Quote:
NATS did not however implement the FPL filing part of it.
I wonder why not?
Pilots had been asking that question for years.
My information is that
ANAIS by Thales which is what Homebriefing runs on and the old AIS site used to run on is more labour-intensive. In the UK FPL filing is not and never has been a function of AIS. Austrocontrol clearly works differently.
AES required UK AIS to manage their own Oracle Database whereas the new UK system uses the European AIS database where each State maintains only its own data and the cost of maintaining data pertaining to non-participants is shared out across the participating States. Also I gather that the FPL bit of AES requires human input before the FPL is released on to AFTN whereas the
Comsoft application used by AFPEx requires no human intervention by NATS and is therefore much cheaper to implement and potential failure points are reduced.
I also suspect that the very poor standard of VFR FPL's in the UK (not of course by you dear reader) might have had a bearing. Because VFR plans were simply faxed to the destination and did not enter the AFTN the non-conformities to ICAO standards did not cause a problem. Those who have been filing IFR through CFMU will be well aware of the need for higher standards of production.
Worth mentioning that the inability to use 4 letter a/d designators in a route (much derided by the proponents of Olivia) is an absolute requirement for any system for submitting FPL as 4 letter designators are not valid in an ICAO FPL route.
There are a number of solutions out there and it's a commercial decision as to which is chosen.
EAD, by Frequentis for Eurocontrol is what the UK chose as their AIS solution and I know of no reason to argue with that decision.
Mike
AOPA UK