AIS - your input please

[Mike Cross]

A meeting is being set up between AIS and representatives from the GA community on 20 April and an agenda is being prepared.

I shall be representing AOPA and will be happy to raise issues on your behalf and report back.

AIS are responsible for publishing the AIP, NOTAM and AIC's. AIS is part of NATS and publishes the information on behalf of CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy, who are also reponsible for the VFR charts.

Mods - sticky for a few days?

Mike

[Aim Far]

I'm not sure what range or detail of comments you are after so I am just going to stick to a couple of minor bugbears on the NOTAM website.

First, it would be useful if you could use airfields as turning points for the narrow route briefing.

Second, I wish the military would put area names next to the co-ordinates when NOTAMing chunks of airspace as being active in military exercises.

Third, could royal flights not be NOTAMed rather than having to phone that telephone number?

Finally, it would be worth repeating the need for a graphic site with notams plotted on a map.

Other than that, it seems to work pretty well now and the NOTAM for Fort William that I got for a narrow route for a Norfolk flight on Sunday was a the first howler I'd seen for a while!

[pulse1]

For what it's worth, some comments from an infrequent user (once a month?)

I have not flown much during the Winter so haven't used it much. I needed to use it last weekend and, for my sort of flying, I still find it unnecessarily cumbersome and difficult to use.

E.g. Why do I have to enter the full date and time at least three times each time I want a different briefing for the same day? For much of my flying I do not decide where to go until I see what the weather is like so I might want several route briefings and some aerodrome briefings. I imagine that it is a satisfactory service for those whose flying is more planned and less weather dependent but, for those of us who have to plan around weather on the day, it is infuriating.

To me, such a safety critical facility should be very easy and intuitive to use, just like it used to be. The new system does not give me anything that the old system didn't give me, it is much harder to use, and is therefore LESS SAFE.

I know a few PPL's who have struggled with it and who therefore fly without checking NOTAMs.

[Mike Cross]

Thanks for the input so far

You can't input a/d's as turning points because the route format follows the ICAO Flight Plan format. You can't put a/d's into a FP so you can't do it here. Frustrating but logical.


Re the dates thing. You don't necessarily need to put in the validity period. If you leave it blank you will get all NOTAM for 48 hours from when you click the SUBMIT button. Also if you use the Briefing Handbook you can re-use a brief or choose UPDATE to only get anything that has changed since you took the brief.

Keep 'em coming!

Mike

[Aim Far]

You can't input a/d's as turning points because the route format follows the ICAO Flight Plan format. You can't put a/d's into a FP so you can't do it here. Frustrating but logical

Thanks for the clarification. However, it is not really logical for primarily VFR flyers as we tend not to file flight plans unless going overseas. What is logical is that we will fly to a nice prominent land feature, like an airfield, then turn. And avoid passing over VORs where possible. Anyway, surely there's nothing to stop it being suggested as a possible improvement?

[bar shaker]

Mike

The whole thing has come so far since those dark days of 2002. Some of this is software and some is NATS. Either way, perhaps you could just express my thanks to everyone involved as I now find it simple and effect... which results in me using it, rather than ignoring it. AvBrief also deserve a round of applause, while your at it.


Finally, it would be worth repeating the need for a graphic site with notams plotted on a map.

Aim Far, you simply MUST get yourself a copy of NotamPlot v2.0 (free) and an AvBrief registration (also free). You get a perfect graphic representation and a route that can be overlaid, plotted as airfield to airfield waypoints. So simple, even I can use it.

[dublinpilot]

bar shaker

Free-depends on where aim far is flying too. And he graphical presentation point is relevant for those in fir's not covered by the free sub.

dp

[Genghis the Engineer]

- Ability to enter names of FIRs rather than just EG** would be enhancing since I wouldn't have to keep looking them up.

- Agree, multiple input of dates is a pain. Could a couple of "today / tomorrow" tickboxes be added to do this automatically? Works well on Railtrack's train timetable webpage !

- Agree, graphical presentation and place-names for military exercises would be most helpful.

- When clicking on the help arrows (say, looking up an airfield identifier) it would be easiest if that help screen came up as a separate window automatically. For that matter, could it accept a name and offer an ICAO identifier automatically - frankly that and a flightplan are the only times that I ever use them and I suspect that's true of a great many people.

- Any chance of a tie-up with the met-office to give en-route TAFs at the same time?

- Still not awfully good at omitting the occasional NOTAM at the other end of the country.

- Yes please - purples and reds would be a worthwhile inclusion.

Are you going to the CAA safety evening at Popham this week Mike?

G

[bar shaker]

DP

What FIRs does AIS not cover?

BS

[Tinstaafl]

I find the 'normal' briefing input pages so cumbersome I don't use them.

Why should I have to keep entering a briefing ID (a required field)?

Or a mandatory dept. & arr. aerodrome? I operate out of places that don't exist on their database.

There only seems to be a facility to search the database of locations/FIRs/navaids, and not browse. Bad luck if you have no idea of the exact code or place name (as held in the database). Even M$ Outlook Express lets you browse AND it will skip based on one or two entered characters.

No help to explain why it won't accept an entry or even a note to say what is acceptable in the form field.

Doesn't work with Opera - a fully standards compliant browser. How do I access the site from a PDA or smartphone that doesn't use M$? If they wrote the bloody site so it was standards compliant they'd improve accessability without increasing their workload. It would also future proof it somewhat. They've incompetently locked themselves into a corner. :*

As a result the route briefing 'feature' is unuseable to me. At least I can get the FIR briefs. Except they're only VFR...

Access to the Q line so 3rd party, properly written & more useable software can work.

No graphical selection. In the 21st century.... :rolleyes:


Why don't you suggest they buy Australia's system? It works a damn sight better.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What about WAP ?

G

[Mike Cross]

Genghis
Yes I've got my name down for the Safety Evening. Big 15 stone 6 ft tall grey-haired git is me. I'll pm my mobile so we can meet up.

Bar Shaker
It's not that AIS doesn't cover them it's that AvBrief only provide the download for the UK FIR's which Dublin Pilot is not flying in.

Tinstaafl saidWhy don't you suggest they buy Australia's system? It works a damn sight better.
Good point except that there is a court case pending in Oz where AirServices Australia are trying to assert copyright over NOTAM and AIP info. Why might they do that? Why else but to be able to charge for it! Jeppesen are opposing them.More info here. (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mediainfo/press/Archive/prarchive2003/PR11_03.asp)

If you fly from sites without an ICAO indicator you will find that AIS have created dummy ICAO indicators which may cover your site. Details Here (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/en/image/oad.pdf) You need to register for UK & Foreign to use them because they don't start EG. If you need to change from UK to UK and Foreign just email [email protected] with your username and password and they'll change it for you. When I did it they turned it round in under an hour.

Keep 'em coming

Mike

[bar shaker]

Handy ICAO look up (http://www.activitae.com/airbase/icaoCode.htm)

That's what I thought Mike. Just a case of Johnny Foreigner moaning again ;););)

(3 winks so DP desn't take offence)

[FlyingForFun]

Mike,

I think every single one of us appreciates the work which you+Russel have put in to turn this disaster into a usable system, and the fact that you are continuing to work so closely with the guys at AIS to improve it even further.

With that in mind, I hope you won't take the following personally, or be offended by it.... but please take a step back and stop trying to defend the system! For example:You can't input a/d's as turning points because the route format follows the ICAO Flight Plan format. You can't put a/d's into a FP so you can't do it here. Frustrating but logical.I'm sure that's all true. But the fact is that Aim Far wants to use airfields as turning points. He doesn't care about the reasons that he can't do so.... all he wants to hear is that you've taken his point on board and that you'll argue his case for him. You're also giving advice on how to work around issues (e.g. registering as an international user to get some of the non-ICAO designators), which is great... but surely the ultimate aim must be to make the system intuitive enough that we can figure these things out without needing your help? Again, what we'd like to hear from you would be: "Well, you can work around that by doing XYZ... but I see that this isn't intuitive, so I'll raise that at the meeting and see if we can fix it."

As I said, please don't take my constructive criticism to heart... we really do appreciate everything you've done. In fact, I've found myself guilty of exactly the same thing I'm accusing you of (i.e. defending an IT system's flaws, instead of listening to the users and working out how to address the issues) in my day-job many times, so I know it's very easy to do!

As for what I want: basically as Pulse1 says - the ability to get NOTAMs not just for a pre-planned route, but also for a local bimble wherever I happen to want to fly. I appreciate that there are now third-party graphical tools out there, and I really must get them installed on my PC and have a look at them, because I suspect that at least one of them would do what I want. Anyone know a way of adding a day or two to the week, because the current week isn't long enough!

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

[HelenD]

With the present format there would be nothing stopping you using aerodromes as turning points, you would just have to to several searches breaking your route up in to a/d A to a/d B a/d B to a/d C a/d C to a/d A etc.
I peronally think that the only thing is missing is a decode to help us inteperate what we read since it was one thing that was not taught fully in my PPL training. I really do want to get to a stage where I can say I understand the notams as well as have read them.

[Mike Cross]

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

[TC_LTN]

It would be really good if the pull down menus worked in PPC 2003 and I could then access the entire site via my PDA. Surely only a small change?

[IO540]

On a slight tangent, the biggest improvement one could make to the Notam system would be to force every flying school to have a PC, accessible to all, with internet on it, for streamlined flight planning and for accessing the AIS notam website.

During my PPL training, I never looked at a single Notam, and neither did most of the instructors.

I am very sure that the great majority of today's PPL don't routinely look at Notams either.

[rustle]

HelenD

There are ways to include airports as turning points, but you need to forget, momentarily, that they are airports...

As per the FP system, you can nominate a turning point in a variety of ways, for example:

Beacons
Beacon/Radial/DME
Lat/Long
Airways reporting Point
...

So if you wanted to route OVER Cranfield, you don't have to include EGTC in the routing (disallowed) but you could include CFD (the VOR)...

Or, for Blackbushe, you could include this as a flyover point - not with EGLK (disallowed), but as BLK (the NDB) or CPT130017 the beacon/radial/distance location...

Popham - use PEPIS as the turning point in FP and Notam. (Or lat/long or beacon/radial/dme)

The ADvantage of doing this is that the NOTAM will be relevent to your trip height-wise...

The DISadvantage of doing three (or X) different Notam grabs airfield to airfield is that each "flight" has a take-off and landing "phase", so NOTAM outside your selected height band will be displayed.

[DFC]

Mike,

Thanks for all the hard work.

Only a very small possible improvement;

I fly regular routes each day or so and have these routes stored in the briefing handbook. This makes it very easy to simply select the route and click on use.

However, while the date of the flight changes automatically to the current day, the dates for the effective period remains fixed at the setting for the previous briefing.

Very small point but it would be easier if all the dates changed to the current day. If I am briefing for tomorrow then I will change all the dates.

Thanks.

DFC

PS I was told that there is no such thing as purple airspace anymore. Such airspace is now NOTAMed as temporary Class A airspace and is included in the briefings. Also the jet formation flights are publshed in the briefings also as well as in an AIC. Am I correct?

[Dop]

Their website doesn't work with Safari - the standard web browser on Apples.

I've also tried it with Mozilla Firefox on a PC and it doesn't work on that either. Only seems to work on Internet Explorer...

[dublinpilot]

No offence taken Bar shaker ;)

Actually I thought it didn't cover all of the UK FIR's hence my post above. But on checking, I realise it's only the Irish & French ones that it leaves out.

I can't really complain about the AIS, considering you guys are paying for it in your taxes, and I'm only using it because it's more connvient than getting them email to my by ais here! Hence why I didn't mention the Irish ones being left out above.

dp

:ok:

[DRJAD]

I have no problem with the AIS current method of getting NOTAMs. The improvements made have been welcome, and there is no difficulty with obtaining those data one needs.

If anything, the user interface could be improved: particularly in terms of 'plugging' data from one field to another to 'shortcut' data entry. If, once 'plugged', those fields (e.g. date) could remain eligible for overtyping then prospective queries would still be as easy to obtain as they are today.

Data presentation is fine insofar as it gives everything selected. However, the appearance of the output (pages of Courier font) is not easy on the eye. There is, therefore, a danger that items can be missed when reading the data. It would be good to enable a little highlighting with bold type here and there in each NOTAM to give a more easily identifiable set of NOTAM types.

I certainly endorse the point made above of providing named nearby geographical areas as adjunct references for temporary military restrictions.

[High Wing Drifter]

Mike,

My biggest grumble by far is that the session time-out is too short and breaks the flow of the planning process. Anybody using the site for planning will be logged on for more than the 10-15mins. It is irritating to to have to log on again after pondering a different route or whatever.

My other grumble, albeit minor, is that I need to use Internet Explorer. My fave - Netscape 7 - seems to be incompatible.

Other than that I find the whole thing to be of sufficient performance, accurate and pretty easy to use, esp the Narrow Route.

Cheers,
HWD.

[Tinstaafl]

Hi Mike,

I'm aware of the Oz Airservice thing. If Airnoservices win, then NAIPS will in turn end up supporting the charging for access system. How can that be a negative factor for CAA/AIS if the UK/EADs are hoping to do the same?

Re. supporting alternat browsers via open standards: It's a fallacy that it's more expensive to support multiple browsers provided they use standards compliant code iaw W3 consortium's specifications.

ALL browsers support the specs as a fundamental. It's the use of browser specific code that causes things to break and therefore requires multiple versions for different browsers eg an IE version x.x, y.y and Netscape version z.z. They all still work with standards compliant part of the code. Avoid using the browser specifics and the problem disappears.

There seems to be a clear trend to devices that are NOT bog standard Windows PCs with IE & or Netscape. Witness WAP, smart phones, PDAs of myriad OS & browsers. I don't see this reducing in the near or mid term. If anything I think there will be an expansion of such devices. Where will that leave their restrictive access site then?


Your efforts are much appreciated.

[BRL]

Sorry it's late being stuck.....(comes with the day-job...! ) :)

[Mike Cross]

I'm aware of the Oz Airservice thing. If Airnoservices win, then NAIPS will in turn end up supporting the charging for access system. How can that be a negative factor for CAA/AIS if the UK/EADs are hoping to do the same?
It's not negative for them, it's negative for the people who will have to pay.
AIS info is in my book safety information and I am against availability of safety information being restricted by a requirement for it to be paid for at the point of delivery. It should be freely available and funded centrally, as it is at the moment.

AsA is attempting to copyright the data. Most of it is IMHO not theirs to copyright. Copyright can exist in original work. Facts like the hours of opening of an aerodrome or the length of its runway are not original work and cannot be copyrighted although the means of presentation, such as a chart or the tabulation or indexing of the data or the design of a database holding the information can.

Re the browser compatibility issue I hear what you say, however AIS have bought commercial off-the shelf software. It works that way because the manufacturer designed it that way, not because AIS demanded it. If UK AIS decide they want it re-written so it will work with Mozilla they will have to pay for the rewrite, which despite what you say will entail a price tag that would be difficult to justify merely to satisfy the preferences of those who are anti-Microsoft and anti-Netscape. The cost would also not end there. The support of a UK bespoke delivery system would also cost more than the support of the standard system.

The web briefing software is only a small part of the overall system, whose prime purpose is the management of a worldwide notam database with information being exchanged internationally with about 180 other AIS's and being disseminated to AFTN subscribers such as ATC units, aerodromes, airlines and briefing services as well as the military. Unlike most business databases the information is also very volatile, time-critical and with a short lifespan and most of the data comes from external feeds from third parties rather than from sources within the database manager's control.

Sorry if I sound negative on something that is clearly important to you but in the overall scheme of things I can't help feeling that resources would be better deployed on making the thing do a better job of delivering relevant info in an easily understood format to the pilot via an intuitive and easy to use interface than in rewriting the entire database front end simply to give a wider choice of browser.

It would save a whole lot of hassle if the CAA would release the raw data so that a variety of independent delivery systems could evolve to suit the preferences of users and make use of innovative technologies to do the job. That we would all have a better chance of getting what we want rather than having to work with a one size fits all solution.

"If half the population has big heads and half the population has small heads we'll make all the hats medium because that's the average size and they will therefore fit the most people." :confused:

Mike

[Tinstaafl]

Hi Mike,

I quite agree with you about the availability of the data being a common resource, obligated by treaty. I was merely pointing out that purchasing the NAIPS system - even though access is currently free for users - isn't likely to interfere with any plans to charge for the use of the data.

I certainly DON't agree that charging for the data is a good thing for the user, let alone moral.

Whilst you see my other point as a browster interface problem for now, writing for specific browsers is still more expensive in the long run. Every time there's a new browser version from what camps are currently supported then a re-write is on the cards to support it. That's hardly a longer term cheap option - hence my point about sticking to open standards.

Ensuring adherence to standards is not really a bespoke cost issue either. The manufacture gains the benefit of a reduced support burden by eliminating many versioning bugs.

[Mike Cross]

I agree with you but it's the old Norfolk answer when asking for directions "Well if I wanted to go there I wouldn't be starting from here"

They did start from here so we have to deal with what we have rather than what we would have liked to have had, if you see what I mean.

Anyway I'm off for a week of stupidity sliding down mountains with planks on my feet.

Thank you one and all for your feedback. If you think of anything while I'm away please add it. I know that this thread is being read both by AIS and the CAA so your voices are being heard, even if it may not be apparent to you.

Once I get back I will collate all of the feedback, get it into some sort of order for discussion and come back to you after the meeting has taken place to let you know the result.

Mike:ok:

[Charlie Fox]

I still find the AIS website awkward to use. Am looking forward to the French site being completed. You can see it here. (http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/default_uk.htm)

[IO540]

I think the AIS site uses a lot of client-side Java. There is no need for it - its entire function, plus all the reference data it carries (e.g. the UK AIP) could be served in plain ordinary HTML.

It's not as bad as the Eurocontrol website though, which required a Java download of about 20MB last time I tried it. Under NT4 / IE6 it worked just once, with the PC crashing every time after the first time.

[ShyTorque]

A couple of comments.

One gripe regarding the layout of the page, especially in view of the long time it takes to input all the data, is that the "Submit" and "Reset Form" are illogically placed on the page! It's not logical, at least to my simple mind, to have the "Dump your last 5 minutes work button" as the first one at the bottom of the form.

A number of times I've hit the wrong button by mistake and dumped the lot. This is very upsetting for ladies in the office and does nothing for my image as a polite gentleman. OH BO :mad: OCKS! Can't we have them separated and reversed in position?

Also, we often fly a dozen sectors or more per day, IFR and VFR or a combination of both on the same flight (I've done twenty before now) and we zig-zag all over UK. Obtaining and taking note of NOTAMs is a nightmare for folks like us. Last week we got airborne with 43 A4 pages, which took about 10 minutes to print. Many of them were just full of trivia like birds of prey that might be flying to and from kites one day per month - I never did get to read them all.

[Barnside]

Surely if you are flying so many sectors a day then your employer can afford the cost of an added value provider of NOTAM data that would remove all the crap.

B.

[BRL]

Unmstuck to make room for the Cov thread. Will stick this back soon after.

[rustle]

Hope no-one minds this coming back into view... ;)

You know what to do

[Mike Cross]

Agenda items need to be in on Monday so I'll be collating them this weekend.

Mike

[Dusty_B]

For those of you that want to browse AIS/ get NOTAMs from your PDAs, mobile phones and other non-IE/Windows platforms, try AltAIS (http://www.altais.org.uk).

If you want an area briefing, or can't use cookies, the AltNotam service grabs the Notam data from the NATS website, changes the ICAO codes to plain text, orders the results geographically, and grabs the latest METAR/TAF data for each airfield where metobs is available.

If your browser supports cookies, then you can get "back door" access to the AIS site, including the AIP and PIBs without javascript. AltAIS will help build your PIB request away from the AIS site, and then push you straight to the relevent results page. For those paying by the byte, this reduces the data transfer required hugely by avoiding the bloated AIS pages for as long as possible. Same goes for people with slow connections (via laptops connected through mobile phone modems etc).

[FNG]

Thanks to Russell and Mike for their continuing work on this.

[rustle]

Good luck Tuesday, Mike ;)