NAIPS and AIRSERVICES website down
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAIPS and AIRSERVICES website down
It appears that due to a TELSTRA fault NAIPS and the Airservices websites are down. Wx still availible from the BOM website. Can't remember the last time i've had to phone a flight plan through!
Interesting.....
What do we actually 'do', when NAIPS is down...??
I attended the AOPA Safety Seminar at JT yesterday, Sat 3rd, and it was pointed out by the CASA "Aviation Safety Advisor" presenter that, the ONLY weather briefing that is LEGAL, is the one received from NAIPS, as Air Services Australia is the ONLY CERTIFIED data provider, certified to the ICAO standard.
This applies at ALL times - even though the weather data presented by AirServices Australia, actually comes directly from BOM.
But, because the BOM is not the 'certified provider', certified to 'The Standard', even though we may access BOM data sites / sources, such data cannot be used LEGALLY because it was not obtained from the 'Certified' provider.
So, the question is -
Do RPT and other flights, e.g. IFR, Charter etc, who are REQUIRED to obtain a legal weather briefing / forecast for their particular flight, NOT proceed until they have received a current weather briefing from the AirServices Australia source, i.e. the CERTIFIED provider?
This question was not asked at the time as most of the audience were 'suprised' that, legally, they were not able to use the BOM sites direct, as many of us do, no doubt, especially if NAIPS was unavailable.....
Did any flights NOT go??
Honest question......
What do we actually 'do', when NAIPS is down...??
I attended the AOPA Safety Seminar at JT yesterday, Sat 3rd, and it was pointed out by the CASA "Aviation Safety Advisor" presenter that, the ONLY weather briefing that is LEGAL, is the one received from NAIPS, as Air Services Australia is the ONLY CERTIFIED data provider, certified to the ICAO standard.
This applies at ALL times - even though the weather data presented by AirServices Australia, actually comes directly from BOM.
But, because the BOM is not the 'certified provider', certified to 'The Standard', even though we may access BOM data sites / sources, such data cannot be used LEGALLY because it was not obtained from the 'Certified' provider.
So, the question is -
Do RPT and other flights, e.g. IFR, Charter etc, who are REQUIRED to obtain a legal weather briefing / forecast for their particular flight, NOT proceed until they have received a current weather briefing from the AirServices Australia source, i.e. the CERTIFIED provider?
This question was not asked at the time as most of the audience were 'suprised' that, legally, they were not able to use the BOM sites direct, as many of us do, no doubt, especially if NAIPS was unavailable.....
Did any flights NOT go??
Honest question......
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 4th Mar 2012 at 01:29.
Ahhh...
The good old days of avfax, dectalk and phoning the briefing office.
Amazing how many people aren't taught about these methods by today's instructors.
The good old days of avfax, dectalk and phoning the briefing office.
Amazing how many people aren't taught about these methods by today's instructors.
Ahhhh - so that's why I couldn't log in a few days ago to check if there were any NOTAMS on YLEC after all the rain we had.
DF.
DF.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffo, that's rather interesting information.
Where is that written for us to know, why is it not common knowledge?
Afterall, the AIP states in ENR 1.10 that for flight planning purposes we must have applicable forecasts but mentions nothing in relation to the actual SOURCE of the information.
AIP also informs us that, in Gen 3.5-1, that "Meteorological services for civil aviation in Australia and its territories is provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)."
Sooooo......
AsA tell us that BoM is the provider. And apparently CASA tell us that we can't use information direct from the provider, but can only accept information from a AsA (a 'hand me down' party) which was given to them by who AsA claim as the official provider?
Makes a lot of sense.
Or is there some bullshi+ semantics going on between particular words.. "provider" "supplier" or something along those lines?
I would be inclined to not belive that CASA "Aviation Safety Advisor" - afterall, it wouldn't be the first time they didn't have their information correct!
Happy for it to be proven in the regs somewhere that states that weather must come from AsA....
What about International ops... oh no, another can of worms!
Where is that written for us to know, why is it not common knowledge?
Afterall, the AIP states in ENR 1.10 that for flight planning purposes we must have applicable forecasts but mentions nothing in relation to the actual SOURCE of the information.
AIP also informs us that, in Gen 3.5-1, that "Meteorological services for civil aviation in Australia and its territories is provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)."
Sooooo......
AsA tell us that BoM is the provider. And apparently CASA tell us that we can't use information direct from the provider, but can only accept information from a AsA (a 'hand me down' party) which was given to them by who AsA claim as the official provider?
Makes a lot of sense.
Or is there some bullshi+ semantics going on between particular words.. "provider" "supplier" or something along those lines?
I would be inclined to not belive that CASA "Aviation Safety Advisor" - afterall, it wouldn't be the first time they didn't have their information correct!
Happy for it to be proven in the regs somewhere that states that weather must come from AsA....
What about International ops... oh no, another can of worms!
G'Day 'my name..', et al,
Yep! I reckon it suprised the rest of the room as well.
Incredulous looks all round....
The CASA 'Aviation Safety Advisor' was Teraya Miller.
You could give the lady a ring - 131757 is it not?
In my 'former life' as an FSO, we actually deferred 'Specialised Met Briefings' to the local Met Briefing Officer, where provided.
So, the info was from BOM, DIRECT!
For the remainder of the info, we (FS) were simply one of the information disseminators. ATC being the other.
Both were / are AirServices Australia.
The info then, as I'm sure it still does, 'arrived' on the printer.
We tore it off and copied / posted / disseminated as required.
Nothing 'magic' in that.
Most, if not all Met info is marked BOM......
This appears at the bottom of Area 60 for example....
"
REMARKS:
FOR MORE INFORMATION RING THE AVIATION FORECASTER [08] 9263 2255"
.
During proof reading on receipt, occasionally we picked up obvious errors - like more than 5 HPA between 'Area QNH' zones etc. or, some clarification of various descriptions - e.g. East of a line between 'this place' & 'that place'...
Anyway, that is what occurred at the seminar.....
Yep! I reckon it suprised the rest of the room as well.
Incredulous looks all round....
The CASA 'Aviation Safety Advisor' was Teraya Miller.
You could give the lady a ring - 131757 is it not?
In my 'former life' as an FSO, we actually deferred 'Specialised Met Briefings' to the local Met Briefing Officer, where provided.
So, the info was from BOM, DIRECT!
For the remainder of the info, we (FS) were simply one of the information disseminators. ATC being the other.
Both were / are AirServices Australia.
The info then, as I'm sure it still does, 'arrived' on the printer.
We tore it off and copied / posted / disseminated as required.
Nothing 'magic' in that.
Most, if not all Met info is marked BOM......
This appears at the bottom of Area 60 for example....
"
REMARKS:
FOR MORE INFORMATION RING THE AVIATION FORECASTER [08] 9263 2255"
.
During proof reading on receipt, occasionally we picked up obvious errors - like more than 5 HPA between 'Area QNH' zones etc. or, some clarification of various descriptions - e.g. East of a line between 'this place' & 'that place'...
Anyway, that is what occurred at the seminar.....
I have just got off the phone from the lady who gave the brief, and she did confirm that the only legal provider of the MET info for flight planning purposes, and therefore the AIP requirements, is Air Services Australia, as they are the ICAO approved standard......
It has 'always' been that way, and this was just a 'clarification' of that....
She did confirm, that in the event of the on line NAIPS not being avbl, then phone / fax / dectalk services are still avbl.
So, even though the original info may come from the BOM, it is up to AirServices to ensure that it is in the 'correct format' for dissemination to the 'Aviation Users', is the message....
Cheers
It has 'always' been that way, and this was just a 'clarification' of that....
She did confirm, that in the event of the on line NAIPS not being avbl, then phone / fax / dectalk services are still avbl.
So, even though the original info may come from the BOM, it is up to AirServices to ensure that it is in the 'correct format' for dissemination to the 'Aviation Users', is the message....
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good clue would be the following disclaimer when you click on the bom aviation services section:
"By entering this site, you acknowledge that this information is produced solely for use by the aviation industry, and you are aware that any information for the purposes of flight planning should be obtained from Airservices Australia."
"By entering this site, you acknowledge that this information is produced solely for use by the aviation industry, and you are aware that any information for the purposes of flight planning should be obtained from Airservices Australia."
