unnecessary rule 5 changes, one for poorly implemented AIS provision, and one for ludicrous Mode S requirements :))

Evo, I have no objection to your edited and signed (by you) version of my text going to any or all the above gents.

It's a shame my MP chose to do SFA about it - I may have to name and shame :p :p

I hope you also mentioned the raw data requirement??

(If you didn't mention it yet, tell him he can use the letter if he adds the raw data requirement ;))

[Mike Cross]

With regard to AOPA's input on AIS.

Martin Robinson, CEO of AOPA, was at the meeting at Heathrow on 15 Nov and you can find his account at http://www.aopa.co.uk/newsfromaopa/aopanews.asp

The chairman was concerned that those attending should do so as representatives of users in general, rather than as representing any particular organisation, which accounts for the AOPA name not being more prominent.

Martin was particularly concerned at the meeting as to whether NATS were sufficiently committed in terms of the human and financial resources that they were deploying to sort out the problem. This is an area that is causing me some concern and it is good to have him dealing with it.

AOPA have already endorsed a submission that we have made to DAP regarding NATS reservations over the provision of raw data that is required to allow third-party programs such as NotamPlot and NotamPro to function.

AOPA have also signalled their endorsement of another document that we hope to put out in the next day or so.

Mike