Bookworm,

You are right, of course, and I am persuaded :)

Why do I have the distinct impression that you have battered me in discussions elsewhere previously??!!

During the three months it's taken to get to this stage I have learned that it's far better to ask for 200% and be happy with 95% than to only ask for 75% at the outset ;) (I suspect you know what I mean)

What went on our website (www.telecall.uk.com/ais) was a realistically obtainable goal - as you say, filtered to requirements of the various PIB users.

We won't be asking ICAO to change anything ;)

Cheers

Russell

Hi Bookworm

If you look at my post in this forum of 14 Oct at 15:24 you will see that MATS supports Rustle's point. I am told that the wording is taken verbatim from ICAO Annex 15

It is a difficult issue and there are a number of ways of approaching it.

Your suggestion that everything should go in and filtering should be used at the point of delivery is persuasive, however it goes against MATS and ICAO.

It could equally be argued that facilities for loading and unloading the aircraft are a matter for the airline's local agent and should not be the subject of a worldwide broadcast. What if, for example, the bus drivers are on a work to rule or equipment is out of service resulting in delays in getting passengers to or from remote stands. Where should the line be drawn?

The underlying problem is that NOTAM are a quick and easy way of getting the information to a very wide address list and so are used even when not appropriate.

DVLA hold the address of every vehicle owner in the UK but it would not be appropriate to send a recall notice on a Ford Fiesta to the whole address list, you need to have more precise targetting.

If BAA want to tell all airlines using LGW that a stand is out of service there are much more targetted ways of doing it but they require more thought and a little more work. The same applies to the CAA wanting to warn owners of certain Russian registered aircraft that their C of A may not be valid for international use.

These are really matters for DAP. I know they have a view that things are being notammed that should not be, so we may see some guidance being issued.

I recognise that if MATS were strictly applied then alternative communications methods (e.g. new address lists) might be required so that users could subscribe to information that may be of operational significance to them but which falls outside Annex 15's definition of what should be a NOTAM. It would of course be useful to have the information presented using the NOTAM message format so that existing database systems could cope with it.

I am not trying to be dogmatic, there are many valid arguments on all sides and there is no "right" answer.

Mike

OK, let's do it blow by blow...

The MATS wording is indeed taken from ICAO Annex 15 and the ICAO AIS Manual. The paragraphs that describe what should or should not be NOTAMed do not mention stand closures explicitly. However, the appendix to the NOTAM chapter in the AIS Manual goes through every permissible NOTAM code. One of them is "QMPLC", for stand closures. The tables in the appendix even list the NBOMIV flags that should be used for it.

If a stand closure does not meet the ICAO requirements for the issue of a NOTAM, why did ICAO invent and list a code for it?

It's a good analogy. If there's a recall issued on the Ford Fiesta, Ford notifies the appropriate agency in each country. The agency is then responsible for promulgating the information to the affected owners.

If a stand is closed at LGW, the airport operator raises a NOTAM to warn the AIS. The AIS distributes the NOTAM to those states whose operators may be affected by this. The state AIS is then responsible for promulgating the information to the affected operators.

So how is the pilot of a Russian-registered aircraft based in France going to find out that the UK CAA will ground his aircraft if he flies it to the UK unless he first gets an exemption?

Like I said, there's no "right answer".

Sure, ICAO 8126 has a code for it but that doesn't automatically mean it should be notammed.

AIS can't promulgate it to the "affected operators", they don't (nor are they required to) know who they are. The only option they have is to issue a NOTAM which goes to everyone, worldwide. The aerodrome operator can of course inform the affected operators direct because they are his customers and he knows who they are.

The Russian registered aircraft problem is that certain C's of A are only valid within Russia. The aircraft therefore can't operate legally within France either. The DGAC should ground the aircraft if it is in France and the CAA if it is in the UK. Either of course could issue an exemption valid for their own airspace.

Mike

Let's not get carried away too far in this discussion. The key point is to help GA pilots and GA organisations to get the Notams which are important to them and their flight easily and quickly and to avoid dilution by Notams not relevant.

In this context, GA flights are numerically far larger than the airlines, including not only private pilots flying for fun and business, but also air taxi, medevac, training and small corporate outfits etc, none of whom have the resources of a comprehensive ops department for pre-flight planning.

If a specific Q-code is irrelevant, it should be possible to filter it out individually, or as part of a family. I subscribe to Pilotbrief, who provide this facility and it works well -- but you do have to subscribe. So, it can be done. AIS should provide the raw data, allowing the users (or commercial intermediaries) to provide the filters.

For filters to work well, the timing, radius of action and altitude limits of the issue need to be well specified. This is an area where AIS could intervene to sharpen up the data quality from the original source, and promulgate refined data in the UK.

AA.

Have a read of this:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...5w02.html_wqn5

(Extract follows)

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the state of faults on the UK NATS website; and when the faults will be rectified;[R] [79443]
5 Nov 2002 : Column 148W
(2) what representations he has received from UK pilots who have to log onto the Swedish air traffic service in order to obtain UK NOTAM for safety and time critical information owing to faults on the UK NATS website.[R] [79442]
Mr. Jamieson: National Air Traffic Services Ltd. introduced a new on-line information system in late August, replacing the former manual system. The change was made after extensive consultation with users. The new system is intended to provide much wider access to pre-flight information, thereby enhancing safety, but some general aviation users who are accustomed to the manual system have not found it easy to adapt.
The system is provided with back-up facilities and, while—as with most other similar websites—it may be necessary to suspend operation for very short periods, I am assured that the continuity of service will not be significantly compromised.


So who was consulted? Who is this Jamieson character who, basically, is suggesting that the problems are OUR fault?

Come on folks - this is outrageous:mad:

rustle asked....

I suspect this might be said gentleman, a Labour Transport Minister.

WF.

Thanks, WF.

Post-meeting information can be found in Private Flying Forum:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=72705

For an update on the meeting that took place at AIS Heathrow on Friday please go to:-
http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais/news!.htm

Then let's have some comments!

Mike