In that case, what time/day of departure should I specify? I cannot file a FP without giving these details.
In theory, you should be able to plan and submit up to 5 days in advance, but if the route is not available on the day it is beyond all but Eurocontrol's control. Many airlines use RPLs that are planned months in advance, so they must find a way around it.
I would not write off mobile users as a small group.
I don't think I said that, it just makes common sense to take care of the bulk of the users then work on the mopping up the rest.
Just for clarification, can you give us an idea as to your role in the AFPEx team? This is just so that your comments can be put in some context.
At first I assumed you were a developer, but having read this thread a bit more attentively it looks to me like this isn't the case. Project manager or team leader with little or no IT background perhaps, if I may take a guess? Again, the only reason I'm asking is to get a better perspective.
I feel that my role within NATS is not relevant to this conversation.
This is what told me you're not keeping up with current developments in the IT world.
Assumption.
This is completely orthogonal to product development. It's on the same level as deciding whether to package it in a green or in a blue box.
AFPEx isn't a NATS only product, asking the developer to change something only NATS wants will create a software branch that NATS will have to pay for. That's the nature of COTS. Orthogonality is irrelevant.
Mobile computing is the way things are moving. That's one demographic you need to set your eyes on, not IE6 users. I suggest you talk to someone knowledgeable on the current (and developing, as always) state of play in IT or your product will be dead in the water in the next 18 months.
I'm sorry, but that sounds too patronising to warrant a reply.
Possibly because the product is so much more valuable to them?
This may be the case, but an unhappy vocal minority is better than an unhappy vocal majority. Developing/buying software that pleases everyone is IMPOSSIBLE, even Redmond have failed so far.
"Should", as you say. That does not always happen--even when not flying internationally.
That's down to poor will, lack of training or plain and simple pigheaded laziness from the ATSU.
[ As an aside FWIW, my own solution is to carry a (borrowed) telephone which I use to call one of the French BRIAs (regional flight information and assistance centres), regardless of which country I'm flying in. They are fully competent and very efficient at doing what their name implies, i.e. providing information and assistance, including NOTAM and weather briefings, consulting foreign AIPs, and of course, filing flight plans. Their help has been invaluable on many occasions. ]
You should call our helpdesk, they are quite helpful too within the scope of their role.
It's a fact of software development today that the sheer range of operating systems, browsers and other settings/requirements within the user pool makes it impossible to catch 100% of users 100% of the time.
That is incorrect--or rather, your focus is wrong. You can catch most of the users, most of the time, and even keep up as the market and technology evolves. In fact, you can do that at very little cost for your organisation.
Your statement confirmed my statement.
How? Publish the protocol your application uses to communicate with its servers, and let third party developers work for you, for free, by creating AFPEx clients for their platforms and demographics of choice. That's good enough for the market leaders, and it's good enough for fringe players too. Matter of fact, if your product is worth anything it's only a matter of time before someone reverse engineers it, so save him the trouble.
Allowing someone direct access to the AFTN network in an uncontrolled manner would be reckless considering the type of traffic that goes across it, I'm not sure CFMU would appreciate messages about Viagra and Penis Enlargement. Another reason NATS uses a Java application is to prevent reverse engineering, if you can crack the encryption I think the FBI would like a word.
Assuming that mobile users are a minority is breathtakingly arrogant. They are the MAJORITY, it is just the service drives us to fixed platforms and that makes you blind to it.
It's not arrogant, AFPEx was never intended for use on mobile devices and therefore was not designed for mobile devices. If you can get it to work on your 3G laptop then that is a bonus, but this was not the original design specification. Before AFPEx those that didn't use homebrief/olivia only had the option to fax/call or dictate over RT their plans, now there is another option that thousands of users are happy with.
If the latter, it could take a huge amount of work. Not with an HTTPS browser (which uses standard protocols) but with a custom Java app like here. But the real issue, IMHO, is that NATS would pull the facility if somebody did this. It would have to be done with their approval.
NATS is duty bound by ICAO to protect the AFTN network. Connecting to AFPEx in a non-approved manner would be considered malicious.
It seems obvious to suggest that a cut-down version of the app, doing just FP filing with just the ICAO form and nothing else, would be useful to many pilots. This I am sure is true, and maybe NATS should examine that possibility. Like I said, AFPEx has dragged a lot of apparently totally non IT literate pilots out of the woodwork and they would appreciate a dead simple user interface.
Things do change after user feedback, NATS has responded to user input and adapted the application accordingly. This will continue throughout the life of AFPEx so as some say, never say never.
