AIP & ERSA Amendments: AsA survey

[Lodown]

Come on fellas. Think outside the box. Ulm has a point, and a good one. You all do.

AsA. “Do you prefer Option A or Option B?”
Pilot “I don’t like either, but I have to use one. What else is there?”
AsA “There is nothing else. What do you want, A or B?”
Pilot “But I don’t like A or B. They don’t suit my needs. How about a modification to both A and B to get Options C and D?”
AsA “There are no C and D. Only A or B?”
Pilot “Hang on! Read my lips. I don’t like A or B. I would like a choice of Options C or D.”
AsA “Show me Options C and D.”
Pilot “I can’t. I can only describe the features I’d like to see and the benefits I'd like to have. You have the expertise in putting it together.”
AsA “Well, if you’re going to be like that, it won’t work. Too expensive. Now…A or B?”
Pilot “I want C or D. How do you know it is too expensive? Have you looked into it?”
AsA “Okay, we’ll mark your preference as Option A. Thank you. We appreciate your input.”

This questionnaire seems to be nothing more than someone looking for justification to retain their budget and status quo. I have no intention of insulting what little intelligence I have by answering the thing.

I would guess that most of ERSA, ERSA amendments and NOTAM relate to IFR multi-engine operations. So the VFR guys get whacked for information they don’t need and don’t want. Then they have to struggle through and find the hidden gems that relate to their operation. ERSA information is as clear as mud, particularly to the VFR pilot.

If I ask you, “Here's all the information that goes into ERSA. How do you prefer it, in book form or amendable lose leaf?”
Most of you would say, “Book form”, because you’re referencing back to what you already use and it makes sense to have the complete document in a book form. Toss the old one as a new one arrives. Simple and convenient.

But it is the wrong question to ask. The question should be, "Here's all the information that goes into ERSA. What parts do you need?" I know I'd get a far different response.

If I then said to you, “We can divide the information in ERSA by regions AND by IFR and VFR, or some other way. Updates will remain as scheduled, but many pilots will have a much smaller and more tailored document. However for this to work efficiently, we MUST publish as a lose leaf, sheet amended document. Cost will be affected to some extent based on smaller print runs. So the ratio of cost to the number of pages will go up, but many pilots will be paying less overall because they only have the information they need. Book form and web information will be still available for those who want it. How would you feel about that?”

I’d hazard a guess that most of you would jump at the chance for Option C with amendable lose leaf pages.

But we were never presented with that option.

The software and equipment is available to do this. The inclination and imagination just needs a little stir in Airservices. Bit difficult to do when the easy action for many managers is to continue to hack away at costs on bad products, rather than spend a little to add value and make a good product.