AIP index removal
I am biased against electronic versions of the AIP / CAAPs / Regs.
When updating the hard copy, I usually find something that I had forgotten, or had been "amended" (changed) that I might not have been aware of....
When updating the hard copy, I usually find something that I had forgotten, or had been "amended" (changed) that I might not have been aware of....
Thread Starter
That's the same canned email response I received.
Attempting to paint it as a contribution to safety is ludicrous. Whoever made this decision to save publishing costs has made aviation a little bit less safe and therefore undermined the basic function of their organisation.
The removal of the index has made it more difficult for me to access information that keeps my aviation operation safe.
Attempting to paint it as a contribution to safety is ludicrous. Whoever made this decision to save publishing costs has made aviation a little bit less safe and therefore undermined the basic function of their organisation.
The removal of the index has made it more difficult for me to access information that keeps my aviation operation safe.
To the IPAD solution..........
Now why doesn't AsA at least just combine the sections into one PDF? At least we'd have a chance of using the search with Xodo or Goodreader...
Here ya go Bloggsy!
Current: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...p/complete.pdf
Pending: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...p/complete.pdf
Current: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...p/complete.pdf
Pending: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...p/complete.pdf
Well there you go! Didn't see that; I'm sure it wasn't there for the March AIP when it was first posted. My digital intercourse with XXX of the XXX section of some months ago must have had an effect! Now all they need to do is add another heading level to the PDF Bookmarks and almost all will be forgiven...
Wow, I never thought I'd see the day. Well done ASA.
I now no longer get to write my rant at AirServices about not publishing the AIP as a whole document. I'll save the epithets for a sternly worded letter to my local council who have just approved a $350k pedestrian crossing in my town....
I now no longer get to write my rant at AirServices about not publishing the AIP as a whole document. I'll save the epithets for a sternly worded letter to my local council who have just approved a $350k pedestrian crossing in my town....
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching some other controllers trying to service some (super safe) class E procedures the other day. They had AIP out and were taking a very long time to find it. We wish the index was back too. We can't have electronic copies with us while we are working.
Thread Starter
I was watching some other controllers trying to service some (super safe) class E procedures the other day. They had AIP out and were taking a very long time to find it. We wish the index was back too. We can't have electronic copies with us while we are working.
I would like to raise my concerns with CASA as they are responsible for overseeing AIRSERVICES.
So far general contact addresses for both organisations have got me nowhere.
Thread Starter
This continues to be a pain in the neck for me.
In a reply to my enquiry, and editor from Airservices told me making the index is a 'time consuming and manual process' as one reason they stopped doing it.
Airservices are obviously very concerned about wasting time.
Why then do I receive bucketloads of these useless little edits and re-phrasings of unimportant little tidbits with every update?
They had to go through the process of discussing, re-wording, typing, printing, packing and distributing thousands of these pages so that subscribers could take out the old one and insert the new.
What a stupid waste of time. Whoever is in charge of this is doing a rubbish job.
In a reply to my enquiry, and editor from Airservices told me making the index is a 'time consuming and manual process' as one reason they stopped doing it.
Airservices are obviously very concerned about wasting time.
Why then do I receive bucketloads of these useless little edits and re-phrasings of unimportant little tidbits with every update?
They had to go through the process of discussing, re-wording, typing, printing, packing and distributing thousands of these pages so that subscribers could take out the old one and insert the new.
What a stupid waste of time. Whoever is in charge of this is doing a rubbish job.
Agree Mr H,
Maybe 'they' are frightened that nobody can remember what 'ICAO' stands for...??
Remainder of this page (post) 'intentionally left blank'.....
Maybe 'they' are frightened that nobody can remember what 'ICAO' stands for...??
Remainder of this page (post) 'intentionally left blank'.....
You have it the wrong way 'round, Griffo. The later amendment removed the spelling out of the words that create the acronym "ICAO".
Either way, though, it was a perfectly pointless exercise and therefore perfectly appropriate for bureaucratic busy-work.
Either way, though, it was a perfectly pointless exercise and therefore perfectly appropriate for bureaucratic busy-work.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices Australia blithely allegedly state that an item "is not required by ICAO. "However I would like to see the specific reference. I am not sure that their comment is correct. I was amused by the fact that I received my Australian AIP amendment package a couple of amendments ago, that comprised a complete replacement of the AIP document. That made life very easy and I thought (incorrectly) that the next amendment would be almost zero since the document had been completely (or so it seemed) re-written. My amusement was that the next amendment was not the complete document, but just as big ! I cannot believe the number of agencies that independently look after aviation matters in the Australian Government. Surely, this would be more cost-effective and efficient if it was all put under one Federal Ministers portfolio. The whole set-up and especially the documentation is a mighty unsafe jumble at the moment!
Airservices is technically correct on two grounds.
First, the only 'mandatory' provision in ICAO is the one obliging Australia to notify differences. Secondly, ICAO Annex 15 Chapter 4 (which details the content and format of AIP) only 'requires' a TOC. There is no mention of a separate index.
I'm surprised people are still paying for and using the paper version of AIP. It's masochistic.
As to the rest, here's an idea: Let's merge CASA and Airservices into a thing called the Department of Civil Aviation, reporting to a Minister for Aviation ....
First, the only 'mandatory' provision in ICAO is the one obliging Australia to notify differences. Secondly, ICAO Annex 15 Chapter 4 (which details the content and format of AIP) only 'requires' a TOC. There is no mention of a separate index.
I'm surprised people are still paying for and using the paper version of AIP. It's masochistic.
As to the rest, here's an idea: Let's merge CASA and Airservices into a thing called the Department of Civil Aviation, reporting to a Minister for Aviation ....
LB. I am aware of the regs, however on the rare occasions I can get an Airservices Australia rep to actually talk to me, they often respond with throw-away lines like "ah its in the regs somewhere - you're a pilot YOU need to look it up!" My purpose is to ensure that what we are talking about, is also qualified with regard to the actual reg(s) and to also confirm that they do know what they are talking about too. In the DCA days, even the administrative staff had at least PPLs and other aviation qualifications. Aside of that, with all the debate about "aviation systems safety management," given that we are paying for the hard copy documents anyway, I fail to see why cost is a problem. If I need a reference, I need it quickly in today's flying environment, not spend some time looking through poorly constructed ambiguous texts soaked in legal language with the increasing threat of "strict liability." I operate in remote sectors where total local power supply failures are common, hence the need to keep hard copy documentation readily available for the "what if." The merger you mentioned is long overdue, but should include the Department of Transport and Regional Development as well as CASA and Airservices Australia and even the ATSB. Given that general aviation and the regional hubs associated with it appear to be gradually closing down, a Department called ..."Regional Development," is sad. Plus they are responsible for aviation security, yet CASA issues ASICs! The ATSB appears to be lacking serious expertise at the moment with Executives that have never flown professionally and people who join ATSB with aviation expertise, but then assigned to railway incidents! Even under one Minister, the ATSB can be kept independent with regard to ensuring the bona-fides of their role. The whole business needs a jolly good shake-up.