AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug [Archive]

Mike Cross

7th Jul 2006, 07:23

Keep em rolling chaps.

A couple of interjections here.

1. The raw data is not produced by AIS, they are responsible for publishing it, not producing it. The data standard is laid down by ICAO and is not designed for graphical plotting. There are clear legal dangers in offering a service using data that was not designed for the purpose.

Under ICAO it is the State within whose airspace the flight originates which is responsible for providing the briefing service and it is therefore important that all States adhere to a common standard of presentation, otherwise professional pilots would find the briefing presentation different everywhere they went, which could be dangerously confusing.

Any graphical presentation would therefore be an addition to the existing format. Do you have any suggestions for funding it? Under government funding policy CAA has to recover its costs from users. You may not agree with that but it is a fact and AIS, which is part of NATS, have no influence. It might also be thought undesirable for NATS/AIS to offer value added chargeable services over and above those services that it provides as a contractor on behalf of the CAA which are required to meet the UK's international treaty obligations. This might be seen as unfair competition by commercial briefing services because of their priveliged position. Incidentally I do know that NATS have been evaluating the possibility of value added services as a revenue generator.

If you can give me some workable proposals for the above it will greatly help the case.

2. Niknak
I'm concerned about your problem and will send you a PM with my contact details so you can give me more detail.

The ICAO NOTAM system is predicated on the assumption that State NOTAM offices decide which of their NOTAM series are distributed internationally and also which NOTAM series they subscribe to from other (foreign) State NOTAM offices in order to provide a briefing service that is applicable to flights originating within their airspace. Taking NOTAM from a foreign state carries the risk of missing data.

Mike

Andy_RR

7th Jul 2006, 08:04

Do you have any suggestions for funding it? Under government funding policy CAA has to recover its costs from usersMike

Yes, I have a suggestion for (perhaps part?) funding.

Those who wish or require airspace to be restricted (or used in a 'non-conventional' manner) should pay for the priviledge and the consequent requirement of notifying other airspace users of the restriction.

Pilots avoiding restrictions by NOTAM are not using the restricted airspace and therefore are not users per se.

A

edited to say I do recognise that NOTAMs are not only about airspace restrictions.

IO540

7th Jul 2006, 08:59

You may like to let AIS know that, as an ATC unit at a very busy regional airport handling everything from G/A to widebody commercial stuff, we access our notam information from a Scandinavian web site, purely because the NATS site is useless.

It's true that one can get notams from countless websites, official and unofficial. It works for enroute information, and for international airports, because (ICAO or no ICAO) a hypothetical plane could fly that route from the UK and that makes the briefing wholly in accordance with the regs.

One problem is that ais.org.uk seems to be the only free site offering a narrow route briefing, and that is key to reducing the amount of rubbish.

However, if you are an airport ATC unit then presumably you are interested only in your local area notams, in which case you would not be doing an NRB. This then differs from the requirement of a pilot who (if flying somewhere) should be using the NRB. Unless he's just bimbling. I wonder if anyone has analysed the % of busts due to bimbling v. A-B flights?

This might be seen as unfair competition by commercial briefing services because of their priveliged position

This is a useless excuse. NATS are responsible for safe and efficient airspace operation and have no business supporting unconnected and non-revenue-generating (for NATS) commercial information providers.

It's like that stupid ludicrous excuse handed out by the CAA, for why they generate those virtually unusable A4 approach charts (unusable because of the very small print, and no DA/MDA shown directly). They say (face to face, when asked at e.g. trade shows) that they don't want to compete with commercial providers. So, they play into the hands of Jeppesen and Aerad, whose products are then able to be priced at approximately (the annual sub, for European coverage only) the same amount as an Annual check for a single engine aircraft :ugh:

The CAA could have spent the same amount of time producing A5 plates, same as the free ones which the Americans seem to have no problems producing, and which incidentally keep Jepp prices way down for US coverage :)

Taking NOTAM from a foreign state carries the risk of missing data.

I realise that is the standard disclaimer, Mike, but the reality must be that this is nonsense, for a hypothetical plane could have flown that route, and landed at that airport, following a UK departure. In fact in the European context it isn't that unreal, since any jet/turboprop can fly just about any European route in one go, and most decent tourers can go 2/3 to the far ends of Europe (from the UK) on one tank.

Fuji Abound

7th Jul 2006, 10:09

Back to basics.

The remit of the AIS in so far as NOTAMs are concerned should be to publish this information freely to pilots in an effective way.

If that is not their remit I would be interested to know what it is?

As with most public and private organisations, it would do no harm for the AIS to set out on their web site their mission statement or charter so we know exactly what it is they set out to do.

The fact of the matter would seem to be their largest user in terms of numbers (GA) and the users that most requires the information being presented in clear and user friendly terms (because they have not got the support of a team at company dispatch) have been complaining for years that the presentation of the data is confusing at best and all but useless at worst for any flight that doesn’t follow a predetermined route.

Take a look at the FAA presentation of this material:

http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/cc/scale4/tile_2_5.html

Simple, clear, straightforward.

So how is it that the FAA comply with their international obligations and yet are able to give the user a graphical interface?

I thought one of the reasons for the inclusion of “Q” codes was to enable precisely this sort of presentation. Does this mean that so far as the UK FIRs are concerned Q codes have not been correctly implemented or perhaps there are some other technical reasons why the FAA can provide a graphical interface but we cant? Again, I believe the users (us) would be interested to know.

.. .. .. As I said back to basics, establish what the remit should be, and meet it, because otherwise I suspect the AIS has simply failed in its obligations to its users and will continue to fail.

Mike Cross

7th Jul 2006, 11:21

IO540
From the France AIP
Series B: Information of a limited international scope and concerning
more particulary other flights (restricted international publication limited
to the European region).
Series D: containing information on aerodromes used for general aviation.
Publication are restricted to the countries involved within the scope
of SCHENGEN agreements (Germany, Austria, Belgium,Denmark,
Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden,
Iceland and Norway).
You decide to fly from any of those countries to France and take your brief from the AIS of the State of departure you will get French Series B. Take the brief from any other State and you won't.

It's easy to define a rectangular block of airspace and get a brief for it (e.g to cover an ATSU's area) how to do it is explained in the Website User Guide (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/en/image/PIBGuide.PDF) on Page 14. Once set up it can be re-used on demand by pulling it from the Briefing Handbook.

FA
Your link does not point to NOTAM but to maps showing Temporary Flight Restrictions. These refer to the originating NOTAM but this service ONLY shows you the TFR's. (It won't for example tell you if the navaid you are intending to use is unserviceable or a runway is out of service for maintenance). In the UK the equivalent service is provided by the free phone number 0500 35480. We don't have the same number of TFR's they do in the US.

The Q Line info was inserted into the brief at my request as a facilitator to allow anyone who wanted to to design a software application to allow the brief to be presented graphically and/or to allow more detailed filtering than is available from the AIS site. To the best of my knowledge no-one has yet done so. The Q line contains the ICAO data fields that are designed for the job of selection and display by electronic means. Ian Fallon's NotamPlot had to get this information via a third party (Avbrief) because the info was not included in the AIS offering. It now is. Prior to inclusion a separate feed was required from NATS, which Avbrief and the other commercial briefing organisations have.

I hope these explanations help. Thanks for all of your input.

Mike

IO540

7th Jul 2006, 11:22

So how is it that the FAA comply with their international obligations and yet are able to give the user a graphical interface?

a) Funding by taxpayer, and

b) They prevent every tom dick and harry (usually trying to cover their ar*e, by reporting a duff light bulb on some lamp-post) injecting nonsense into the system (within the USA), and

c) I don't think you can use the FAA facilities to get a briefing for a flight from Goodwood to Bembridge (even though a decent bizjet could fly from the USA, to Goodwood, and onto Bembridge :) ) Even though the UK data should be in their data stream!

drauk

7th Jul 2006, 12:36

All I would say is that if they want someone who knows how to build fast, simple yet comprehensive facilities for display data on a website (like http://fly.dsc.net) and reliability (like PPRuNe), you know where to find me. There is no excuse at all for not displaying NOTAMs on an online map these days.

Mike Cross

7th Jul 2006, 13:06

The Q Line info was inserted into the brief at my request as a facilitator to allow anyone who wanted to to design a software application to allow the brief to be presented graphically and/or to allow more detailed filtering than is available from the AIS site.

You're too kind drauk, thanks for volunteering:ok:

Fuji Abound

7th Jul 2006, 13:22

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/atcscc.html :)

IO540

7th Jul 2006, 13:30

Error
No locations to process!

Is what I get to the above URL.

Getting back to Drauk's suggestion of a graphical interface: what I think one could do is have a list of checkboxes so one could choose which items to view; e.g. RAC, COM, NAVW.

That facility would greatly reduce the amount of stuff which would need to be plotted.

The problem is... what tag do restricted and prohibited areas, etc, appear under? They, and any airfield notams, are the stuff that actually matters.

Fuji Abound

7th Jul 2006, 13:39

Sorry

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/atcscc.html

and select a radius search say of EGKK.

drauk

7th Jul 2006, 13:43

I spent a couple of hours putting something together which allowed the plottable NOTAMS to be displayed in Google Earth. Having it on a dynamic Google Map would be better (thus no need for Google Earth) but the API doesn't or didn't allow one to draw circles, so you end up plotting loads of points to approximate a circle, but with so many NOTAMs that's a lot of data.

The problem with any of these type of things of course is all the disclaimers one must include which basically say "you can't rely on this, you have to check AIS". Still, it doesn't seem to stop people using fly.dsc.net - usage is going up and up at the moment.

IO540

7th Jul 2006, 14:52

Sorry, Fuji, I may be going thick (very possible given that the temp/dp spread is close to zero right now) but I can't see anything special there. Yes I can see all the usual dross, and any coordinate lists don't seem to get plotted. There is no reliable way to plot coordinate lists anyway, given the possibility of typos.

Mike Cross

7th Jul 2006, 15:27

Agree with IO540

I put in EGHP with a radius of 20nm and got pages and pages, including:-
H4892/05 - AUS 06-01-0084/5402/AS2 CONSTRUCTION SITE CRANE (LIT AT NIGHT) OPERATING WI 1NM RADIUS 5300N 00212W (CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, STOKE-ON-TRENT, STAFFORDSHIRE)ON-SITE CONTACT 07990718325 SFC 115FT AGL 04 JAN 00:01 2006 UNTIL 04 OCT 23:59 2006 ESTIMATED

If Stoke on Trent's only 20nm from Popham why does it take so long to get there?

Jimbo & the Jet Set

10th Jul 2006, 13:54

Mike,

What is AIS stand point on reliability? I notice the site is off line at the moment. This is isn't the first time i've encountered it either. Given the importance the CAA places on not flying without current notams, shouldn't system reliabilty be slightly higher up the list of priorities?

The other item worth bringing up, is the publication of the Luton airspace changes. I pointed one of my students to the yellow AIC detailing the changes, only to find a broken link. I emailed AIS and I got a prompt response (one brownie point on that score). The answer was they had moved the info on to the AD page and deleted the AIC but not the link. Bearing in mind this is a fairly fundamental change that is not yet been printed on any chart, isn't a bit soon to start removing important info and hiding it elsewhere. PPL's who only fly in the summer months (and I know several) may miss such an important change despite diligent pre-flight planning. Even LOOP published a reference to the AIC without realising it had been removed.

Many thanks to Mike et al who work to improved this under-performing system.

BEagle

10th Jul 2006, 14:10

There are also changes in airspace at both Newcastle and, particularly, Bristol and Cardiff coming up shortly.

Yet the CAA 1:500 000 won't have these for how long? Next April is it??

It is essential that a single source for all such changes to current Class G airspace shall be provided when such a large chunk is grabbed and turned into Class D. The CAA Aeronautical Charts website for 1:500 000 is neither easy to find nor easy to use - why is an electronic version with this information shown graphically available!

How do you avoid it if it is so difficult to find out where the new airspace is?

I consider that a new CAA 1:500 000 should be produced FREE OF CHARGE for all those who have Edition 32 which will be largely unfit for purpose when the Bristol/Cardiff/Luton - and who knows where else - changes have come into effect. Issued in April, largely out of date by the end of August is wholly unreasonable.

Incidentally, the AIS website has an out-of-date chart catalogue - but at least there will be another AIC coming out soon which shows the changes to Luton, London City, Bristol and Cardiff....

slim_slag

10th Jul 2006, 14:27

I put in EGHP with a radius of 20nm and got pages and pages, including:-Go back and look at the results properly :)

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 15:19

Ho Hum....
So a "Radius Search" doesn't give you NOTAM affecting a radius? Is that what you mean.
As far as I can see it gives you a/d NOTAM for a radius followed by the entire FIR. I think I'll stick to the Narrow Route Brief thanks.

Beagle

See my new post re the Bristol/Cardiff changes

Jimbo

AIS do take downtime very seriously, which is one of the reasons they have fallback positions.
http://www.nats.co.uk/text/109/preflight_information_bulletins_pibs_.html
Recorded info an all TRA's and airspace restrictions 0500 354802 (24hrs)
AIS Duty Officer 020 8745 3450/3451 (24hrs)
FAX ON DEMAND (FOD)
The VFR briefs are also available by fax; they are updated every 15 minutes
(Check your own fax user guide regarding FOD)
Fax for a VFR Brief for the London FIR dial: 020 8557 0064
Fax for a VFR Brief for the Scottish FIR dial: 020 8557 0065
The downtime stats are published (Web Site Uptime link on the login page)
There is currently an issue with transient 500 errors which is being addressed by the software provider.

Mike

BEagle

10th Jul 2006, 15:23

STOP PRESS!

I have been reliably informed that, due to the number of substantial airspace changes which will have occurred during the time between the launch of the Edition 32 chart and 31 Aug 2006, a further revised chart (Edition 32A) will be released soon.

But it will cost the same as the Edition 32, and no - we won't be getting any refund.

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 15:28

So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?

slim_slag

10th Jul 2006, 15:32

No, what I mean is that one needs to actually read the report. You asked for all NOTAMS within 20 nm of popham, and cited H4892/05, saying If Stoke on Trent's only 20nm from Popham why does it take so long to get there

In a 20nm radius of popham, the FAA site actually says there are "No active NOTAMS for this location". The NOTAM you cited is listed under "EGTT LONDON ATCC".

What this demonstrates to me is that even the better people can make mistakes with NOTAMS if they don't take the time to read them properly. There is obviously a presentation problem here, but if something went wrong the PIC would be to blame.

Somebody said that even the FAA couldn't give a report from goodwood to bembridge, well put them in and you will find that the FAA certainly can. You just need to take the time to sort the wheat from the chaff, it's called planning, and if I can do it then anybody can.

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 16:00

SS
What this demonstrates to me is that even the better people can make mistakes with NOTAMS if they don't take the time to read them properly.
Agreed

There are no active NOTAM for Popham because it does not have an AIP entry because it is unlicensed. If it's not in the AIP you're not going to get any NOTAM for it.

There's also no NOTAM for Lasham (same logic), Thruxton or Blackbushe. All fair enough.

There are no en-route NOTAM listed for the 20nm radius, they're all buried in the mass of FIR NOTAM. If you think you're getting radius NOTAM without going through the FIR listing you're mistaken.

There are 17 FIR NOTAM for a NRB 10nm either side of track Popham to Blackbushe current during the next 48 Hr period.

I don't think I'm misreading it at all.

Mike

slim_slag

10th Jul 2006, 16:10

In that case I am totally confused as to the reasons you brought up Popham, Stoke and the distance between in the first place.

London Mil

10th Jul 2006, 16:11

Beags, do you want them to eat your free dinner as well?

Maybe a quick call to the charts people to find out why they are in such a predicament. Let me offer a hypothesis:

a. The charts were designed to incorporate the Bristol/Cardiff ACP.
b. Bristol/Cardiff had some last minute consultation to complete. Aware of a previous Judicial Inquiry, they did not want the ACP to be contested.
c. DAP had to, at short notice, revert to plan B removing the change from their charts.

I'm not saying that this is the case, but if you really think that you are 'owed' £13.95 (or whatever it is) by the CAA, then I suggest you turn out your pockets and go figure how much money this County's tax payer still gives you for doing the square root of diddlysquat.

Rant over.

IO540

10th Jul 2006, 16:14

I must be that "somebody"; I should have written that one is unlikely to get a graphical representation of some UK notam database item from the USA. Which is correct - because it takes human involvement.

Which is why we will never have graphical notams in the UK - nobody will pay for it. So "we" have to learn to live with the existing system.

So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?

No, but if you bought the Jepp electronic chart(s) you would (should!) get a corrected version 28 days later. The CAA could do the same: make the charts downloadable. Think how much they would save on printing. They can't make more than a couple of quid per chart, after allowing for trade discounts etc. It would enhance safety, which ought to interest them. Practically nobody is going to download the printed chart errors/updates from the website; personally I wouldn't even know where to start looking (life is too short).

Fuji Abound

10th Jul 2006, 16:32

I am confused as to the point of this thread.

It seems to me from other threads pilot’s find it difficult to interpret the NOTAM and other information provided by the AIS. In consequence they either do not properly self brief or rely on other third party providers.

This situation appears unsatisfactory.

I asked the question what is it the AIS are tasked to do. I am still not certain?

If they are tasked with providing ICAO NOTAM data in raw form, clearly they have met their obligations. I would argue their remit is incorrect.

If they are tasked with providing the data in as effective a way as possible, they have failed.

Many have commented a graphical interface would be helpful.

I find the radius search provided by the FAA helpful. Consider for a moment how much GA flying does not depart from and route directly to a given destination.

Personally I also find the FAA web site easier and quicker to use.

If I were tasked by AOPA with representing GA’s interest I would want to establish what could be done to improve the way UK NOTAM information is made available to GA operators in this country. I would want to see what improvements are possible, and consider how these improvements might be funded. Whilst I recognise NOTAM information must be provided for cross border flights the vast majority of GA flights in the UK originate and terminate in the UK.

Any changes could be dismissed on the basis that the funding is not available, or the data does not lend itself to presentation in that way, or we would have to add a disclaimer, or we are constrained by the ICAO format. However, if that is the case there is little point to this thread - we should just carry on with a system that clearly is not working.

Alternatively, we should at least understand what it is the AIS is obliged to provide and what it is they might consider providing.

In my view a reasonable model is the Met Office. There web site is easy to use. They provide the information they are required to freely and effectively. They provide additional information on a subscription basis and this includes some “trial” services that are subject to the usual caveats. It is not perfect, but it is a far better effort than the AIS has made of things!

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 16:39

IO540

I think that's called an "update service";)

SlimSlag
I think we're talking at cross purposes.
I asked for NOTAM within a 20nm radius of Popham. I got one for Stoke, which, last time I looked was more than 20nm away. To me that's not what I asked for.
You said
In a 20nm radius of popham, the FAA site actually says there are "No active NOTAMS for this location".
That text referred to Popham, not to a 20nm radius from Popham.
I checked on the AIS site and found 17 NOTAM within 10nm of the direct track between Popham and Blackbushe. Thse should all have been reported by the query on the FAA site. I'm sure they were, but they'll be buried somewhire in the pages of NOTAM covering the entire FIR, which rather negates the usefulness of it as a tool.

Mike

BEagle

10th Jul 2006, 16:51

A decent graphical user interface is the way ahead. And there is indeed no excuse for the inability of a national provider such as AIS to come up with a 21st Century method of displaying NOTAMs on an electronic chart.

Also, regarding 'amendments already effective' to the CAA Edition 32 chart is the following entry for Luton:

LONDON/Luton

Amendments to controlled airspace in the Luton area:

London Luton Control Area (CTA-8) rising from 3500 ft altitude to FL55, bounded by the following coordinates: 515150N 0004336W - 515244N 0003828W - 515503N 0004353W - 515150N 0004336W.

London Luton Control Area (CTA-9) rising from 4500 ft altitude to FL55, bounded by the following coordinates: 515150N 0004336W - 515503N 0004353W - 515749N 0004048W - 515356N 0005006W -515048N 0004926W - 515150N 0004336W.

For a diagram detailing the changes Click here.

You will note that, at least one can click to find a diagram in this particular instance. Which is more than be said for entries such as the following:

EG D201 ABERPORTH - AMENDED LATERAL LIMITS
The following details amend 500k South and 250k Sheets 5 & 7.
530300N 0053000W - 530300N 0045319W - 524500N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W -523316N 0041200W - 521600N 0041200W - 521000N 0042942W - thence clockwise along the arc of a circle radius 3 nm centred on 520830N 0043355W to 520840N 0043847W - 520903N 0050057W - 524417N 0053000W - 530300N 0053000W.

EG D201C/D ABERPORTH
The following details amend 500k South & North and 250k Sheet 5
Add new DAs:
EG D201C Lateral Limits
525019N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W - 524500N 0045319W - 525019N 0045319W.
EG D201D Lateral Limits
531035N 0053000W - 530300N 0051612W - 530300N 0053000W - 531035N 0053000W.
EG D201C Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/ FL145.
EG D201D Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/FL 55

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 17:06

FA

The organisation and responsibilities of UK AIS are to found in AIP GEN 3.1

They are required to provide a briefing service that meets the requirements of Annex 15 of the Chicago Convention, and as far as I am concerned they do that. The products that they are required under the convention to provide have to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) of which Annex 15 and ICAO Document 8126 (The Manual of Aeronautical Information Services) are part, as do the products of all the AIS of ICAO contracting states.

UK AIS are part of NATS and provide the service on behalf of the National Aviation Authority (the CAA).

It is of course possible for "value added" products to be provided in addition to those that are required under the treaty obligations. Traditionally this has been left to commercial organisations like Jeppesen, Aerad, Bottlang, Avbrief, Pooleys, AFE, Copperchase and other providers who re-package basic AIS data to give a variety of formats from which the buyer can choose.

In my personal view it's debatable whether, in view of their privileged position, it would be desirable for AIS to become a commercial organisation that provides value added products in competition to the commercial organisations to whom it also supplies the raw data. Other people may have different views and I am aware that NATS have been investigating the economic viability of such a move. How seriously and in how much depth I am not aware.

My concentration is on improving what is provided by AIS under the UK's Chicago Treaty obligations rather than on persuading them to produce Value Added Services, which would have to be funded by users.

I hope this helps your understanding.

Mike

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 17:09

Beagle

Since when have AIS been responsible for the UK ICAO charts? That is the responsibility of the Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA. AIS don't touch it.

Mike

BEagle

10th Jul 2006, 18:12

"Not me, chief, I'm airframes"

Whichever part of whichever Quango is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant. The end-user needs a single source information provider who can provide an up-to-date on-line chart with all the relevant NOTAMs on it.

I'm completely unimpressed by biz-speak words such as 'added value' - or by 'obligations under the Blah Treaty' and the like. The 'output' needs to be 'appropriate to user need' - not just legally adequate.

"Click - this is today's chart. Click - here are the temporary restrictions." Which part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

Ah well back to plotting out where all those s*dding birds of prey are chasing their training kites......:rolleyes:

rustle

10th Jul 2006, 18:18

splatt

10th Jul 2006, 19:03

Mike Cross:
Any graphical presentation would therefore be an addition to the existing format. Do you have any suggestions for funding it? Under government funding policy CAA has to recover its costs from users.

I had thought my response would be slightly tongue in cheek but am starting to take it more seriously the more I think about it. We've had the addition of the Q-line, now let me introduce the 'sponsor line', a kind of advertising space.

Those who cause a notam to be generated can then be responsible for funding its publication or for finding a sponsor. Any income so generated shall be re-invested in a way that benefits the notam recipients.

splatt

Fuji Abound

10th Jul 2006, 19:32

“Graphical would be by far the best”

- The data standard is laid down by ICAO and is not designed for graphical plotting. There are clear legal dangers in offering a service using data that was not designed for the purpose.

“Take a look at the FAA presentation of this material:
Simple, clear, straightforward.”

- In the UK the equivalent service is provided by the free phone number 0500 35480. We don't have the same number of TFR's they do in the US.

“Yet the CAA 1:500 000 won't have these for how long? Next April is it??”

- So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?

“The CAA could do the same: make the charts downloadable.”

- I think that's called an "update service"

If any of you have any points you would like me to raise please let me know.

So at least now I know why I never bothered to renew my AOPA subscription. Various points have been raised on how the service might be improved and yet each is dismissed. That seems to me to be a pointless exercise. Obviously the existing system works and works well so I suggest the AIS are left doing the absolute minimum to meet their legal obligations - or have I missed what sort of points you had in mind might be raised.

“**** 'em.”

It is called constructive debate. Pithy at times, but at least we don’t need to resort to * to express ourselves.

IO540

10th Jul 2006, 19:50

rustle

Far too many ******** who don't know their arse from their elbow and don't seem too bothered to find out, either
Here you are, kindly donating your spare minutes in order to represent GA at a meeting, and all you get is ridicule and abuse.
**** 'em.

I would suggest a different posting style might bring about a greater and perhaps even original contribution to knowledge.

The questions being asked here are for the most part entirely reasonable. Some suggestions cannot and will not IMO ever be implemented (the graphical plotting one in particular - it cannot be done reliably automatically on the current data feed and who is going to pay someone to do it?) but others are perfectly fair game.

It's very obviously truly hard to bring about any change in this game. I once spoke (face to face) with the man who seemed to be CAA'd head of charting, and asked him why they don't a) produce their VFR charts in a freely downloadable form and b) produce their approach charts in a directly usable Jepp/Aerad-style A5 form. (To most experienced VFR/IFR pilots who actually live in the 20th, never mind the 21st century, these are really obvious things to implement; they would aid flight safety and there is no apparent overall cost). His reply was that they do not wish to compete with commercial data providers. That sort of reply is perhaps acceptable in the ivory tower these people live in but in the real world it is patent nonsense. But they really do believe they are doing The Right Thing. It's hard to see how anything can be changed - except through tiny increments and perhaps Mike Cross is after feedback of that sort.

rustle

10th Jul 2006, 19:52

“**** 'em.”

It is called constructive debate. Pithy at times, but at least we don’t need to resort to * to express ourselves.

Constructive debate can only happen when (all) parties to the debate know WTF they're talking about.

As is apparent from several comments above (which provoked my previous post) there are a few whiners who should know better but have either "forgotten", are ignorant, or are just stirring things up.

I think "pithy", in this context, is spelled with two esses. ;)

BTW, the "****" is a software issue, not a user fault. :suspect:

IO, it was the "instructor"'s post immediately before my last which really got my goat. He of the "twatco" and other useful expressions. :rolleyes:

Fuji Abound

10th Jul 2006, 20:38

"Constructive debate can only happen when (all) parties to the debate know WTF they're talking about."

Actually - no.

I dont think this was ever intended to be a debate between technical experts.

MiKe asked for end user points to take to the meeting.

An end user is concerned with deriving from the system what he wants. He is not interested in how to write the code.

In this instance a number of end users have suggested how the system could be more user friendly.

It may well be there is neither the funding, the know how, the desire or the ability within the system to adopt these proposals - I suspect that doesnt stop us asking.

IO540

10th Jul 2006, 20:50

I don't see a problem with

"Not me, chief, I'm airframes"

Whichever part of whichever Quango is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant. The end-user needs a single source information provider who can provide an up-to-date on-line chart with all the relevant NOTAMs on it.

I'm completely unimpressed by biz-speak words such as 'added value' - or by 'obligations under the Blah Treaty' and the like. The 'output' needs to be 'appropriate to user need' - not just legally adequate.

"Click - this is today's chart. Click - here are the temporary restrictions." Which part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

As noted already, the implementation may never take place (not least because NATS and CAA are different bodies, and in particular the CAA nowadays likes to point out that they are no more than an enforcement body for EASA) but it's a reasonable request.

I suppose we could suggest to Mike Cross that he could ask NATS to ask the CAA to ask the flight training industry to teach all PPLs (and all current PPLs at their 2-yearly checks) about www.ais.org.uk and how to get the best out of it. See how far he gets with that one.

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 21:14

FA
I'm happy to assist. Where I can see drawbacks or issues with what is being suggested I'll put them forward. It's up to the person who made the suggestion to deal with the question I raise. Bu@@ering about with my answers and attaching them to selective quotes, or even invented ones doesn't really move anything forward.
Some of you may know that I represent AOPA UK at regular meetings on AIS matters. These are generally attended by representatives from AIS, CAA (DAP) commercial briefing services and airlines.
The next meeting is scheduled for 8 August. If any of you have any points you would like me to raise please let me know.
I don't know how I can make this any plainer - Charts are NOT part of the UK AIS remit. Which part of that do you have difficulty in understanding?

With respect to your two points that are to do with AIS I have replied to both of them explaining the reasons why I don't think they are viable. You're free to disagree with me and make your own representations to those responsible if you wish.

A lot of useful ideas have been raised, that have the potential for improving things and I'll be raising them at the meeting.

The raising of additional funding from users by the CAA so that they may commission additional services from NATS/AIS is however not something for the meeting. It would require a policy decision from CAA. If you want to lobby for it, please feel free.

My personal view is that I'd prefer the CAA to do less rather than more, bearing in mind that everything they do seems to hit my pocket.

What I am trying to do is work within the existing funding to improve what is provided to users. We already have all of the NOTAM, AIC's, AIP data including all of the aerodrome and approach plates, and a worldwide database of aeronautical facilities freely available, downloadable and printable. The way that data is provided is capable of improvement. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Mike

Fuji Abound

10th Jul 2006, 21:29

Mike - let me be clear - I greatly appreciate what you do - thank you.

"Bu@@ering about with my answers and attaching them to selective quotes,"

That is your perception. Mine is that I have picked on a few of the issues raised and the response.

"The way that data is provided is capable of improvement. That is what I am trying to achieve."

I would be interested, and indeed it would be helpful, to know which of the points raised you intend to take forward.

In short, the issue I am struggling with is you have asked for suggestions. You gave, nor implied, any limitations. As a result it is clear that many of the "I wish" you are not prepared to put forward because the funding is not available, or you dont want to pay for it, or for some other reason. So if you are going to canvas suggestions it would be more constructive if we had had some understanding of the limitations within which we had to work.

It maybe within these limitations there is nothing worthwhile doing as I have already suggested :) .

Mike Cross

10th Jul 2006, 22:13

My list so far (no particular order):-

1. The use by AUS Mil of reporting points in NOTAM scoped for VFR that do not appear on the ICAO VFR chart with no reference to geographical features that do appear.

2. Misuse of the NOTAM system for passing information that should properly be disseminated by an address list (e.g. SSR codes)

3. Issuance of NOTAM where there is no practical action that can be taken by the recipient other than the normal practice of keeping a good lookout (e.g. some military exercises) because the activity is insufficiently specific with regard to location or time.

4. Request to ensure that a plain text geographic location reference be included in NOTAM where the location is not clear (e.g. only geographic co-ordinates or ICAO code would otherwise be provided)

5. Change the AIS login screen to allow usernames and passwords to be cached allowing automatic login. Allowing the return key when pressed while the insert point is in the password field to execute the login.

6. Provide default values where appropriate in the yellow mandatory field boxes. e.g. in the NRB enter the current date as a default briefing ID and enter "VFR" in the FL box. This will mean the minimum entry to get a brief is departure and arrival a/d

7. Improve validation error messages by including examples of correct input.

8. Various changes to labelling with the aim of making the site more intuititive for users (e.g rename "PIB Help" to "User Guide")

9. Check boxes to allow choice of which NOTAM are included when a brief is printed.

10. Improvements to typefaces and layout to aid legibility.

11. Splitting the NOTAM dropdown so the first stage menu contains Narrow Route Brief, Saved Briefings and Other Briefings. Choice of Other Briefings would then display a list of the other briefings available. This will help guide users into using the NRB.

12. Reducing the amount of data emebedded within the html code downloaded to the user's browser to improve bandwidth usage and aid those who use GPRS or other slower technologies.

No doubt I'll come up with more before the date. This list is from memory as my draft list is at the office.

WRT alternative presentations. The full text of the Q Line has for some months been included in briefings. This was done at my request and allows anyone who wants to to write software that will allow users to filter and display the information in ways that are not possible using the AIS site, including graphically. I'm not aware of anyone using it that way yet but the way is open. Prior to this you could only get the Q Line via a NATS feed from AIS which was beyond the reach of the end-user. Avbrief generously made a feed available for Ian Fallon's NotamPlot and offered it free also to any other producer of free software. It's no longer necessary for them to do so as the data can now be obtained direct from AIS. The addition of the automated login will allow the process to be made seamless from the user's point of view.

Mike

Fuji Abound

10th Jul 2006, 22:50

Mike - thanks for the clarrification.

Without commenting in detail, the examples given are very helpful, and I think are far more indicative of the suggestions you have in mind.

Hopefully more will be forthcoming from others.

I can appreciate these points should improve some shortcomings in the way the data is provided at the moment, and in the way the user interacts with the AIS web site. For those who wish to obtain NOTAMs in this way that must be a step forward.

From my own point of view the lack of a satisfactory "official" graphical interface will remain a significant and unacceptable shortcoming. I shall continue to use "commercial" providers. I hope that everything will be done to enable commercial providers to efficiently and accurately use the data supplied by the AIS.

Finally, the AIS would do well to look at the Met Office model. As I understand the position the Met Office are ultimately responsible and accountable to the Secretary of Defense. It is evident to me that they provide the data required of them by the CAA and yet have also striven to provide as much value added data as possible (albeit on a subscription basis). In terms of the presentation of the Met Office web site and the additional value added components the AIS has a great deal to learn from them.

That the AIS web user interface remains so poor and requires basic elements of web site design to be brought to their attention by the AOPA representative suggests to me the AIS is in need of a rather more fundamental review.

selfin

11th Jul 2006, 01:03

Mike, do ask the AIS to place a prominent link to http://www.eurocontrol.int/ead/public/standard_page/EAD_Basic.html

IO540

11th Jul 2006, 07:45

Excellent list Mike. Can't fault it or add to it.

As a general comment/question: is there any way to automatically separate out stuff that is mandatory for VFR? Is there any code word/tag?

For example the only stuff that really matters en route (to VFR pilots, navigating generally using DR or GPS) is temp controlled airspace or a TRA. All the other stuff that has a habit of containing coordinate lists (NAVW etc) is actually irrelevant; mil flying can and does take place just about anywhere, anyway.

I realise the purists would not like this kind of separation (perhaps done by colour coding), as it would supposedly encourage pilots to not read the rest (a bit like GPS is frowned upon because it supposedly encourages poor flight planning) but it would really aid readability of the whole thing.

Mike Cross

11th Jul 2006, 08:21

IO540

Tricky one that

Here's a random example

EGTT
AGA :
Q)EGTT/QFAAP/IV/NBO/E/000/020/5016N00516W002
FROM 06/06/08 09:13 TO 06/12/31 23:59 B1036/06
D)H24
E)AUS 06-06-0507/1829/AS3
PORTREATH. OPERATIONS ON THIS DISUSED AIRFIELD ARE BY STRICT PPR ONLY CONTRACTORS ARE WORKING ON ALL HARD SURFACES.
F)SFC G)2000FT AGL

The line starting Q) contains the ICAO coding that is used for sorting and selection.

The decode is as follows:-
EGTT is the FIR
QFAAP is coding laid down in ICAO document 8126. Q is simply a prefix to indicate the start of the code. FA means its an Aerodrome, AP means it's available, prior permission required.
IV - applicable to IFR and VFR
NBO - indicates for immediate attention of aircraft operators, for inclusion in Bulletins and Operationally significant for IFR flights
E - it's an en-route NOTAM, other options are A - Aerodrome or W - Nav Warning
000/020 height band affected as a FL, here it's the height of the ATZ
5016N00516W - geographical centre of the affected area.
002 - Radius of influence in nm. Here it's the radius of the ATZ

A letter R as the second character in the Q code signifies an airspace reservation.

e.g. QRTCA would be used for the activation of a TRA so in theory if you filtered only to display NOTAM with that code that's all you'd get. The danger is that you'd miss something else of importance. As an example there was a fatality some years ago where a light aircraft crashed in Wales. The AAIB report suggested that the pilot was attempting to navigate using a VOR that was NOTAMMED as out of service and flew into a mountian in poor weather.

I think It's a good idea though that we should be able to highlight certain NOTAM and this could be done based on the coding, e.g. make them print in bold (so they show up in a black and white print) and perhaps in a different colour.

I think there's also an opportunity for a cheap and simple software tool to apply more personalised filtering to the brief. For example I have no conventional navaids so info on VOR, NDB, DME etc outages is of no interest and could easily be filtered using check boxes.

Part of the difficulty may be that the ICAO documents you need are not freely available on the WWW, they have to be bought from ICAO. If anyone is interested in writing such software I'll be happy to help facilitate the information they need.

A key part of any such software should be that the results screen should indicate the filters that have been applied, in the same way that the AIS output does.

Mike

IO540

11th Jul 2006, 09:19

ICAO docs are online at

http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/

(above URL has a smiley in the middle of it; obviously a bug in the software here, but it seems to work)

Not sure about whether it is all of them but it looks complete. Good old Denmark :)

I don't buy the duff-VOR thing because a VFR pilot should be in VMC, and an IFR pilot should know to ident the navaid. Plus an IFR pilot will most likely be using a GPS (probably as well as VOR/DME). But in any case one could inhibit any filtering of navaids for an "IFR" briefing.

Perversely it appears one could filter out the NAVW stuff, which IMHO is nearly always worthless, and which often contains the coordinate lists.

I fly c. 150hrs/year and, reviewing the NRB output and dumping stuff like NAVW of mil exercises (on the basis they could be anywhere anyway), I have to plot coordinate lists maybe 2x a year. So either I am doing something very wrong, or there is some fundamental thing that could be done.

Mike Cross

11th Jul 2006, 10:07

Sadly doc 8126 (Manual of Aeronautical Information Services) is not on that list.

I also suspect ICAO's legal department might have a word if they knew about it:hmm:

I agree with you re a lot of the mil stuff but we have to persuade AUS (Mil) that it's not necessary to issue.

TRA's are more problematic. The Farnborough TRA being a good example. The simplest way would be to slap a big circle over Farnborough up to a defined height. However this would result in more airspace being taken than is strictly necessary. You therefore take only what is necessary and end up with a complex set of co-ordinates.

AIC are the correct path under ICAO for info requiring graphical content, which is why TRA's like this also tend to have an associated AIC.

Mike

DFC

11th Jul 2006, 10:44

EGTT
AGA :
Q)EGTT/QFAAP/IV/NBO/E/000/020/5016N00516W002
FROM 06/06/08 09:13 TO 06/12/31 23:59 B1036/06
D)H24
E)AUS 06-06-0507/1829/AS3
PORTREATH. OPERATIONS ON THIS DISUSED AIRFIELD ARE BY STRICT PPR ONLY CONTRACTORS ARE WORKING ON ALL HARD SURFACES.
F)SFC G)2000FT AGL
The line starting Q) contains the ICAO coding that is used for sorting and selection.
The decode is as follows:-
EGTT is the FIR
QFAAP is coding laid down in ICAO document 8126. Q is simply a prefix to indicate the start of the code. FA means its an Aerodrome, AP means it's available, prior permission required.
IV - applicable to IFR and VFR
NBO - indicates for immediate attention of aircraft operators, for inclusion in Bulletins and Operationally significant for IFR flights
E - it's an en-route NOTAM, other options are A - Aerodrome or W - Nav Warning
000/020 height band affected as a FL, here it's the height of the ATZ
5016N00516W - geographical centre of the affected area.
002 - Radius of influence in nm. Here it's the radius of the ATZ

An there is a perfect example of why people searching enroute notams get too much cr8p. That NOTAM should be designated as an Aerodrome NOTAM and not as an enroute NOTAM. The WIP is applicable to people who intend to use the aerodrome as a destination or alternate and not to people who will simply be passing by some 5000ft above it.

There are many more examples for for example the changes to the London City CTA being published with a radius of influence that covers the whole FIR. Who flying round Blackpool needs to know that the London City airspace has changed.

The whole idea of the radius of influence is that only NOTAMS that affect a proposed route are displayed. The AIS incorrect use of the figures causes many of the problems.

----------

Before going to any meeting Mike, make sure you are thoroughly familiar with a service provided by Austrocontrol using the same software as AIS use. It is available at www.homebriefing.com and you will find that it is a fully integrated service providing met as well as notam and even claculating groundspeds and time enroute for flights. It also enables flight plans to be filed. All together a far better use of the software than UK AIS are making.

Also ensure that you are thoroughly familiar with the Eurocontrol objectives for Aeronautical Information Management and their proposed methods of implementation including graphical tools (which are already available) they requirements for integrated met and NOTAM briefings and the E-AIPs.

Having a look at both of those will give you a fair idea of where the Europe-wide briefing service is going and what one provider is doign to acheive the aims of good integrated service provision.

Regards,

DFC

PS,

BEagle,

I bet you will find that there is a crease in your chart. You will find it just after the new one comes out and in accordance with the NOTAM from the CAA, return it and get a free one in return. :D :D

Mike Cross

11th Jul 2006, 11:07

DFC

Problem is as I indicated earlier. It would require a policy decision and funding from CAA.

I will mention it, but this meeting's somewhat lower down the food chain than what's needed for a policy change.

I know UK AIS have been sitting on the fence regarding EAD, I'll find out what the state of play is now. Certainly at the time it was introduced amid much fanfare it was extremely clunky and unworkable from my POV. That said I haven't looked at it for at least a couple of years so I'll try and find the time to do so,

I suspect to some extent new developments can hinder investment decisions. Given the prospect of the unified EAD or spending money on a stand-alone system such as Olivia, homebriefing.com, dfs.de or ais.org.uk which way do you jump?

Mike

IO540

11th Jul 2006, 12:18

Mike

"AIC are the correct path under ICAO for info requiring graphical content, which is why TRA's like this also tend to have an associated AIC."

One more for your list: give a URL to the AIC PDF file in the notam. (Afraid the French have already thought of this ;) ) That of course assumes that the ais.org.uk website permits direct access to these files; why do they need a password?????

The other suggestion, related to above, would be to keep copies of current AIC PDFs in a short path, e.g.

www.ais.org.uk/aic/aic20060711a.pdf

and not buried deep within the directory hiercharchy, resulting in unwieldy URLs.

I also don't understand the colour codes: pink, mauve, white etc. It sounds like some colour markers that WW1 generals would stick on the battlefield model in their bunker, and that's probably where it comes from. But we've already had WW2, quite a while ago......

EAD works sort-of OK now. Their problem is that they bought in the user interface, which was written for a different purpose and is far too bloated for what EAD are doing with it. A bit like NATS really... I think their objective (Frequentis is the company) is to flog as many of their commercial tools as possible.

As someone who flies into Europe, I would go for a usable EAD every time.

DFC

Homebriefing doesn't provide a narrow route briefing. The NRB is the key to removing cr*p from notam listings.

fltcom

11th Jul 2006, 14:41

I'll keep mine nice and simple.

Like many others, I have given up using the AIS website - it is simply too user 'unfriendly' I now get my NOTAMS from other sources. Please just make it easier to use. - thats about it for now.

Fly...

Fuji Abound

11th Jul 2006, 15:01

I couldnt help thinking a little more about this one.

It would seem there is very little in the budget to do anything.

Moreover the AIS have had a very long time now to implement a reasonable web site (and I am not talking about any of the extras suggested here). It would seem that they either havent got the funding or are incapable of getting even that much right.

With respect Mike, and I know from your earlier comments you also have an eye on CAA costs, perhaps we a far better of leaving things exactly as they are - cheap, cheerful and basic.

In that way the commercial providers can get on and do what is required and if we all have to pay a small fee so be it. It will probably cost a lot less than expecting the AIS to get extra funding from the CAA, which doubtless will only be passed on to GA given your earlier comments.

Moreover, there are clearly a host of other national authorities all providing the same information throughout Europe (never mind the rest of the world) - whatever happened to a single source European provider escapes me, and why every national authority throughout Europe should be spending their time doing much the same job I have no idea.

So, in short, my recommendation would be to tear up your list of points (as well intended as they are), tell the AIS they are doing a fine job, just dont change anything and whatever they do, dont ask for any more funding, and invest your well spent time in a pursuit more likely to assist GA - how about a PPL/IR :) .

rustle

11th Jul 2006, 15:40

Mike, don't forget to add the resilient option to your list as site unavailability (despite having the backup FIR NOTAM brief hosted elsewhere) is still a major PITA if you want or need plates or copies of AICs.

Thanks :ok:

MikeJ

11th Jul 2006, 19:37

Mike Cross,
I'm delighted you are taking this up for us all. Never mind the inevitable irrelevent comments from several on Pprune! You have had some very sensible comments from many.

However, I've been following this thread, and to me, there's a bit of 'Emporer's clothes' about it. Since I am planning to fly Fairoaks to Rochester tomorrow through the dreaded LHR LGW gap, I thought I would do a test.

A narrow route briefing gave me 16 entries, but only 3 could possibly be relevent.
Among many I got: UHF change for the Lichfield corridor, cancellation of Coltishall MATZ, Newcastle airspace changes, some telephone no. changes, a Met research flight whose eastern extremity was 1 deg W, but was phenominally long in lists of Lat/Long to search to find this out. Quite apart from the helium balloon up to 500' in Regents Park.

Why does a pilot need to know changes to SSR code allocation? One can only squawk as directed.

I have heard it said that in only 50% of flights by private owners have any Notams been checked, and no wonder!

I do know that the programming of sensible filtering to eliminate unneeded stuff is very difficult, and therefore expensive. But I'll just go back to using the simple NotamPlot, free of all charge (so I'm not promoting a commercial service on Pprune) which gives me all I want so simply.

Does it not meet my legal requirements to obtain relevent info before flight?

I think that the current system is an expected result of it having been developed without any consultation on the needs of the private owner.

Very best support for you in your work on this,
MikeJ

DFC

11th Jul 2006, 20:45

I also don't understand the colour codes: pink, mauve, white etc. It sounds like some colour markers that WW1 generals would stick on the battlefield model in their bunker, and that's probably where it comes from. But we've already had WW2, quite a while ago......

DFC
Homebriefing doesn't provide a narrow route briefing. The NRB is the key to removing cr*p from notam listings.

White - Admin
Yellow - Operational
Pink - Safety
Green - Charts
Mauve - Airspace Restrictions.

A very simple way of permitting quick access to the desired information. A bit lost on new pilots who have perhaps never seen them on anything other than a screen.

Home briefing does provide a narrow route breifing. It has to be based on a flight plan you filed. If you don't file plans you will indeed find it hard to get a decent briefing. Most serious flying results in flight plans so no problem then.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

11th Jul 2006, 21:37

Home briefing does provide a narrow route breifing. It has to be based on a flight plan you filed. If you don't file plans you will indeed find it hard to get a decent briefing. Most serious flying results in flight plans so no problem then.

Funny that; I wrote to them recently asking if they do a route-based "track width" briefing and they said it is planned but not there yet.

What they do provide, as do many other websites, is a briefing based on a straight line from departure to destination.

This isn't too bad for IFR/airways, where you do need the airfield notams (closed runways, etc) but enroute stuff is not so important because a) you are under radar control and b) you won't usually fly the filed route anyway.

The other thing is that if Homebriefing did indeed do an ais-type NRB, but you had to file an ICAO flight plan to get it (as you suggest), that wouldn't be any good for most UK flying, which is what probably 99% of UK VFR PPLs do, and no ICAO flight plan is needed for that.

I am afraid we are stuck with ais.org.uk and we have to make the best of it. Some small improvements will come no doubt but basically pilots will have to learn to read and discard the dross. It is a very quick process really.

ahs

12th Jul 2006, 12:48

WRT alternative presentations. The full text of the Q Line has for some months been included in briefings. This was done at my request and allows anyone who wants to to write software that will allow users to filter and display the information in ways that are not possible using the AIS site, including graphically. I'm not aware of anyone using it that way yet but the way is open. Prior to this you could only get the Q Line via a NATS feed from AIS which was beyond the reach of the end-user. Avbrief generously made a feed available for Ian Fallon's NotamPlot and offered it free also to any other producer of free software. It's no longer necessary for them to do so as the data can now be obtained direct from AIS. The addition of the automated login will allow the process to be made seamless from the user's point of view.

Mike
Mike,

There are at least two free graphical NOTAM display programs using the Q-line information - Jeff Goodenough's SPINE software (http://www.enborne.f2s.com/gliding/spine.htm) and my own NavPlot software (http://www.freeflight.org.uk/software/) Many thanks for your efforts to persuade AIS to include this data.

Although the inclusion of Q-line data is of enormous help when writing this kind of software it would be better still if the data could be delivered in a more "machine friendly" way. At the moment the data is still presented in a format intended for a pilot to read it using a web browser, but this makes it a bit tricky for the software to read the data.

If you could use you presuade AIS to add a mechanism to download data (raw text, no filtering) for use by this kind of software that would be terrific.

Thanks,
Alan.

Mike Cross

12th Jul 2006, 15:38

Hi Alan

I'm very glad to hear that it is being made use of. I'd feel a bit of a twazzock if everyone had ignored it.:)

It is possible to get a feed of the raw data but it's not designed for end users, more for ANSP's (Air Navigation Service Providers) like Avbrief. NATS, not unnaturally, are a bit choosy about who they allow to connect directly and run queries on their servers.

The concept behind what you are making use of runs like this:-
1. AIS provides data to a defined standard using an ISO 9000 acredditted Quality Sytem directly to the end user. The data that has been provide can be reproduced in the event of any query, allowing the cause of any problems that might arise to be determined. The Quality System undergoes independent scrutiny by the acredditation body a minimum of two times each year.
2. What the user does with that data once it has been delivered is his/her responsibility.

If the data is provided to a third party organisation which then provides it to an end user that organisation becomes an ANSP and is likley to require certification under the European Commission's "common requirements for air navigation service providers".

Some details are available here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=952&pagetype=68&groupid=973)

Hope that makes some sense.

Mike

PS Thales today uploaded a patch to the Web Server designed to eliminate the "500 Error" problem that has been present of late. If anyone continues to receive this error please let me know.

IO540

12th Jul 2006, 15:58

The data that has been provide can be reproduced in the event of any query, allowing the cause of any problems that might arise to be determined

Q: does the system store the actual text of the briefing one gets?

If so, how long for?

I happen to know that if you do an alleged TRA infringement in France (on a flight originating from the UK, for example) then you hear nothing for up to 6 months, at which point you get a letter from the CAA saying the DGAC asked them who the pilot was, etc.

So AIS would need to retain all briefings for at least that long, to be useful. Probably for a year. That's a lot of data.

Mike Cross

12th Jul 2006, 16:43

It is.
If you look at the top of your brief you'll find a number like this R1201538
That's the identification number.

Knowing your login details and the approx date and time you took the brief AIS can find it. This could just save your bacon if you were accused of not briefing or of infringing something that wasn't in your brief. I understand that the data is routinely pulled as evidence in the event of an investigation.

Of course some find the idea of strangers rummaging in their briefs distasteful:oh:

I don't know how long they are kept for but I'm willing to bet that somewhere there are some archive tapes going back a long time.

Mike

Mike Cross

13th Jul 2006, 10:50

Supplementary follow up

Someone from NATS has kindly provided the information that the ICAO requirement is for the data to kept 30 days. Any request for the info to be pulled would normally be made within that period. In practice it's kept for 90 days.

Mike

mark147

13th Jul 2006, 13:07

White - Admin
Yellow - Operational
Pink - Safety
Green - Charts
Mauve - Airspace Restrictions.
A very simple way of permitting quick access to the desired information.
Here's a suggestion for Mike, then:

By all means print the AICs on appropriate coloured paper but why not list them on the AIS drop down menus under those category names. If I want to find an AIC about an airspace restriction, I'd like to click on AIP->AICs->Airspace Restrictions, not have to look up or try to remember which colour is which.

Also, can we have an index of AICs ordered and listed by date? There's an attempt here (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/html/aiccheck.htm) but it's still not easy to check on the ones that have been issued since your last visit. (That page could also benefit from naming the categories of AIC).

I also wonder whether AIS could provide an email notification service where you could register an email address and every month or so, you'd be emailed a simple list of new AICs with their titles (and links to download them).

The same could apply to the AIP changes: just a simple list of the ADs that have had their entries changed, plus a direct link to look at the new information. I know there's the AIRAC changes document but that's absolutely huge because it includes all the changed pages rather than just referencing them. I keep a collection of IAP plates for possible diversion ADs and would love to be able to know when I need to update them. Similarly, I'd like to be aware of any significant changes to facilities etc. at ADs I visit regularly.

Mark

Pudnucker

14th Jul 2006, 12:19

Chaps,

Been on the AIS site for a short local flight this evening and some general handling. I personally don't think the AIS site is that bad... until I read this... I bet £100 that the Farnborough space gets busted several times... no wonder!

For christ's sake!:ugh:

NAVW: Q)EGTT/QRTCA/IV/BO/AW/000/050/5117N00047W017
A)EGLF FROM 06/07/10 08:00 TO 06/07/24 16:00 J2619/06
E) AUS 06-07-0004/2124/DAPLC
FARNBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW. THIS NOTAM AMENDS AIC 66/2006
(MAUVE 187) TIMES FOR AREAS 8 AND 9 ON 21 JUL AND AREAS 1-7 ON 23 JUL
. RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS MADE UNDER ARTICLE 96 OF THE ANO
2005 (MIL ACFT SHOULD COMPLY WITH JSP552 201.135.9). SUBJECT TO
PARAGRAPH 12 NO ACFT SHALL FLY WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREAS DURING
PERIODS DETAILED AT PARAGRAPHS 10 AND 11.
1. AREA 1. ANTI-CLOCKWISE ARC OF A CIRCLE RAD 12NM CENTRED AT
512812N 0002713W EXTENDING FROM 512431N 0004525W TO 512104N
0004242W THEN STRAIGHT LINES 512013N 0003800W 512013N 0003515W
THEN CLOCKWISE ARC OF CIRCLE RAD 8NM CENTRED AT 511633N 0004635W
EXTENDING FROM 512013N 0003515W TO 512431N 0004525W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE SFC - BASE OF CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (BOCAS)
2. AREA 2. STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 512013N 0003515W 512013N 0003106W
511656N 0002821W 511503N 0003404W THEN ANTI-CLOCKWISE ARC OF A
CIRCLE RAD 8NM CENTRED AT 511633N 0004635W EXTENDING FROM
511503N 0003404W TO 512013N 0003515W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 1500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
3. AREA 3. ANTI-CLOCKWISE ARC OF CIRCLE RAD 8NM CENTRED AT 511633N
0004635W EXTENDING FROM 511250N 0005751W TO 510929N 0004037W THEN
STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 510929N 0004037W 510652N 0004829W 510905N
0005856W 511250N 0005751W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 2500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
4. AREA 4. STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 510518N 0010000W 510905N 0005856W
510652N 0004829W 510518N 0010000W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 3500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
5. AREA 5. STRAIGHT LINE JOINING 512430N 0010000W-512314N 0005333W
THEN ANTI-CLOCKWISE BY ARC OF CIRCLE RAD 8NM CENTRED AT 511633N
0004635W EXTENDING FROM 512314N 0005333W TO 511250N 0005751W THEN
STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 511250N 0005751W 511836N 0010241W 512430N
0010000W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 2500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
6. AREA 6. STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 512500N 0010805W 512430N 0010000W
511836N 0010241W 512500N 0010805W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 3500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
7. AREA 7. STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 512500N 0010805W 511250N 0005751W
510518N 0010000W 512500N 0010805W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 4500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
8. AREA 8. CIRCLE RAD 5NM CENTRED AT 511633N 0004635W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE SFC TO BOCAS.
9. AREA 9. ANTI-CLOCKWISE ARC OF A CIRCLE RAD 12NM CENTRED AT
512812N 0002713W EXTENDING FROM 512255N 0004426W TO 512104N
0004242W THEN STRAIGHT LINES JOINING 512104N 0004242W 512013N
0003800W 512013N 0003106W 511656N 0002821W 510913N 0005137W THEN
CLOCKWISE ARC OF A CIRCLE RAD 8NM CENTRED AT 511633N 0004635W
EXTENDING FROM 510913N 0005137W TO 511801N 0005906W THEN STRAIGHT
LINE JOINING 511801N 0005906W 512255N 0004426W.
VERTICAL LIMITS ARE 1500FT ALT TO BOCAS.
10. AREAS 1-7 ACTIVE 10-14 JUL 0800-1800 DAILY
NOTE ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY AREA 1 ON 15 JUL 0800-1200 WILL BE ACTIVATED
BY NOTAM IF REQUIRED.
17 JUL 1315-1515
18-20 JUL 1300-1600 DAILY
21 JUL 1215-1615
22 JUL 1130-1645
23 JUL 1130-1645 (AMENDS AIC)
11. AREAS 8 AND 9 ACTIVE
17 JUL 0700-1315 AND 1515-1900
18-20 JUL 0700-1300 AND 1600-1900 DAILY
21 JUL 0700-1215 AND 1615-1900 (AMENDS AIC)
22 JUL 0700-1130 AND 1645-180023 JUL 0700-1300 AND 1645-1800
24 JUL 0700-1600
12. EXCEPT ACFT FLYING WITH A CLEARANCE FROM ATC FARNBOROUGH AND ANY
AICRAFT FLYING WITHIN NOTIFIED CONTROLLED AIRSPACE.
AIC 66/2006 (MAUVE 187) REFERS. SEE SEPARATE NOTAMS FOR RED ARROWS
DISPLAYS.
F)SFC G)5000FT AMSL

dublinpilot

14th Jul 2006, 14:43

In all fairness, that NOTAM does look dreadful, and no one would plot it out.

However, I decided to follow it......and it took me less than 30 seconds to log in and find the referanced AIC, which had a nice chart showing the airspace.

Now that's not a lot of use, if you're reading your notams as you drive to the airport, from the pages you printed off earlier, but if you're still at the PC it's not much of an issue.

In doing this, I did also see that the AIS site DOES give a description of what each colour AIC is about, and groups them together.

dp

rustle

14th Jul 2006, 15:05

Can't really win with the Farnborough TRA - simplest would be to draw a (big) circle around Farnborough and make that a TRA, but then people complain it is taking up too much space.

So they plotted the minimum they need and that makes it harder to visualise and harder for NotamPlot et al to draw.

(Once you see the picture in the AIC then it's easy to see what's happening)

What would you prefer they do in 2008?

IO540

14th Jul 2006, 19:58

Yes that Farnborough notam looks dreadful. The RIAT one (run by Brize) is similar.

But the smart thing to do there is to get onto ais.org.uk and print off the AIC referred to. It doesn't take long to find it - assuming the pilot is internet-savvy which many aren't (especially the "older" sort). There is a nice picture in there. But I am certain the majority of UK PPL-level pilots have never heard of ais.org,uk and won't hear anything about it either 10 years from now.

The notam should contain a short URL to the document.

Someone from NATS has kindly provided the information that the ICAO requirement is for the data to kept 30 days. Any request for the info to be pulled would normally be made within that period. In practice it's kept for 90 days.

Nowhere near long enough for what the French have been known to get up to :yuk:

Clearly the solution, for anyone flying in France, is to print out the notam listing and keep it for 1 year (or save it in a file). That's what I do.

Fuji Abound

15th Jul 2006, 07:51

"(Once you see the picture in the AIC then it's easy to see what's happening)"

Exactly.

It begs the question as to whether someone at NATS is plotting NOTAMs to verify their accuracy in the first place. If not, how is their accuracy verified?

I have followed this thread with much interest.

Plotting complicated NOTAMs and tracking down AICs should be within the ability of any pilot. However their are few who either dont want to or can be bothered to, and unfortunately a fair few more who dont know how to.

For this reason infringements will continue.

If NATS really want to do anything about it they would address the real issue rather than playing with the presentation of their web site which will achieve - Zilch!

If this information has already been plotted and is therefore in graphical format, as is clearly the case with the Farnborough AIC, it should be published on the NATS web site. There is no excuse for NATS failure to do so.

rustle

15th Jul 2006, 08:08

If this information has already been plotted and is therefore in graphical format, as is clearly the case with the Farnborough AIC, it should be published on the NATS web site. There is no excuse for NATS failure to do so.

Paraphrasing Pudnucker: For Christ's sake!:ugh:

It is published on a NATS web site.

AIS is part of NATS. AIS publish the AICs on their web site.

IO540

15th Jul 2006, 08:38

Fuji - I suspect that somebody "in charge" decides that unless they produce a nice picture, there will be hundreds of infringements of these big and active TRAs, so "somebody in charge" gets off their ar*e and draws the picture.

But the vast majority of things which don't get a picture, probably don't need a picture, because they are stuff like military flying which can be safely ignored (on the grounds that it can happen anywhere).

Of course those "in charge" can't officially say

"we will produce a nice picture only for the stuff that matters"

can they ;)

Rustle - as I have said many times, most pilots have never heard of NATS, never heard of ais.org.uk, many don't use the internet at all, many don't know what "internet" is (they think it is something that lives inside a PC), etc etc etc etc.

BEagle

15th Jul 2006, 09:22

How true!

If NATS and the CAA are to move into the 21st century, let's have an electronic on-line up-to-date CAA 1:500 000 with all amendments plotted.

Then use this to:

1. Display layers of NOTAMs up to the user-specified maximum altitude for the specified date/time of flight.
2. Plan a route between click-and-drop waypoints.
3. Download route, then update the plan for winds-of-the-day prior to flight. These must be incorporated into the same system from the UK Met Office automatically.
4. Print off a summary with track/distance/heading/groundspeed/elapsed times for non-GPS folk.
5. Download the same summary into a USB stick for transfer to an on-aircraft GPS.

Who would pay for all this? The people who get all the tax on AvGas, that's who!

Fuji Abound

15th Jul 2006, 09:26

Rustle

Sorry if I was not clear

The point I was seeking to make is that if the information has been plotted (as it has) I can see no excuse for having to look elsewhere for this information. Users will (and you can of course argue rightly or wrongly) look at the NOTAMS, narrow route breifing, by FIR or whatever. In my opinion for the site to work they want to see a pictoral representation of the NOTAM or at least a DIRECT link to the information.

I consider there is no excuse for failure to provide this, particulary since as you say the information is there.

IO540

Absolutely correct.

.. .. .. and I remain interested as to how the NOTAMs for which there is no plot elsewhere are verified. Can the guys there just look at the lat long co-ordinates and "know" they make sense or infact are they "plotted" as part of their own internal verification process. I wonder. Bright guys at NATS - maybe they just need to go on a very basic web design course.

The fact remains infringements are an increasing problem. Either you want to do something about it by improving the training pilots receive, or you want to provide the information in a user freindly way or dont be too surprised the infrigements continue. I am afraid in my opinion the suggestions so far will do nothing to address the problem.

Beagle

Could not have said it better !!!!!

rustle

15th Jul 2006, 09:29

Rustle - as I have said many times, most pilots have never heard of NATS, never heard of ais.org.uk, many don't use the internet at all, many don't know what "internet" is (they think it is something that lives inside a PC), etc etc etc etc.

That may or may not be the case.

I don't know how someone could pass exams without knowing what the AIP, AICs and NOTAMs are or where to get them, but if you say so...

However the person who said If this information has already been plotted and is therefore in graphical format, as is clearly the case with the Farnborough AIC, it should be published on the NATS web site. There is no excuse for NATS failure to do so. cannot be one of these people to whom you refer, as they are using "the internet" to post this disinformation. ;)

Borrowing from one of Mike's posts (elsewhere) Indeed many [pilots] don't understand the AIRAC Cycle, or the fact that NOTAM are used to provide textual updates to AIP information and AIC's are the mechanism for disseminating information with a graphical content

Fuji Abound

15th Jul 2006, 09:48

Rustle

It seems strange to me that no one wants to see infringements

but

apparently the training is fine and the way NATS provides NOTAMS is fine.

I think the govenrment should change its policy and outlaw speedos in cars, set up more speed cameras, let the drivers guess their speed and relish the additional income from more speed fines.

It is all academic to me becasue fortunately there are some genuinely bright fellas out there who have produced software that plots NOTAMs and strangely enough they are able to do it for free without I guess very many resources at their disposal. Strange NATS cant or that they would not want to compete with commercial providers who are clearly making a great deal of money out of providing this information free of charge.

IO540

15th Jul 2006, 11:53

Fuji

and I remain interested as to how the NOTAMs for which there is no plot elsewhere are verified

AIUI, the only time anybody "in charge" has a reason to look at the coordinate lists which appear in the notam feed (from Farnborough, or from Mongolia) is when the staff at some air traffic unit comes to work in the morning, at which time they look at the local FIR list and manually plot (onto some big board) anything that affects them.

So I dare say e.g. Solent Radar will know about the Farnborough & Fairford TRAs. (Not that this necessarily stops Farnborough not saying anything while providing an FIS, with a squawk, to a pilot practically to the point where he infringes the Fairford TRA, and don't ask me how I know that ;) )

So, there are lots and lots of fairly well paid people already plotting lots of coordinate lists.... so, here's a marketing idea for NATS: centralise it, using a website!

Beagle

The interesting point is that a lot of it can be done without extra cost.

Rustle

That may or may not be the case.

I bet you it is the case. The average old codger in this business, or any other business, wouldn't know what "internet" is if it poked him in the eye. (Of course anybody reading this will find this comment offensive - because they are on the internet). Also, nearly all PPLs drop out within a few years, so a lot of people that fly did their training in a completely different age; 10,20,30 years ago. A lot of pilots are like those Japanese soldiers that lived in the jungles for many years, never realising WW2 had ended. The farm strip scene is like that.

I don't know how someone could pass exams without knowing what the AIP, AICs and NOTAMs are or where to get them, but if you say so...

I had never heard of the AIP, AIC when having my PPL, and notams were something that got pinned onto the notice board, and the instructor had a quick look each morning. This was in 2000. My info is that this is the standard system around the UK. So even new pilots aren't taught the info

The basic statistical point here is that the vast majority of pilots have never done a major bust. You need only a small minority to fly around without the information and you will get the hundreds of major busts that take place in the UK each year.

I agree with you that improving the website facilities won't help many pilots because they know nothing about it to start with.

Fuji Abound

15th Jul 2006, 12:36

IO540

"I bet you it is the case."

My perception also. I was only chatting to a friend last week who is over half way through his PPL. He had no idea where or how to find NOTAM information.

"is when the staff at some air traffic unit"

.. .. .. but is there no earlier review of UK NOTAMS? I dont know the answer but I would be interested to know what checks are carried out to prevent an inaccurate NOTAM getting into the system in the first place. In other words considering just for a moment the co-ordinates, if there is an error in the co-ordinates how is this "trapped" before the information is published?

IO540

15th Jul 2006, 12:55

The contrary evidence for your question, Fuji, is the fact that the well known notam plotting programs that have been about for a few years are unable to plot some notams, due to a typo in the coordinate lists or the way they are laid out.

Mike Cross said something along the lines of somebody at NATS taking a manual look at notams entering the NATS database and manually correcting those that the system chucks out. This is contrary to what I am saying, and depending on what is actually happening it might be relevant.

I don't think anybody plots the coordinates though.

rustle

15th Jul 2006, 13:01

Mike Cross said something along the lines of somebody at NATS taking a manual look at notams entering the NATS database and manually correcting those that the system chucks out. This is contrary to what I am saying, and depending on what is actually happening it might be relevant.

I think what Mike actually said is that someone from AIS will review the system-rejected ones, but that no-one reviews the ones that get onto the system on first attempt.

"Exception handling", for lack of a better description.

Since the originators are the only people who know what it is they're trying to notify it is a bit difficult for anyone else to second-guess them.

Shout at the originator if there are issues. ;)

IO540

15th Jul 2006, 15:16

Yes, that sounds right.

There must be a massive number of notams, because NATS get the entire worldwide feed.

Even if one did just the OK ones, only a tiny fraction could ever be looked at by a human, for clarification or coordinate plotting purposes.

Is there a mechanism for "shouting at the originator"? I believe there is a contact email at NATS through which a complaint can be lodged.

However, we must not pretend that the UK is the centre of the universe - though it is for the vast majority of UK PPLs. If you do a narrow route briefing for a flight from the UK to say far end of Italy, you get an absolutely vast quantity of rubbish, perhaps 20 pages. There is nothing wrong with the UK in particular handles this. Everybody and their dog in the EC is squirting cr*p into the system.

It's no wonder people find IFR is easier than VFR... radar control the whole way, and the only notams that matter are those affecting the ends.

SQUAWKIDENT

15th Jul 2006, 18:59

If only I could view current NOTAMS..
When I login to www.ais.org.uk I receive the message
Error 500--Internal Server Error
From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error
The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.
Same thing appears to be happening daily now.
Could you ask them to get a better server?:ouch:

rustle

15th Jul 2006, 19:03

Error 500--Internal Server Error

We've been discussing that HERE (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=24194) as well...

Fuji Abound

15th Jul 2006, 19:13

Dont worry leave it to the professionals and get the information from the FAA NOTAM site. Never known it to be down.

Shame about not being able to access the other information on NATS though.

selfin

15th Jul 2006, 19:13

S/ident, try EAD at, http://www.eurocontrol.int/ead/public/standard_page/EAD_Basic.html

PPRuNe Radar

15th Jul 2006, 19:17

Since the originators are the only people who know what it is they're trying to notify it is a bit difficult for anyone else to second-guess them.

Shout at the originator if there are issues.

Just to clarify, AIS are not the originators (sponsors might be a better word). They are simply the publishers, doing so on behalf of the parties who want their aeronautical information to be noted. As mentioned, AIS might pick up format errors and correct those, but they don't have any responsibility for checking the co-ordinates given to them. That lies wth the sponsor, who is responsible for making sure that the information they provide to AIS is correct, and for cross checking that what AIS publish is what was requested.

The debate has touched on it before, but it's not the remit of NATS to decide on how data is provided or to make policy decisions upon it. That lies with the CAA who have contracted NATS to provide AIS to the specification which the CAA have set. So the real people to lobby should be the CAA if major changes and innovations are to be made. No doubt NATS (or any other provider) would have a price for providing this, which the CAA would have to meet. Or in other words, the aviation industry (including you and me) would have to meet since the CAA is a 100% cost recovery organisation by UK Government direction.

Who would pay for all this? The people who get all the tax on AvGas, that's who!

That would be Mr Brown then. The CAA and NATS receive no government funding, AVGAS taxation (as well as Government aviation taxes) all disappear in to the big pot, unlike the 'ring fencing' system enjoyed by the US aviation authorities. Now maybe if we saved just 1/2% on all the wasteage and cost overruns in the defence procurement budgets, we'd have enough for a free 'Rolls Royce' aviation system, as well as paying for everything else that UK society needs :ok:

I bet you it is the case. The average old codger in this business, or any other business, wouldn't know what "internet" is if it poked him in the eye. (Of course anybody reading this will find this comment offensive - because they are on the internet). Also, nearly all PPLs drop out within a few years, so a lot of people that fly did their training in a completely different age; 10,20,30 years ago. A lot of pilots are like those Japanese soldiers that lived in the jungles for many years, never realising WW2 had ended. The farm strip scene is like that.

I fear that this is true. However, how did they get NOTAMs before the internet AIS ? And what prevents that now ?? Or is just that we have a lot of pilots out there who were never fully trained, or in some rare cases, are just plain 'gash' ?

IO540

15th Jul 2006, 20:32

how did they get NOTAMs before the internet AIS ? And what prevents that now ?? Or is just that we have a lot of pilots out there who were never fully trained, or in some rare cases, are just plain 'gash' ?

I guess the answer is composite:

1. Prior to the internet based distribution systems coming online in Europe in (very) recent years, the notam generation rate may have been a lot lower. I can't speak for this myself because I have zero personal experience pre-2000 but this has to be true, looking at the sheer volume of non-route-filtered notams. UNLESS some human operator would parse the FIR briefing (the stuff that would get pinned on the school notice board) prior to publication; are there any people in NATS who can confirm/deny this?

2. There was much less bust reporting in the "good ole days". This is like paedophiles; the # of offences committed against kids by a non family member has been reportedly constant for 50 years, but the press coverage has gone up exponentially.

3. There was almost no cheap airline activity say 20 years ago, so airports like Luton/Stan were very much quieter; Gatwick/Heathrow were quieter too. Busts were not as serious in their consequences.

4. I would speculate that since the advert of GPS, more people of a given experience level do longer journeys. (A good topic for some research; certainly enough meat for a PhD at a 3rd tier UK university). The vast majority of these people will be navigating absolutely precisely (hard not to) but if they don't know about notams they will infringe TRAs etc. Moreover, if they don't know how to plan properly, they will also infringe CAS. Before GPS, a pilot of a given intelligence / ability would have been much less likely to do a flight of say 100nm; most pilots are smart enough to know their capability. So I reckon that there was far more bimbling back then, and most bimbling is done from "little" airfields whose local area is unlikely to be affected by anything. Bimbling also doesn't require much planning. Certainly, the long VFR trips I have done across Europe I would have never attempted without GPS/VOR/DME. I could have done them using dead reckoning but I would not have considered the high cockpit workload and positional uncertainty as sensible risk management (and I am not a complete mug).

Of course the last one above is just going to be interpreted as saying that GPS has led to more infringements :ugh: That is the problem: even the supposedly professional people in the AAIB or the CAA have no clue about elementary statistics, and while they have sort-of surveyed the infringing population, they have failed to survey the planning/operating habits of the far bigger non infringing population.

SQUAWKIDENT

15th Jul 2006, 20:56

Thanks for the link;)
AIS site now says
"Oops! Your request cannot be completed. The server got the following error.
Please notify the administrator. Thank you. "
Nice english.

pulse1

15th Jul 2006, 21:41

the notam generation rate may have been a lot lower.

I wonder if this sort of thing would have been NOTAMed years ago. I will probably be flying over Cowes returning from Headcorn at that time. What's a DA20 and how fast is it going to be?

Ref: H2004/06
FIR: EGXX
Code: WELW
Traffic: VFR IFR
Purpose: PIB entry Operationally significant for flights
Scope: Nav Warning
Lower limit (FL): 000
Upper limit (FL): 150
Centre and radius (nm): 5025N00153W030
Parent ICAO: EGTT
Start date/time: 18/07/2006 15:00 UTC
End date/time: 18/07/2006 17:00 UTC
Activity period: null
Lower height limit: 000
Upper height limit: 150

AUS 06-07-0305/2187/AS4

BAE SYSTEMS TRIAL. DA20 ACFT WILL CONDUCT EQUIPMENT TRIAL

ALONG A TRACK FROM 5045N 00118W (COWES) THROUGH 5039N 00130W-5018N

00210W TO 5010N 00239W (EGD 017/023).

8X RUNS WILL BE CONDUCTED, ONE AT EACH OF LEVELS 1000FT AMSL,

3000FT AMSL, FL50, 70, 90, 110, 130 AND 150. CONTACT 01202 409013.

Incidentally, I also can't log in to the AIS server. Neither could NavPlot. However, Notamplot appears to download NOTAMS, presumably from the same source. How does one know they are up to date?

Mike Cross

15th Jul 2006, 22:32

Pulse 1

My thoughts too when I saw it.
DA20
http://www.diamond-air.at/images/products_bilder/DA20/DA20-C1big.jpg
Maybe they'll issue a special NOTAM to warn you when I go up in the Luscombe as well:mad:

IO540
There is much in what you say. Before the website you got two sets of bulletins, one for en-route and one for aerodromes, pinned up on the wall if you were lucky. They covered the whole country and it was up to you to work out which were relevant.

The upside was that you didn't get everything. You got edited highlights and it was up to the guy at AIS which ones he included and which he did not.

It was also as you say quieter then. I've been in to Stansted in a PA28 for fuel and I've also been cleared to transit Gatwick not above 1000 ft at right angles to the centreline and crossing the runway at its midpoint. Not something I make a habit of asking for now!

I gather AIS used to be the arbiters of what would or would not qualify for promulgation but the CAA took away their right to make that decision. It's difficult to find someone with operational responsibility for the day to day decision making on that.

Mike

IO540

16th Jul 2006, 06:50

You can still get a Gatwick transit, 2400ft, VMC. In fact they seem quite pleasant about it - must make a difference to see a "real plane" for a change :O

Most of the day, there is very little activity at Gatwick.

PPRuNe Radar

16th Jul 2006, 10:03

Maybe they'll issue a special NOTAM to warn you when I go up in the Luscombe as well

Remember though that NOTAMs are written in ICAO-ese which makes it one of these DA20s. It is using the aircraft designation required in Flight Plans.

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/spotting/lossiemouth5.jpg

Going to be a bit faster, and a lot harder if it hits you, than a plastic Diamond ;)

pulse1

16th Jul 2006, 10:17

Roffa

16th Jul 2006, 11:26

Most of the day, there is very little activity at Gatwick.

Didn't realise the busiest single runway airport in the world was such an aviation backwater :rolleyes:

Mike Cross

16th Jul 2006, 11:43

Guilty but then either of them would spoil my day if it hit me.

However it doesn't detract form the main point which is:-
NOTAM
A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations

Aeroplanes fly, it's what they do.

PPRuNe Radar

16th Jul 2006, 13:07

But doesn't that just reinforce the point - that safety critical information should be designed to be easily understood by those to whom it is important. In this case, at the lower altitudes, it is important to people like me and, although the FRA Falcons come over my house almost everyday, I do not recognise it as a DA20. Maybe that is not important but knowing how fast it is going is likely to be important.

Easily understood is one thing, but much more important is using a standard which is internationally recognised and able to be interpreted by all users wherever they hail from. Hence the use of the code designated by ICAO which is published and able to be understood by all users (if they look up the right documents ;) ). :ok:

For those who don't know where to look, or far more likely, don't have ready access to the documents detailing aircraft designators, the NOTAM published a telephone number so anyone not having knowledge of what a DA20 is could always pick up the phone and ask if at all unsure :cool:

The problem of not using standard terminology is that things are then left open to interpretation. If they had used 'Falcon aircraft', you might have thought, ''ah yes, the twin engined business jet'', Mike Cross might have thought ''ah yes, the Diamond Falcon, light single'', and I might have thought ''ah yes, an F16 military jet''. Even if they had used 'DA20 Falcon', that still rules in the Dassault Falcon (biz jet) since it is called the 'Falcon' and is called the 'DA20' by ICAO, or it could have been the aircraft designated 'DA20' and called 'Falcon' by Diamond Aircraft. If the latter, the NOTAM would probably have called it a 'DV22' which is its ICAO name :ok:

rustle

16th Jul 2006, 14:07

The problem of not using standard terminology is that things are then left open to interpretation. If they had used 'Falcon aircraft', you might have thought, ''ah yes, the twin engined business jet'', Mike Cross might have thought ''ah yes, the Diamond Falcon, light single'', and I might have thought ''ah yes, an F16 military jet''. Even if they had used 'DA20 Falcon', that still rules in the Dassault Falcon (biz jet) since it is called the 'Falcon' and is called the 'DA20' by ICAO, or it could have been the aircraft designated 'DA20' and called 'Falcon' by Diamond Aircraft. If the latter, the NOTAM would probably have called it a 'DV22' which is its ICAO name :ok:

[Tongue in cheek]
Perhaps AIS could be persuaded to include a (free) pretty picture of the aircraft involved next time to avoid confusion.
[/Tongue in cheek]
;)

IO540

16th Jul 2006, 16:08

As Mike says, why notam something about a plane flying - or even a number of them flying. Gosh, I went for a flight today and saw a whole bunch of planes flying. Nothing in the notams about those.... That's a scandal worthy of the Daily Mail.

Incidentally, that small jet in question might go fairly fast at FL350 but it will be limited to 250kt below 10,000ft. Any half decent knackered old turboprop can do that. No notams for those!

One can chop down the average route briefing by 90%, in exactly the time it takes to read it. The other 10% needs to be read a second time.

PPRuNe Radar

16th Jul 2006, 19:32

Incidentally, that small jet in question might go fairly fast at FL350 but it will be limited to 250kt below 10,000ft. Any half decent knackered old turboprop can do that. No notams for those!

What limit would that be ?? ;) FRA Falcons have CAA dispensation from the speed restriction, associated with their military trials and training roles, due to the fact they are operating on behalf of the MoD or other relevant defence related organisation. In this case, because it is a trial with BAe Systems, and due to its location, it is more than likely a trial involving a warship and its onboard equipment.

Perhaps the NOTAM should mention that the aircraft is possibly flying faster than 250Kts, degrading the 'see and be seen' principle, and then everyone would be happy with it being published :ok:

But then that's up to the 'sponsor' to tell AIS that's why they want people to know about it I suppose, so it's back to square 1. Whether the sponsors 'man on the scene' is totally au fait with aviation and the requirements of other airspace users, is another aspect which could explain the amount of required 'interpolation' required for a NOTAM such as this.

It's not satisfactory, but unless everyone starts with the same level of knowledge (which could be lacking from both the reader and the sponsors :ok:), there's always going to be debate and argument about whether a NOTAM is relevant, whether it contains enough detail, or whether something should have been published and wasn't. There is an organisation who might have such knowledge, called the Airspace Utilisation Section, who do publish a lot of information on trials and such to interested parties through NOTAM, AIC, or Airspace Co-ordination Notices (ACNs). However, they don't have sole rights to raise NOTAMs, and are not a 24/7 unit, so often people will do their own thing through AIS, not always with the best results.

The whole issue is a much bigger one than the original request posed by Mike Cross. It's a political and policy matter, which rests with the CAA and the MoD to decide upon. Improvements to NOTAM relevance and publishing 'rules and guidance' would need someone to raise them formally through those organisations.

IO540

16th Jul 2006, 19:56

How fast (IAS) can a Falcon go at low level?

I would guess no more than 350kt. I don't see that a problem for visual separation, significantly relative to 250kt.

Mike Cross

16th Jul 2006, 21:11

Last weekend I had the pleasure of a fly-by of the Reds in formation a few miles north of Seaton, similar level to myself.

A week or two previously I was at 2100 ft in Class G en-route to Nuneaton when I found myself head-on to a fairly large twin at the same level. As it turned right it revealed itself to be a twin of the circa 200 seats variety and I suspect it had Thomsonfly writ large in it's side (I wasn't THAT close). Neither was NOTAMmed, nor would I have expected them to be.

Mike

Fuji Abound

16th Jul 2006, 21:14

It should not be forgotten that almost the exclusive user of lower airspace outside of controlled airspace is GA. The majority of GA operates at speeds of less than 140 knots.

These aircraft are the users and their needs paramount. If NOTAMS fail to communicate the information needed by these users then the system has failed.

As is quite evident from this thread, referring to a DA20 does not leave the matter free from interpretation but in fact causes confusion. Whether or not it should, is academic - face up to reality - how many GA users know or care what a DA20 is - what they want to know is what it is doing, how fast it is going and whether it is able to manouever.

It is extraordinary (and in reality not the case) that users can inject whatever they like into the system. Were this so, and using the same logic, every time I particate an aeros, I would post a NOTAM to ensure I had a "protected" area in which to operate.

No, as I have said previosuly NATS have a duty of care to their "customers" to provide them with the information THEY require to enable the safe conduct of flight. They are patently failing to meet that duty of care. No amount of tinkering with the presentation of their web site will change such an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

rustle

16th Jul 2006, 21:51

No, as I have said previosuly NATS have a duty of care to their "customers" to provide them with the information THEY require to enable the safe conduct of flight. They are patently failing to meet that duty of care. No amount of tinkering with the presentation of their web site will change such an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

You really don't get it, do you?

NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA.

The CAA pay NATS to provide an AIS in accordance with international treaty, and that's exactly what they do.

In fact AIS go quite a bit further than the minimum requirements, but since there is difficulty in comprehending the simple bit, I won't even attempt the more difficult bit.

That there is a current issue with the AIS website is clearly an AIS issue with their (website) supplier and is being pursued. Vigorously

If there is an "issue" with the content of NOTAM, that needs to be taken up with the sponsor of the NOTAM. AIS might assist in this regard by helping you find out who the sponsor is if it is not apparent.

If there is an issue with what is being demanded of NATS/AIS, then that should be taken up with the CAA - as they are the "customer" of the service.

I know that doesn't assist people who cannot understand that NATS is a private company which sells some services to the CAA, but them's the facts.

Comments like: It should not be forgotten that almost the exclusive user of lower airspace outside of controlled airspace is GA. The majority of GA operates at speeds of less than 140 knots.
merely highlight another instance where you haven't understood and/or read the information. For example, read any CAA (ICAO) 1:500K chart and you'll see some text that says: MILITARY LOW FLYING SYSTEM
Military low flying occurs in most parts of the UK at any height up to 2000ft above the surface. However the greatest concentration is between surface and 1000ft... (etc.)
To suggest that GA is an exclusive user (or even "almost" exclusive user) of lower airspace OCAS is bizarre.

PPRuNe Radar

16th Jul 2006, 22:21

Fuji,

I still don't think you have grasped the divisions of responsibility. NATS have a duty of care to provide what the CAA tell them to. Nothing more or less because then they would be stepping outside their authority and contract. It is the CAA that have the ultimate duty of care to the end user since AIS is their responsibility and remit (even if 'subcontracted'). It is laid down in ICAO what a State is mandated to provide, and the State is represented in the UKs case by the CAA.

Bleat all you want to NATS, but unless the CAA change their contract or request NATS to provide something different, you will probably just be pissing in the wind ;)

As CAA (DAP) attend the meetings which started this whole thread off, it is their lugholes which should be bashed with changes required by the user community :ok:. If subsequently they did then agree to what users say they want, proclaim changes should be made, and NATS (having been contracted to provide them) failed to deliver, then NATS could be held to account for duty of care and a host of other things no doubt. You'd have a point then :ok:

It is extraordinary (and in reality not the case) that users can inject whatever they like into the system. Were this so, and using the same logic, every time I particate an aeros, I would post a NOTAM to ensure I had a "protected" area in which to operate.

Users can inject whatever they like in to the system, however, the users have to go through AIS, who issue the relevant NOTAM. It is not for AIS to say who can and can't post a NOTAM, it is for them to apply the formatting, provide advice on the wording, and apply editing if too confusing or unwieldy. This is done by discussing things with the 'sponsor', be that the Military, an organisation, or an individual, as required. They will also provide advice on whether the NOTAM adds anything of value and might try and dissuade you from filing one if they don't see it as a hazard or worthy of notification. So to some extent that is the filter from a user injecting something directly in to the NOTAM world. I would imagine the 'rules' for publication have a degree of interpretation and leeway. Certainly things like bird of prey sites or kite flying don't really seem too relevant to me, but then they might be very relevant to a helo pilot doing a low level pipe line survey through those areas.

NOTAMS also don't offer 'protection' as you call it, unless in the form of a TRA or other airspace restriction, but merely serve to advise airspace users of an activity and then leave it to airmanship and judgement of airspace users to take appropriate and safe measures as required. Remember if transponder equipped you can also squawk the aerobatics conspicuity code which will also allow other airspace users to be warned of your activity ;)

The system is by its nature a 'one size fits all', so it will never fully address the needs of one user without being detrimental to another. The trick to getting it right is one of balance I suppose. And if GA as a body (not you or I as individuals, but a ground swell of documented opinion or representation) feel it needs to be tightened up or streamlined, then the message needs to be passed to the CAA for them to act upon (not NATS, not AIS ... but the CAA), who then will direct those bodies (or other contractors) to carry out its requirements.

Note that I am NOT saying the system is good or suitable for use by everyone. It is plainly not. I am saying that you need to be focusing any demands on the CAA since they are the only ones who have the power to make changes which are in line with its national and international obligations.

How fast (IAS) can a Falcon go at low level?

I would guess no more than 350kt. I don't see that a problem for visual separation, significantly relative to 250kt.
IO540

Probably about right ... so why don't we push for the 250Kts limit to be raised to 350Kts across the board ?? :}

As a general point, some have pointed out that large scale military exercises cover a lot of the UK and so the focus is diluted since you could encounter the aircraft anywhere. In my experience most of the said NOTAMs also offer a contact telephone number for the exercise sponsor. By calling this number you can be briefed on the expected timings and routeings of exercise traffic and also whether it is likely to go ahead (due to weather or operational factors). Knowing from the sponsor that a 40 aircraft strike package is on a very defined route for only an hour of the notified activity is much better than dismissing the whole NOTAM out of hand because of its generality :ok:

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 07:42

"To suggest that GA is an exclusive user (or even "almost" exclusive user) of lower airspace OCAS is bizarre."

I was very careful to use the words I did becasue I suspected someone could not resist making this point. If you beleive that sufficient high speed military sorties are flown each year in these budget challenged times to make the forces a significant user of lower airspace relative to total movements per year then you have different information to me.

"NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA."

Really.

In the same way I suppose the NHS's customer is the DoH or a PLC its shareholders.

I really must remember next time I see my doctor that I am not his customer.

The CAA pays the bills in the same way PLC's shareholders provide the capital.

Any organisation that provides a service has a duty of care to ensure that service meets the needs of its end user. In the commercial world if it fails to do so it goes bust. If NATS had to survive in the comercial world it would have gone bust long ago.

The AIS has a duty to the CAA to tell them the service it is providing is inadequate. The CAA has a similiar duty to ensure it is getting value for money and the service that it has contracted is the one needed.

As I have said before, I am entirely happy the AIS go on providing an inadequate service to their customers which fails to provide the service needed whilst watching infringements increase each year and whilst argueing that they are doing what their funder requires of them.

However, asking how that service can been improved is an entirely pointless excercise because I will not be convinced that fiddling around with the user interface will have the slightest impact on GA reviewing the NOTAMs before every flight.

I hope there is never a serious incident becasue someone hasnt read the NOTAMS but should I be proved wrong I am very glad I shall not be the person from the AIS telling the relatives that we did all that was asked of us by our customers.

rustle

17th Jul 2006, 07:58

Mike, I really don't know why you bothered posting here. :ugh:

Far too many ******** who don't know their arse from their elbow and don't seem too bothered to find out, either :rolleyes:

Here you are, kindly donating your spare minutes in order to represent GA at a meeting, and all you get is ridicule and abuse.

**** 'em.

Oh, and can you **** 'em for free, too, please. :mad:

Think I might take my own advice and give up in this place on this topic.

Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about and I hope no-one reading your posts comes away thinking that you do.

PPRuNe Radar

17th Jul 2006, 08:12

I hope there is never a serious incident becasue someone hasnt read the NOTAMS but should I be proved wrong I am very glad I shall not be the person from the AIS telling the relatives that we did all that was asked of us by our customers.

Seems we are blighted by a society where it is always someone elses fault. :ugh:

Not reading (or obtaining) NOTAMs is not anyones fault except the pilots. There are plenty of other ways to get aeronautical information aside from the Internet AIS service. You could pay for a briefing pack from someone like Jetplan for your trip. You could phone AIS using one of those old fashioned telephone thingies. You could speak to an ATC unit for FIS, be it by RT or telephone. With your pilots licence comes responsibilities. These might involve you having to get off your arse and make an effort, but you still have them to discharge. The harder job in your example is going to be the insurers telling the relatives that they ain't getting a penny because the pilot did not comply with the requirements for the safe conduct of flight (by adequately briefing themselves), or the CAA telling them they broke the law (posthumously) by endangering themselves and others.

Any organisation that provides a service has a duty of care to ensure that service meets the needs of its end user.

The CAA provides the service, through a subcontractor. The 'contract' pilots have is with the CAA. If I fly on an airline and it happens to be on a sub leased aircraft from another operator, any beef I have would be with the carrier I booked my travel with. How they then resolve that with their subcontractor is not my concern, as long as my issue is dealt with to my satisfaction.

In the commercial world if it fails to do so it goes bust. If NATS had to survive in the comercial world it would have gone bust long ago.

5 years so far in the commercial world (as a Private Public Partnership), and probably another 10 years before that having to operate as a commercial based Government organisation. Profits of about 80M this last year, which is not a bad turnaround considering the investment programme and financial difficulties of the last decade. The CAA is not obligated to give the AIS contract to NATS, so it is a commercial world arrangement. If the CAA are not happy, they can invoke contractual rights. When it comes up to tender they can offer it to other parties if they think they will get a better service at the right price. AIS is not a NATS core business. I'm sure we'd not go bust if it was lost, but then you seem to know a lot more about our performance and finances than we do.

The AIS has a duty to the CAA to tell them the service it is providing is inadequate.

Lost me there. A contract will exist which details performance measures. If they are met, how can the service be inadequate ?? AIS will be duty bound to report performance, but not duty bound to place a burden on itself to provide more than is being asked for. What might be more accurate in reality is that the contract does not address performance adequately to the satisfaction of Fuji. But that's life, ask the CAA to up the ante and then NATS/AIS will take action to meet it's new obligations.

However, asking how that serivce can been improved is an entirely pointless excercise because I will not be convinced that fiddling around with the user interface will have the slightest impact on GA reviewing the NOTAMs before every flight.

Maybe Mike can provide us with the Terms of Reference of the user group. They possibly limit what can be put up for discussion and what is nothing to do with the group. Until we know what they are, it is hard to criticise anyone for taking action on issues which they perhaps have no jurisdiction over.

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 08:21

"I know that doesn't assist people who cannot understand that NATS is a private company"

NATS is a public private partnership between the Airline Group, a consortium of seven UK airlines, which holds 42%, NATS staff who hold 5%, UK airport operator BAA plc, with 4%, and the government which holds 49% and a golden share.

"Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about"

"Think I might take my own advice and give up in this place on this topic."

OK :D

Roffa

17th Jul 2006, 08:58

NATS is a public private partnership between the Airline Group, a consortium of seven UK airlines, which holds 42%, NATS staff who hold 5%, UK airport operator BAA plc, with 4%, and the government which holds 49% and a golden share.

Remind me how much funding for NATS comes from the government then...?

Mike Cross

17th Jul 2006, 09:32

PPRuNe Radar

We don't have formal terms of reference. However there is little point in discussing in detail things that the attendees have no jurisdiction over. So for example a detailed discussion of shortcomings in the Chicago Convention would be a fairly fruitless exercise.

The main people who can be influenced at the meeting are AIS themselves and the CAA, through Steven Hill, the CAA's Manager, Aeronautical Charts and Data. AUS do put in an appearance but they do not come under Steven so it's a matter of putting forward arguments and trying to get people on side. For example, as a result of previous meetings a fair bit of work has gone into liaison between AIS and AUS to update the standard templates used by AUS.

As this discussion illustrates, everyone has their own point of view, and they all differ. You for example seem to like the idea of mil exercises being included even where the information is fairly general, others don't.

This discussion has been very useful on a number of levels. It's certainly helped me to crystallise in my own mind some of the issues and it's also helped improve peoples knowledge and understanding of how the system works.

Mike

bpilatus

17th Jul 2006, 10:05

Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about and I hope no-one reading your posts comes away thinking that you do.
Now I know I am not alone in this thinking. :eek: :eek: :eek:
So many times there are things written in here that are wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is only through the generousness of others that the right things are posted back.
Thank you to MIKE for carrying on with this discussion properly with people who can make the difference. It is on your back that I joined AOPA :ok:

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 10:21

“Not reading (or obtaining) NOTAMs is not anyones fault except the pilots.”

.. .. .. And I have never disagreed.

What I have said, and do say, is NATS should be responsible for providing this information in the best possible way to its customers. In turn pilots are obliged to ensure they brief themselves correctly. Neither component is working. It should be in all our interests to establish why not.

“The CAA is not obligated to give the AIS contract to NATS, so it is a commercial world arrangement. If the CAA are not happy, they can invoke contractual rights. When it comes up to tender they can offer it to other parties if they think they will get a better service at the right price.”

That would prove a very good way for the government to find its majority interest worthless overnight. Perhaps you might also like to tell us how a commercial arrangement works when in these circumstances.

“NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA.”

Really.

NATS don’t think so.

Next time you are at one of their meetings, you should look at the “customers and suppliers” section of their web site and see what the think.

“Remind me how much funding for NATS comes from the government then...?”

I have to admit I don’t fully understand the comment. Maybe a bit too pithy for me. However if you are suggesting not much, remind me how you would value the goodwill arising from the Government “favouring” NATS with the contract. Remind me what "commitments" were made by the “private” investors with regards to any future sale of their shares.

"So many times there are things written in here that are wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is only through the generousness of others that the right things are posted back."

As some one once said on another thread - simply inspired. Thanks for a great contribution to the debate.

"That there is a current issue with the AIS website is clearly an AIS issue with their (website) supplier and is being pursued. Vigorously

If there is an "issue" with the content of NOTAM, that needs to be taken up with the sponsor of the NOTAM. AIS might assist in this regard by helping you find out who the sponsor is if it is not apparent.

If there is an issue with what is being demanded of NATS/AIS, then that should be taken up with the CAA - as they are the "customer" of the service."

and

"If I fly on an airline and it happens to be on a sub leased aircraft from another operator, any beef I have would be with the carrier I booked my travel with. How they then resolve that with their subcontractor is not my concern, as long as my issue is dealt with to my satisfaction."

You and mike should talk.

Mike Cross

17th Jul 2006, 11:00

In case I didn't mention it earlier:-

The UK's obligations under the Chicago Convention include:-
8.1 Pre-flight information
8.1.1 At any aerodrome/heliport normally used for international
air operations, aeronautical information essential for
the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and
relative to the route stages originating at the aerodrome/heliport
shall be made available to flight operations personnel,
including flight crews and services responsible for pre-flight
information.

....

8.1.3 A recapitulation of current NOTAM and other information
of urgent character shall be made available to flight
crews in the form of plain-language pre-flight information
bulletins (PIB).
(The above from Chapter 8 of Annex 15 to the Convention) (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%2015%20-%20Aeronautical%20Information%20Services/an15_12ed.pdf)

The Governement department responsible is the Department of Transport who use the CAA as their agent, who in turn contract the work out to NATS.

What we get is quite a lot more than what is required, and the provision of the service is in large part funded by en-route charges, which few of us pay.

If you want to agitate for provision of more and better services to GA it doesn't need the brain of Eistein to work out where the funding will come from.

Mike

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 11:46

Mike

You are of course correct. Once again within your remit I thank you for all you have done in the past and will doubtless achieve in the future.

I have no criticism what so ever within this remit and fully understand you have to “work” within those constraints.

I do however feel strongly that your remit does not address the real problem nor is it likely to provide a solution. If AOPA support you, and since you clearly know a great deal about how the process works, it does not seem to me unreasonable that AOPA should widen your brief - assuming you would want to take the task on!

Who will pay?

Firstly, the fact that others are able to provide this information free of charge and subject ot the usual warnings would suggest that it is neither rocket science, nor a particularly costly exercise.

Secondly, and as previously suggested, there is a case that the providers of some NOTAMS derive the sole benefit. In the commercial world (as we keep getting told it is) it is not unusual for those that benefit to pay.

IO540

17th Jul 2006, 12:38

Perhaps a carrot to NATS and the CAA might be useful here.

A better service would lead to fewer infringements.

Unfortunately my view is that any benefit from improving ais.org.uk will be limited, all the time the PPL training syllabus and establishment remain as they are.

And that is a much harder nut to crack. The flight training business is very vocally anti any modernisation, and is about the only unified voice in GA. And the CAA is becoming ever more distant when it comes to doing anything proactive.

PPRuNe Radar

17th Jul 2006, 12:52

IO540

I think you have hit the main issue right on the nail with your last post. It is a far deeper problem than what AIS do, or don't, provide (which is already over the obligations of the UK to provide, as mentioned by Mike).

Fuji

If you ain't happy, ask for your money back :ok: ;)

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 13:24

"(which is already over the obligations of the UK to provide, as mentioned by Mike)."

Yep, I think we have got to grips now with their doing something more than they are obliged too.

"If you ain't happy, ask for your money back"

.. .. .. you may well make the point in jest,

but you have also hit the nail on the head.

So lets sum up:

The CAA isnt going to do anything becasue apparently no one will pay,

and NATS arent going to do anything, because their only responsibility is to the CAA,

and if there is anything wrong with the NOTAMs, well thats the responsibility of the sponsor,

and AOPA isnt going to do anything because it is not in their remit,

and because the end user doesnt pay a direct fee, he cant ask for his money back.

Brilliant.

I cant argue against it. Personally, as I said before it just completely baffles me why you would want to bother doing anything about it - you must be mad, or got nothing better to do with your time.

As I said before, it would actually be far better if NATS did the absolute minimium possible, and left us to get the service we want from another provider.

Moreover, that is why I would never join AOPA in the UK given they are wasting their time and their members subs on such a pointless excercise. :D

(Not that I dont have great respect for Mike for trying - I just would not bother myself)

bpilatus

17th Jul 2006, 13:36

As I said before, it would actually be far better if NATS did the absolute minimium possible, and left us to get the service we want from another provider.
Moreover, that is why I would never join AOPA in the UK given they are wasting their time and their members subs on such a pointless excercise. :D
Such bitterness towards NATS, the CAA and now AOPA :eek:
It is a shame the Agony Aunt forum has been closed, else you could have released some of your anger there. :p

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 14:12

bpilatus

Actually, no.

I think the CAA do a great deal. Broadly speaking I am more than happy with the services they provide. In fact I get more upset about the lack of understanding I have read so often on these forums about what they do, and have to say about various issues.

I am also content with what the AIS does. Personally, I think they have a good lesson to learn from the Met Offcie and could provide some useful value added services. I do agree with other contributors that if they have a prviliged position that might be dangerous, but the same people also say they dont - talk about wanting it both ways to suite yourself!

I have personally found AOPA to be poor value for money for a number of reasons. I think for the reasons I have said, in this case their lobbying is misguided.

I would passionately like to see more pilots pre-brief properly. I perceive this to be a serious issue for GA and one for which I beleive we should all work together to find a solution.

It seems to me strange you would ask for comments if you didnt want them. It seems to me strange you wouldnt want to establish why more pilots do not properly pre brief. For example, presumably the AIS could tell us how many briefs they provide a day, month, year etc which might give us some idea how widely their services were used?

I appreciate you may not agree with the issues I have raised. I would enjoy any constructive comments you may have to make. I assume you also find the existing arrangements satisfactory and would like to know why you feel so many pilots do not pre-brief.

Mike Cross

17th Jul 2006, 15:25

For the record, the cost from AOPA members subs is diddly squat. I do it voluntarily and take no expenses so FA may take comfort in the fact that I'm not wasting any of the contribution he doesn't make.:}

I think we all agree that not enough people brief properly. I'll accept that in the early days of the site it didn't work too well and was poorly documented. (I was one of seven who filed MOR's on the subject) However great improvements have been made since then and the Web Site User Guide (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/en/image/PIBGuide.PDF)produced in April as now excellent.
A lot has been done also to educate people. I've written articles published in Flyer, Sailplane and Gliding and General Aviation and was also involved in the user guide that was published by Pilot. I was also sponsored by Pilot to present on their stands at Fly, Aerofair and the PFA Rally, at which I also presented in the seminar tent. I know also that FI's have been asked to check that pilots understand how to brief at the biennial revalidation flight.

AvBrief have started a NOTAM briefing service for their members, Ian Fallon has produced NotamPlot and NavBox Pro now incorporates a NOTAM briefing facility. This is on top of other people who have produced software. Here's a few I know about

NotamPlot (http://www.notamplot.flyer.co.uk/)
NotamPro (http://www.notampro.com/)
Alt AIS (http://altais.org.uk/)
AvBrief (http://www.avbrief.co.uk/)
NavBox (http://www.navbox.nl/)
Navplot (http://www.freeflight.org.uk/software/)
SPINE (http://www.enborne.f2s.com/gliding/spine.htm)
With all this having gone on it is disheartening to hear excuses still being put forward in defence of people who don't brief properly.

Mike

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 16:11

Mike

Maybe excuses should not be made for pilots that don’t self brief and maybe with all the changes you have highlighted and the publicity given, things will improve - I hope so.

Good luck with your meeting.

bpilatus

17th Jul 2006, 16:23

I have personally found AOPA to be poor value for money for a number of reasons. I think for the reasons I have said, in this case their lobbying is misguided.
I thought you were not a member :confused: How can you have an opinion on an association you are not a member of?
I would passionately like to see more pilots pre-brief properly. I perceive this to be a serious issue for GA and one for which I beleive we should all work together to find a solution.
This "knowledge" of people not briefing comes from your sample of one? Or have you conducted a MORI poll? I am genuinely interested in where you (and others) get this knowledge of what "the majority" or "most" or "all" private pilots do in terms of briefing. Can you share with us where you gather all this information?
I appreciate you may not agree with the issues I have raised. I would enjoy any constructive comments you may have to make. I assume you also find the existing arrangements satisfactory and would like to know why you feel so many pilots do not pre-brief.
I don't agree with most of what you post - issues or otherwise :O

I do find existing "arrangements" satisfactory, in as much as I am able to brief on NOTAMS and Weather from the comfort of my home, and in all it takes about 10 minutes so is not onerous. It takes me longer to boil the kettle to make my tea which I drink whilst reading NOTAM printouts and weather reports.

The only wish I have is that the AIS website would be more stable. But Mike tells us this is in hand, and I believe him.

I have no opinion on what other pilots do as I have no direct knowledge of it - any sampling I have done would be statistically insignificant as I do not fly with hundreds of other PPLs, maybe tens and they all brief the same way I do.

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 16:46

Lest one forgets, so these would all be satisfied users then. Just from this thread, every one a different user (apologies if I did include a duplicate).

And I don’t mind if you refer to me as sweet FA if you feel it amuses you!

“Absolutely agree with Fuji that the single most important issue has to be a re-vamp to the Notam system which encourages people to read them.”

“The website is difficult to use, impossible to trust and if its not down then it takes you ages to sift out the Cardiff notams when flying overBrighton!!!

I have given up totally on the website, the problem is when i call AIS they think there is no problem at all and are in fact proud of the user interface. “

“And it looks like it was developed / designed by someone who learnt computers back in the 70s/80s and didn't bother updating their skills!”

“Those who wish or require airspace to be restricted (or used in a 'non-conventional' manner) should pay for the priviledge and the consequent requirement of notifying other airspace users of the restriction.”

“This is a useless excuse. NATS are responsible for safe and efficient airspace operation and have no business supporting unconnected and non-revenue-generating (for NATS) commercial information providers.”

“All I would say is that if they want someone who knows how to build fast, simple yet comprehensive facilities for display data on a website”

“This is isn't the first time i've encountered it either. Given the importance the CAA places on not flying without current notams, shouldn't system reliabilty be slightly higher up the list of priorities?”

“Incidentally, the AIS website has an out-of-date chart catalogue”

“A decent graphical user interface is the way ahead. And there is indeed no excuse for the inability of a national provider such as AIS to come up with a 21st Century method of displaying NOTAMs on an electronic chart.”

“The whole idea of the radius of influence is that only NOTAMS that affect a proposed route are displayed. The AIS incorrect use of the figures causes many of the problems.”

“Like many others, I have given up using the AIS website - it is simply too user 'unfriendly' I now get my NOTAMS from other sources. Please just make it easier to use. - thats about it for now.”

“I have heard it said that in only 50% of flights by private owners have any Notams been checked, and no wonder! “

“Been on the AIS site for a short local flight this evening and some general handling. I personally don't think the AIS site is that bad... until I read this... “

“If only I could view current NOTAMS..”

“But doesn't that just reinforce the point - that safety critical information should be designed to be easily understood by those to whom it is important.”

(PS thats five more than your ten and none of then know you)

Roffa

17th Jul 2006, 21:27

I have to admit I don’t fully understand the comment. Maybe a bit too pithy for me. However if you are suggesting not much, remind me how you would value the goodwill arising from the Government “favouring” NATS with the contract. Remind me what "commitments" were made by the “private” investors with regards to any future sale of their shares.

You stated that if NATS was a commercial company it would have gone bust.

Well to all intents and purposes it is.

Diddly squat comes from the government in terms of funding.

The airfield side of the business is going out and winning contracts, Gibraltar and Bristol recently.

The area side of the business, as a monopoly supplier, operates under strict price controls from the regulator. There is no cross subsidising.

The only funding is user fees, of which I suspect you pay none.

I'm not sure which contract you think NATS is being favoured with, if it's the AIS one I'm sure as PR has already said, it would make little or no difference to NATS whether they have that particular contract from the CAA or not. Otherwise what goodwill are we getting from a government that only a short time before they PPP'd us were saying "our air is not for sale"?

The Airline Group said they would not be buying in to NATS for commercial gain. Shame that as the company is now doing so well it is rumoured they are thinking of reneging on that particular commitment.

IO540

17th Jul 2006, 22:33

To get this into some perspective: if somebody else, in Mongolia for all I care, offered a free website that does a narrow route briefing, we could all use that and never need to use ais.org.uk.

It is already the case that anybody who wants an FIR briefing can get the same data from any of many foreign websites.

All the CAA leaflets, flyers, brochures, AICs, their near-unusable approach plates, etc etc etc, could go on some CAA server. Loading a few gigs of PDFs on a server is no rocket science. Or they could just use ead.eurocontrol.int ;)

I already pay Euro 36/year for homebriefing.com's excellent flight plan filing service, and about £60/year to Avbrief for a collection of UK and European weather services. Then I pay about £60/year for Navbox updates - essential IMV. Most pilots that go places for real pay something like the foregoing, too, even if they fly VFR only.

And some pay way way way more for anything from Jeppesen - I pay £120/year for the paper updates for the UK IFR touring guide alone, plus some other electronic stuff. The Jepp European Jeppview is £1500 or so.

I would have no problem paying say another £20 for a multi-waypoint route briefing service like ais.org.uk offers. In fact I am really suprised that none of the many foreign websites offers a narrow route briefing - is this really so??

Fuji Abound

17th Jul 2006, 22:42

The outstanding debt to the Treasury before the private partnership was £330 million pounds.

Following the partnership a further £130 million was invested split equally between BAA and the government.

Excluding bank loans and unsecured loans the latest published accounts reveal over £700 million of other bonds and secured loans.

I leave you to guess the combined debt to the Treasury.

The Treasury also has invested its equity interest in NATS Holdings Limited. If you believe the following extract from the Times you can work out for yourself what that might be worth.

“THE future of air traffic control in the UK was plunged into doubt yesterday amid reports that a number of airlines planned to sell their stake in National Air Traffic Services in a highly controversial move.
A Sunday newspaper said members of The Airline Group, which is made up of British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, BMI British Midland, easyJet, MyTravel Airways, Monarch and Thomsonfly, were looking at offloading the group's 42% share of Nats it acquired in 2001.
The plan needs the backing of six of the seven airlines.
It is thought the sale is being pushed by the three charter airlines, MyTravel, Monarch and Thomsonfly, as they look to cash in on the high level of demand for infrastructure businesses.
The airlines paid around £6.6m each for an equal 6% share of Nats but could now fetch up to £36m each.
Virgin director of communications Paul Charles said: "We are not selling our stake." Mr Charles said, if the other airlines did decide to sell, Virgin would consider buying their shares.
British Airways said the report was "speculation" while MyTravel and BMI declined to comment. Monarch, Thomsonfly and easyJet were unavailable.”

And then there is the ten year contract from the CAA to NATS for the provision of en route services. Who owns the CAA?

Seems to me us tax payers have a reasonable investment in this private enterprise and there could be those who might say us non commercial users might object to paying fees and expect a little return on our investment.

PPRuNe Radar

17th Jul 2006, 23:24

I cant argue against it. Personally, as I said before it just completely baffles me why you would want to bother doing anything about it - you must be mad, or got nothing better to do with your time.

Based on that, hopefully the GA community will now appreciate my refusal to offer approval for anything, be it photo surveys, trials, para drops, aerobatic displays, or anything else. Don't bother calling me as ACC Supervisor (N of Manchester), because Fuji says it ain't worth it :ok:

PS - real professionals, or aviators who do their homework, ignore the above ;)

Roffa

18th Jul 2006, 08:37

I leave you to guess the combined debt to the Treasury.

The Treasury did very well out of the PPP, they made some £758m out of it, the bulk of which is now carried by NATS as debt courtesy of the way TAG financed their bid.

As a taxpayer you got your reward at the time of the PPP.

As a user continue to make hay while the sun shines.

Fuji Abound

18th Jul 2006, 09:58

"As a user continue to make hay while the sun shines."

.. .. .. and as a taxpayer we can expect to continue enjoying our half share.
Of course it will be very interesting to see if there was a down turn in the avaition industry again (when last time the taxpayer bailed you lot out) whether your new partners will be as keen to do so. :)

.. .. .. and so back to the matter in hand. Who was it who said

"I have given up totally on the website, the problem is when i call AIS they think there is no problem at all and are in fact proud of the user interface."

It wasnt me. :}

"Based on that, hopefully the GA community will now appreciate my refusal to offer approval for anything, be it photo surveys, trials, para drops, aerobatic displays, or anything else. Don't bother calling me as ACC Supervisor (N of Manchester), because Fuji says it ain't worth it"

No surprises there then. Still glad us lot own half of you lot though :) .

rustle

18th Jul 2006, 11:39

Still glad us lot own half of you lot though :) .
:ugh:

I know I said I wouldn't contribute further, but I found THIS (http://www.tdrs.co.uk/aviation/CAA_FORM.pdf) form which might help you. ;)

bpilatus

18th Jul 2006, 19:13

:ugh:
I know I said I wouldn't contribute further, but I found THIS (http://www.tdrs.co.uk/aviation/CAA_FORM.pdf) form which might help you. ;)
I am not able to load this document. :confused: :confused:

Is it on the AIS website? I am usually able to get things from there except when it is crashing :ooh: :=

IO540

18th Jul 2006, 19:29

bpilatus

That URL is a windup. The text of the page is

FLIGHT RADIO TELEPHONY OPERATOR’S LICENCE
AND/OR AIRCREW LICENCE OF ANY TYPE
SELF CERTIFICATION AS UNFIT TO HOLD LICENCE
Please complete the form in BLOCK CAPITALS using black or dark blue ink. You may need an
adult to help you with this form. Please remember your manners if you ask for help.
1. PERSONAL DETAILS (This information is about YOU, not one of your pets)
Personal reference number (if known)
Surname (this might be your father’s last name, but is more likely to be your mother’s last name – example: Smith)
............................................................ .............................
Forename (this is possibly what an adult calls you when they want you)
............................................................ .......................
Title (Unfortunately our computers do not allow “Idiot”, “Tosser” or “Numbnuts” here)
............................................................ ......................................
Your address (where do you live – if you have forgotten your address it might be written on the tag hanging around your neck.)
etc
2. DECLARATION
I declare that I read something on an online internet forum and I was just a bit too dumb to understand anything that
was being said, despite great efforts from people trying to assist me.
I request the CAA to immediately withdraw any licenses I hold as I am obviously too stupid to hold any sort or aviation
license or qualification whatsoever.
Signature (or thumb print) ............................................................ ............................
Date ............................................................ ....................................