FFF
Absolutely no offence taken.
There is a finite resource here. AIS are not a huge operation. They operate 24x365 with around 30 staff. While GA is important it is the airlines that fund most of the work, and the airlines in general do not have AIS custom building software for them. They take the raw data as a feed from AIS and produce briefings using their own staff and resources or else they contract it out to a commercial briefing service who do it for them.
What AIS have done is to buy an off the shelf NOTAM delivery package for use by the GA community. Having bespoke mods done to software is not cheap. Few corporations would ask Microsoft to re-write any of the Office programs for them for example. With around 200 ICAO States the market for NOTAM delivery software is also limited, as is the revenue stream available to software authors.
My own personal view is that the AIS solution will always be "one size fits all". It typically has to cope with air charter operators flying long overseas sectors at one end of the spectrum and local bimblers, microlighters, balloonatics and glider pilots at the other end. Solutions that better fit the requirements of individual user groups are more likely to come from independent authors such as Ian Fallon with NotamPlot.
The fly in the ointment is as always money. CAA will not allow NATS/AIS to provide the raw data required by these programs, even though NATS have no objection to doing so. Ian's program works because AvBrief are, with the consent of the CAA, making the data available for the UK FIR's free of charge.
Why won't the CAA allow NATS to make the data freely available? Because there are moves afoot to charge for the information. At the moment there is no charge for the data. The airlines, commercial briefing services, and the manufacturers of equipment and publications like FMCS, GPS databases, flight planning software, charts, approach plates, flight guides etc. do not have to pay for the data. The test case referred to in my earlier posting between Jeppesen Sanderson Inc and AirServices Australia will do a lot to decide the issue. EuroControl's European AIS Database project (EAD) seeks to become the AIS provider for most European states and to be funded by charging for the data. While the UK CAA are not currently wholeheartedly in the EAD club they are refraining from making the data publicly available because it would undermine their ability to charge in the future.
The daft thing is that the raw data is available from the EAD site anyway.
Sorry this is a bit of a ramble but I hope it illustrates the complexities of the animal.
WRT some of the things being asked for:-
In some cases the benefit is unlikely to justify the cost. For example Mozilla has about two percent of the browser market so should a lot of money be thrown at making the site compatible to suit someon'e personal preferences when Netscae and IE are available as free downloads or would it better be spent on improvements in other areas?
If we have a standard format for a Flight Plan is it sensible to pay to have a different format designed for NOTAM briefings? The manufacturer's design for the site allows for it to be used for flight plan filing although this is not currently implemented in the UK.
I'm not arguing against any of these views and they will all be presented. I thoroughly endorse the need for the site to be made more intuitive in use. (It was designed by a French company says he ducking to avoid a fusillade of stale croissants)
Many thanks to all who are contributing.
Mike