PDA

View Full Version : AIP & ERSA Amendments: AsA survey


Trash 'n' Navs
28th Aug 2002, 02:48
AIP/ERSA amendments– how many per year would you like?

Airservices have listed a questionnaire on their website that is asking aircrew how often they’d like to receive amendments to AIP & ERSA. The argument they give is that by issuing less amendments, you’ll spend less time keeping the pubs current and that it’ll be cheaper. Unfortunately, that then means your pre-flight NOTAM briefing will have to take up the slack and list all the subsequent amendments as well as the temporary NOTAMS.

How many times have AsA changed large sections of AIP? I seem to remember large slabs of GPS NPA and RVSM amendments a while back. With only one amendment a year, your NOTAM briefing will no longer be a couple of pages but will become a book. How much will that cost to print out every time you fly? How long will it take you to go through and find the relevant NOTAMS? How long will it take to make the appropriate pen amendments? And then pen amend the pen amendments? :confused:

Why is it that AirServices Australia seems hell bent on delivering the cheapest option – not necessarily the safest option - to apparently satisfy Joe Lighty’s request for cheaper publications? I am NOT suggesting that Joe Lighty isn’t welcome or is unsafe – they are welcome and the vast majority is safe. What I am suggesting is that the professional aviators amongst us need to stand up and be counted. If we do nothing, then the only responses will be from those in the industry looking for the cheapest option. We need to let AsA know that it is unacceptable to compromise safety for cost. IMHO it is unacceptable to have AIP & ERSA published once or twice a year with the resultant stack of NOTAM issued amendments.

The current system ain’t broke so why do they want to change it (surely it’s not about money ;) )?

Feel like expressing your opinion? Visit the Airservices website, look for the link on the Publications Centre page called “Amendment cycle questionnaire” buried at the bottom.

john_tullamarine
28th Aug 2002, 03:26
Why isn't the whole lot on CD ... dramatically reduced printing and distribution costs ...... then we could look at an updated CD in the mail, say, every second month ..... do we really need the paper copies ..? and, I suspect, very few, if any, do not have a computer and CD drive ...

Those who might prefer the hard copy ... could, of course, print it out .....

FishHead
28th Aug 2002, 04:41
You can already get e-versions online...

And how do I check on the runway length and direction for my emergency diversion airfield in-flight if I only have a CD copy?:confused:

Here's a link to the survey... took me a while to find it!
Amendment Cycle Survey (http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/html2.asp?/bookweb/amendcycle/default.asp)

john_tullamarine
28th Aug 2002, 05:24
... using your laptop on the run, mate .... or else you print out the necessaries for your particular operation ...

Trash 'n' Navs
28th Aug 2002, 07:33
Having the pubs in digital form is great - especially for planning purposes. It would save initial production and distribution costs but at some point you will still need it in the physical form. If you've tailored the information for a particular operation, what do you do when you need to divert or your mission changes in-flight? What will you use when you've lost electrics or the FMS has failed? I suggest that some type of physical document will always be required.

john_t If you want to truly embrace technology, why not go all the way and have a print on demand service where you log-on to download the latest version of AIP or ERSA with all amendments incorporated. If you do this though, what is the effective date? Is it the day the document was published on-line (as a .pdf file) or is it the day you print it off (print-on-demand)? This then raises another issue - the volatility of the digital information.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter in what form you distribute the publications. The problem is how often they are published and how are people notified of any amendments? If it's on-line in .pdf format, you'll still need to check NOTAMS for amendments. If its print-on-demand, you'll need to download it everytime you go flying.

I Fly
28th Aug 2002, 07:43
One of the things they should have asked in their survey is many pilots fly with not up to date AIP, and how many with not up to date or incomplete NOTAMS? I know it should not be so, but too many pilots don't bother with a complete set of NOTAMs.

ulm
28th Aug 2002, 09:10
Then I am sure those 'professionals' amongst you won't have any problems with 'Joe-Lighty' being subsidised for the ammendments (s)he doesn't want or need.

I know. An AVTUR tax to pay for AIPs :)

I'm sure since safety has no price you wouldn't baulk at paying for it.

Icarus2001
28th Aug 2002, 09:45
Judging by the standard of radio calls lately no one reads the AIP anyway. Or MATS come to that.;)

john_tullamarine
28th Aug 2002, 09:55
Trash & Navs,

I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I suggested to use the laptop on the run ... intended only to generate some responses.

I use a number of database CDs for various purposes and, from a general usage point of view I don't like them .. I am a bit of a dinosaur and far prefer hard copy to work with. Likewise, I don't embrace technology for technology's sake ... I am the sort of fellow who prefers to hand fly the climb and descent and, (shock-horror) fly raw data. But the reality is that the inconvenience and inefficiency of an office full of paperwork is fast becoming a liability .... so even dinosaurs are being forced to move with the times ...

However, the lower cost, far more convenient format (try carrying a trailer load of tech docs from job to job) etc mean that the sheer day to day convenience of having the things on CD is superb.

On-line is fine except that

(a) access may not be available when you want the data
(b) for any of a number of reasons net speed and site access may be restricted quite significantly .. CD works off-line and, subject to a good CD search engine or other easy-use file access, is great.

So far as AIP etc is concerned, I would far prefer to get a regularly updated CD, work out what I need on a day to day basis .. and print out the data subset which suits my requirements .. shouldn't be too hard to work out a reasonably comprehensive set of paper for the operation - oddball diversions and the like included ...

Issue date, surely, is no different to the present paper system ... the date of the document .. philosophically, printing a file is not much different to making a photostat of a hard copy document.

My preferences and needs are suited just fine by having a CD (which I can cart around with me) in lieu of the hard copy (which I have carted around with me for donkey's years) .. no difference at all in usage .. notams ... whatever .. just the original format. The question of notams is quite different in that the AIPs etc are fixed in time, regardless of format, and must be supplemented by today's notams .. I can't see any convenient way of getting around that sort of problem at this stage.

It is, of course, very much horses for courses ... some requirements are always going to be better suited to a library of paperwork .. but, for most of us, there has to be a better way. For the upmarket cockpit we are now seeing the introduction of quite effective computer-based systems and these, naturally, will become more widespread as time passes.


As to the situation for the infrequent GA flyer .. his/her needs would be suited to periodic net access with the notams of the day .. I can't really see a difficulty there.

Overall, though, I would be surprised if the subscription cost for a CD service could not be brought down to a very reasonable figure. For instance, like many in the Industry, I subscribe to a US service for provision of US regulatory data ... supplied on CD at whatever intervals and the cost is comparatively peanuts .. when I think of the heartache in years gone by having to get it all in hard copy ... whereas now I get substantially more data, with no inconvenience, and at a fraction of the cost .. forgive me but I am very one-eyed when it comes to this subject ...

Perhaps the thread might consider discussing the pros and cons of the three basic ways in which the documentation service might be provided (doesn't matter really whether we are talking of the AirServices or Jeppesen equivalents) -

(a) existing hard copy service
(b) net access service
(c) CD service ...?

Capcom
28th Aug 2002, 12:29
Then I am sure those 'professionals' amongst you won't have any problems with 'Joe-Lighty' being subsidised for the ammendments (s)he doesn't want or need.

It is wallies like you that attempt to land at places like WWA.

IT IS CLOSED!?!?!

You Peanut!!http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/flip.gif

Trash 'n' Navs
28th Aug 2002, 23:47
john_t As to the situation for the infrequent GA flyer .. his/her needs would be suited to periodic net access with the notams of the day .. I can't really see a difficulty there. That's exactly my point though. If the regular drivers allow the infrequent GA driver who has a very vocal association to swamp the survey with that idea, then AsA will sieze the response as indicative of the industry. The few regular GA users and professional drivers will then have to put up with the inconvenience of one issue a year and then have to print out a book of NOTAMs every time they go flying then sit down to write huge pen amendments whenever AsA change their mind again. I prefer to have a new book issued regularly then have minimal pen amendments and only temporary NOTAM's to wade through.

Don't sacrifice safety on the alter of cost. Until AsA come up with a reasonable justification and provide a risk assessment, the amendments cycle shouldn't be changed.

I'm fed up with Government agencies kowtowing to the vocal minority. :mad:

As for ulm , going for the wind-up heh? Because if you're serious when you sayI'm sure since safety has no price you wouldn't baulk at paying for it. I'm appalled that you think you're immune from the risks of flying. Or perhaps you're one of those types who don't look out the window, talk on the radio or squawk IFF. Safety is the responsibility of ALL operators. Dumb comments ulm, just plain dumb.

john_tullamarine
28th Aug 2002, 23:53
Sorry, mate .. missed the thrust of your point before ..... totally agree ... however, if the thing were to go to CD, then the cost ought to be able to be reduced sufficiently that no-one in his/her right mind would waste their time with the net access.

As a comparative for instance the US FARs/Aust CARs are on the net .. but what a pain it is to get access that way when they are available via a couple of CDs. Just my view ...

Lodown
29th Aug 2002, 03:51
Come on fellas. Think outside the box. Ulm has a point, and a good one. You all do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we were never presented with that option.

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

snarek
29th Aug 2002, 04:14
Let's look at all the points here. The 'professionals' want lots of updates. 'Joe-lighty' doesn't want to be paying for this. Most times (s)he flies once a week and does 2 - 3 big navs a year.

You pay $100 for maps etc and by the time you want to use them they are out of date.

Now 'Joe-lighty' is certainly going to put his (her) point of view accross. Why shouldn't they??? In fact AOPA has asked all members to fill in the survey accordingly (again guys, if you aint members you have no say in that policy!!!!) And yes, they will probably win in the end.

But what do we want to achieve here. Many updates for you guys, and you are willing to pay for them. Only (say) one a year for JL.

Why not (option C) have the 'Cat A' update on a set day every year and 'Cat B' updates as needed. All 'Cat B' info would need to be on the web so that JL can update his maps etc using 'Word for Blondes Ver 1' (a pencil) :)

Couse we'd hafta change CASA's attitude of mandating everything to 'the pilot in command must have what is needed for the flight' and AsA and the RAAF would have to wait to impliment their all to frequent and unnecessary airspace grabs. (sorry, got carried away there :D )

So, you get what you want, JL gets what he wants and noone subsidises anyone else.

Comments :cool: ?????

Trash 'n' Navs
29th Aug 2002, 07:10
OK, some ideas that on face value aren't too bad. I applaud anyone who can think outside the box and see a new and reasonable idea.

I'm a little confused Lodown when you say that "...most of ERSA, ERSA amendments and NOTAM relate to IFR multi-engine operations.". Can you point out which sections of these are exclusively the domain of ME IFR ops? Perhaps runway data? The availability of lighting? Maybe, ATC and CTAF freq's? I have no problem if AsA decide to carve off the back section on pre-flight planning in to a seperate book that gets issued seperately. In fact, snarek makes a good point. They could publish a 'Level 1' document for all ops and another 'Level 2' one for IFR specific stuff - that way, Joe Lighty could just get the Level 1 document.

I'm not going to assume, however, that it is a simple matter of "Hey, lets publish another document". Someone has to sit there, edit and proof-read the thing. How will that affect the cost? Dunno...

Loose leaf documents are a pain in the a@$e to amend and the most time consuming (DAP & Jepp users know this) - that's why people like the whole document to be reissued. It saves valuable time.

snarek, with respect, the fact that AOPA has asked all its members to participate in the survey is one of the very reasons I began this post. I would like to see AsA get a BALANCED opinion from the industry - which requires all drivers to respond (even you Lodown!).

farrari
29th Aug 2002, 08:45
One reason to keep them on paper is you can make notes on them and mark certain areas. can not do that with a CD copy.Also having to print them out at home is a real pain, like the old system but also find having ERSA on line as well as paper good.

Truckmasters
29th Aug 2002, 10:18
I can see nothing wrong with the none essential inflight pubs (I believe AIP fits this description) being a CD or online.
ERSA etc however must remain as a hard copy as a minimum

But that's just my opinion.

Lodown
29th Aug 2002, 16:32
Trash ‘n’ Navs

You seem to be a little closer to the survey than you let on. ‘Squawk IFF’???? Do you know what IFF stands for, or did it just slip in?

My concern with the survey rests on the fact that a reduction in amendments seems the only option that the decision makers in AsA consider. It is making a bad product worse.

If I fly VFR predominately in South Australia, with an occasional flurry into Victoria, why should I have information from the rest of the country? I just had a quick look at the document on the web and base the following figures on those data. I maybe off a bit in my addition and may have counted some pages twice twice.

The ‘OTHER’ section contains about 200 pages. If I’m VFR only, I don’t need the IFR waypoints or the Route Flight Planning Reqs. The whole section could be hived off and updated occasionally, either as required or annually. When was the last time the EMERGENCY section was updated? What about the conversion tables? Instead, AsA reprint these pages with every issue. How many documents are printed? 10,000? 20,000? Multiplied by the number of pages. What a waste!

I might never fly into Sydney INTL, Melbourne INTL, Brisbane INTL or Adelaide INTL. That saves another 26 pages per issue. Then remove all the airport information from outside of South Australia. What do I need helicopter information for if I’m a fixed wing pilot? And most of the restrictions on navaids and taxiways and obstacle limitations don’t interest me. I don’t need to know all the types of oil served at the refueler. Just the fact that there is a refueler with a phone number and hours of operation are enough for me.

By the time all this is done, I might only have a document with 50 pages. I’ll do a hand amendment every time if there are only a few pages to update.

Now you’re going to come back and say formatting and proof-reading individual documents will be prohibitive. You might be right, but software has changed enormously in the last few years and I believe the software to do such a thing is available. Entries can be coded. I’m sure there is coding of a type entered in the master document already. The full document can be proof-read once. All other sub-documents can then be pulled from the one master and formatted automatically and printed in batches.

But that might take some research and expense. It seems AsA would rather continue trying to work with a bad product and tossing up surveys for Option A or B to support the status quo.

While we’re on the subject of cost saving. Why do we have three VFR charts for areas like Coffs Harbour? Why is it that the area selling the charts within Airservices finds it necessary to turn up to each Flight Safety Forum at great expense? Couldn’t a local retailer do a better job for less? In fact, why is that area retailing at all? Couldn’t they just bulk ship to local retailers? Seems to work in the US and elsewhere. The aviation industry is paying for all this.

Trash 'n' Navs
30th Aug 2002, 05:05
IFF? Did I say that out loud just now or did I think it? Nothing sinister there Lodown and no I'm not near the survey at all - a very keen observer and worried user.

Sounds great to have an individually tailored product. I was talking to a mate of mine who works in an area that publishes products like what we're talking about, and from what he told me, I doubt very much that it is as easy as you make it sound. He even doubts the software is available. Even if it does now exist, you'll still need to go back and "code" every piece of existing data at the same time as adding to it.

In the end though, no matter how good your software is, it will still require someone to go through and proof read the printed form to ensure it matches the database.

ulm
30th Aug 2002, 07:36
Like Lowdown I rarely venture out of the eatern states. So, for a start it seems we may be able to break up the ERSA into bits.

The main pain for me is chart renewals. If they make a mistake then they can e-mail me and post the remedy on the web. I agree about airspace grabs, the RAAF have the second smallest airforce in the world (second only to NZ :D ) but nearly the most airspace (c'mon Woomera, let me tease them...just a bit...pleeeeez ;) ). Cut that down and the number of times it changes and you could make nice maps that would last a year (like the WACs).

Splitting the stuff is also a good idea. But why do we even need an ERSA. Because of AsA liability concerns it is practically useless to VFR pilots. I prefer the AOPA directory and those regional directories you can buy. I hardly ever use the ERSA.

So, why not dump the requirement and let the VFR guys download what they need. They still have the option to buy the brick if they want it.

Chuck