Red Arrows display cancelled due to airspace infringement (merged)
Andy.. Not on sheet CAA 2171AB Northern England & Northern Ireland Edition26 it isn't.... Anyway, I think my point is still valid. Even if you were approaching a disused airfield and saw aircraft on the ground, a crowd, other aircraft in the vicinity perhaps, wouldn't you put two and two together and keep clear I don't think it's rocket science?
Spiney
Spiney
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS
Have a look here and look at the Q Line. This is the information that is omitted. It's easy to see that the Q Line contains all of the data that is necessary to sort, select and plot NOTAM. In fact, it is the data that the AIS website itself uses to decide what to include or leave out in a brief.
As it is, NotamPro and NotamPlot have to parse the text portion of the NOTAM, which does not contain all of the data in the Q Line and is not in a predetermined format.
There is currently not a better datasource for NotamPro than the one you are using. I am trying to get a better source made available and am in contact with a number of software writers, including Ian Bennett, the author of NotamPro.
Lack of the Q Line imposes limitations on what the software is capable of. This will always give the CAA/NATS the ability to criticise software working without it.
Apologies for suggesting you were using the backup briefs, evidently you are using the live brief from the AIS site. This brief is generated on demand and is therefore 100% up to date at the time it is taken.
Mike
Have a look here and look at the Q Line. This is the information that is omitted. It's easy to see that the Q Line contains all of the data that is necessary to sort, select and plot NOTAM. In fact, it is the data that the AIS website itself uses to decide what to include or leave out in a brief.
As it is, NotamPro and NotamPlot have to parse the text portion of the NOTAM, which does not contain all of the data in the Q Line and is not in a predetermined format.
There is currently not a better datasource for NotamPro than the one you are using. I am trying to get a better source made available and am in contact with a number of software writers, including Ian Bennett, the author of NotamPro.
Lack of the Q Line imposes limitations on what the software is capable of. This will always give the CAA/NATS the ability to criticise software working without it.
Apologies for suggesting you were using the backup briefs, evidently you are using the live brief from the AIS site. This brief is generated on demand and is therefore 100% up to date at the time it is taken.
Mike
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Mike, very helpful.
It seems daft that the raw data exists but is not made public for third party software use. Shouldn't NATS be doing all it can to improve air safety and reduce the risk of infringements?
It seems daft that the raw data exists but is not made public for third party software use. Shouldn't NATS be doing all it can to improve air safety and reduce the risk of infringements?
Frequencies
I still feel that adding local NOTAM information onto the end of the ATIS would be a good method - receivable by any VHF radio or scanner, or by phoning Volmet from the ground, but let's say we're not allowed to do that.
The obvious other place to put it would be on VORs - you could manage pretty much nationwide coverage that way without a single new frequency, albeit that presumably some black boxes would need adding to the ground hardware.
Of course none of this will stop a complete idiot not bothering to check anything, but I prefer to believe that nobody actually wants to fly dangerously or illegally - but they do tend to if it becomes too much hard work to comply with the rules. I think that at the moment a lot of people simply find the current system too much hard work. I suspect that a broadcast system may well cause a lot of people to not read NOTAMs that aren't close to them, but for safety purposes that should be enough to ensure no repetition of the sort of thing that happened here.
Incidentally, a couple of years ago I went to the "International Rocket Weekend" in Largs. Rockets were being launched up to about FL50 - this was NOTAMED. I counted about half a dozen aircraft per day through our overhead below that height, at-least two of which were Islanders - presumably Logainair and certainly not PPLs.
G
N.B. Wasn't this all the sort of thing everybody worried about when NATS was being privatised?
The obvious other place to put it would be on VORs - you could manage pretty much nationwide coverage that way without a single new frequency, albeit that presumably some black boxes would need adding to the ground hardware.
Of course none of this will stop a complete idiot not bothering to check anything, but I prefer to believe that nobody actually wants to fly dangerously or illegally - but they do tend to if it becomes too much hard work to comply with the rules. I think that at the moment a lot of people simply find the current system too much hard work. I suspect that a broadcast system may well cause a lot of people to not read NOTAMs that aren't close to them, but for safety purposes that should be enough to ensure no repetition of the sort of thing that happened here.
Incidentally, a couple of years ago I went to the "International Rocket Weekend" in Largs. Rockets were being launched up to about FL50 - this was NOTAMED. I counted about half a dozen aircraft per day through our overhead below that height, at-least two of which were Islanders - presumably Logainair and certainly not PPLs.
G
N.B. Wasn't this all the sort of thing everybody worried about when NATS was being privatised?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS is contracted to provide AIS by the CAA. I guess the CAA set the requirements for NATS to meet.
I don't think there is any link with privatisation as NATS is just a supplier, not the regulator.
I don't think there is any link with privatisation as NATS is just a supplier, not the regulator.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spiney: I don't disagree with your general point mate. And you're quite right, its not "disused" as such (was getting confused as I flew there for Project Propeller this year and recall that the field is not in "regular" use, not in Bottlang etc.
Andy
Andy
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of providing information on ATIS is sadly impractical in so many ways.
ATIS as it says is automated IE most of the information is produced from remote sites and placed on the ATIS. Additional regular information can be added by the pressing of a couple of buttons. When additional information such as wind shear or taxiway closure has to be added it takes manpower to do so and this unfortunately is getting less and less available.
Also who pays for the ATIS , at most airports it is the Airport Authority they will have little or no interest in funding such a service which has no affect on their airfield.
The excuses that many are producing here not to brief are IMHO just excuses . There are many ways to access the information and when people such as Mike Cross spend considerable time trying to improve the situation as well it angers me greatly that there are still so many out there who put so many other peoples lives in danger by failing to brief correctly.
We all know the system is not perfect and much work still has to be done but AIS are themselves working hard to try to make the product more user friendly.
It is also wise to remember that things go wrong in flight and what may seem of insignificance to you before flight can suddenly become of considerable significance during flight due to a diversion etc.
ATIS as it says is automated IE most of the information is produced from remote sites and placed on the ATIS. Additional regular information can be added by the pressing of a couple of buttons. When additional information such as wind shear or taxiway closure has to be added it takes manpower to do so and this unfortunately is getting less and less available.
Also who pays for the ATIS , at most airports it is the Airport Authority they will have little or no interest in funding such a service which has no affect on their airfield.
The excuses that many are producing here not to brief are IMHO just excuses . There are many ways to access the information and when people such as Mike Cross spend considerable time trying to improve the situation as well it angers me greatly that there are still so many out there who put so many other peoples lives in danger by failing to brief correctly.
We all know the system is not perfect and much work still has to be done but AIS are themselves working hard to try to make the product more user friendly.
It is also wise to remember that things go wrong in flight and what may seem of insignificance to you before flight can suddenly become of considerable significance during flight due to a diversion etc.
Although I'm currently locking horns with the BMAA over another regulatory matter, I would just like to add that the implication on this site that microlight flying is in some way inferior or that their pilots are 'gash' is entirely unjustified. The average microlight driver does considerably more flying in a 12 month period than the average spamcan driver (like me) - so please don't suggest that they are of a lower caste.
Oh - and CAA. Let's have live updated graphical NOTAM displays available on the web, please! Years ago when we had a large flight planning staff at the Secret Oxonian Aerodrome, the daily NOTAM brief was drawn on an A4 map of the UK. Then came Computers, reduction in staff levels - and the sort of user-unfriendly rubbish which is on the AIS website.
Oh - and CAA. Let's have live updated graphical NOTAM displays available on the web, please! Years ago when we had a large flight planning staff at the Secret Oxonian Aerodrome, the daily NOTAM brief was drawn on an A4 map of the UK. Then came Computers, reduction in staff levels - and the sort of user-unfriendly rubbish which is on the AIS website.
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said BEagle!
I was worried that it was going to be desperately confusing to bounce up and down the social scale depending on whether I happened to be flying a lawnmower or a 'real' aeroplane at the time!
And would I have been a better person when flying a shiny new expensive machine than when flying a cheap old 152?
Perhaps Bottlang could have included a new 'Snobbery Index' listing the world's flying machines in order of social standing and priority in the circuit.
I was worried that it was going to be desperately confusing to bounce up and down the social scale depending on whether I happened to be flying a lawnmower or a 'real' aeroplane at the time!
And would I have been a better person when flying a shiny new expensive machine than when flying a cheap old 152?
Perhaps Bottlang could have included a new 'Snobbery Index' listing the world's flying machines in order of social standing and priority in the circuit.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As somebody remarked about Mozart, there are too many notams.
It wouldn't be a big deal to list all notams affecting airspace at the top of the list.
Frequency changes could be listed immediately after airspace.
Then list the rest by airfield identifier.
The only people interested in cranes and blocked runways are those flying to that particular airfield, or chosing it as an alternate.
Each group could be listed N to S as they are purportedly listed at the moment.
If an excercise in o- level geometry is required to make sense of a TRA, then the originators should already have a picture available they should give a link to.
Effective dates could be highlighted within the notams rather better than they are at present.
Perhaps some restriction on what is notamed should be in effect, or is it a problem brought on by insurers and lawyers.
There is no doubt BEagle is right, it needs sorting out.
Nav2000 have announced some new presentation for French notams, which are being issued at the same rate as UK ones, but as yet I have not had the opportunity to look at their solution.
It wouldn't be a big deal to list all notams affecting airspace at the top of the list.
Frequency changes could be listed immediately after airspace.
Then list the rest by airfield identifier.
The only people interested in cranes and blocked runways are those flying to that particular airfield, or chosing it as an alternate.
Each group could be listed N to S as they are purportedly listed at the moment.
If an excercise in o- level geometry is required to make sense of a TRA, then the originators should already have a picture available they should give a link to.
Effective dates could be highlighted within the notams rather better than they are at present.
Perhaps some restriction on what is notamed should be in effect, or is it a problem brought on by insurers and lawyers.
There is no doubt BEagle is right, it needs sorting out.
Nav2000 have announced some new presentation for French notams, which are being issued at the same rate as UK ones, but as yet I have not had the opportunity to look at their solution.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS as Pprune Radar says, NATS are clean on this. They did initially raise objections to the release of the data last November but later withdrew them. NATS do not object to release of the data, it is the CAA ADAP1 who are refusing to release it per my earlier post.
Bluskis
There are too many NOTAMs if you don't use the site properly. Cranes within ATZ's (and they are generally only listed if they are within ATZ's) are only included in a Narrow Route brief if they are at your arrival departure or alternate aerodromes.
The whole point of the AIS site tools is to filter the output down to that which is relevant to your intended flight. If you take the trouble to learn how to use the tools you can get good results. If you don't then the system fails safe, i.e. it gives you everything.
There will inevitably be NOTAM which many will feel irrelevant. Most are now properly coded but a few still get through, for example is it essential for aircrew to know about changes in callsigns of medevac helicopters? (that was a recent one)
The FIR VFR briefs are intended for printing out and to go on the noticeboard. They are sorted geographically but unfortunately our group's recommendation was not followed and the sort is also subdivided into type of NOTAM, not something we asked for.
You can find info on applicability of the various briefs here, togther with alternate sources.
Half an hour on the AIS site with a printout of the FAQ and PIB Help documents should make anyone an expert.
Two things appear to be coming through loud and clear from this discussion:.
1. Many airfields do not display an FIR brief on the noticeboard.
2. Too many pilots are aviating unbriefed and infringing.
Mike
Bluskis
There are too many NOTAMs if you don't use the site properly. Cranes within ATZ's (and they are generally only listed if they are within ATZ's) are only included in a Narrow Route brief if they are at your arrival departure or alternate aerodromes.
The whole point of the AIS site tools is to filter the output down to that which is relevant to your intended flight. If you take the trouble to learn how to use the tools you can get good results. If you don't then the system fails safe, i.e. it gives you everything.
There will inevitably be NOTAM which many will feel irrelevant. Most are now properly coded but a few still get through, for example is it essential for aircrew to know about changes in callsigns of medevac helicopters? (that was a recent one)
The FIR VFR briefs are intended for printing out and to go on the noticeboard. They are sorted geographically but unfortunately our group's recommendation was not followed and the sort is also subdivided into type of NOTAM, not something we asked for.
You can find info on applicability of the various briefs here, togther with alternate sources.
Half an hour on the AIS site with a printout of the FAQ and PIB Help documents should make anyone an expert.
Two things appear to be coming through loud and clear from this discussion:.
1. Many airfields do not display an FIR brief on the noticeboard.
2. Too many pilots are aviating unbriefed and infringing.
Mike
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having re-skimmed the thread (ok, a cursory glance 
), I am surprised to hear that our fellow-aviators in microlight aircraft perceive that they are generally thought of as second class citizens - not sure there is much on the thread to indicate this other than that there were - as a fact - microlights involved in the incursion at Elvington (as were, I believe, some regular GA aircraft and gliders)...
I wasn't previously aware of this shoulder chip! I for one always enjoy seeing microlights around airfields and in the air - it looks like fun! My only concern is that it also looks cold! In fact, from what I have heard in relation to actual flying of microlights, isn't it in some ways more challenging, partciularly in crosswinds, than e.g. PA28 etc. that I fly which - lets face it - you could probably teach your proverbial grandmother to fly..?
Sorry this is a bit off the main thrust of the thread... but just wanted to say microlighters: we love you too, so relax
Andy
), I am surprised to hear that our fellow-aviators in microlight aircraft perceive that they are generally thought of as second class citizens - not sure there is much on the thread to indicate this other than that there were - as a fact - microlights involved in the incursion at Elvington (as were, I believe, some regular GA aircraft and gliders)...I wasn't previously aware of this shoulder chip! I for one always enjoy seeing microlights around airfields and in the air - it looks like fun! My only concern is that it also looks cold! In fact, from what I have heard in relation to actual flying of microlights, isn't it in some ways more challenging, partciularly in crosswinds, than e.g. PA28 etc. that I fly which - lets face it - you could probably teach your proverbial grandmother to fly..?
Sorry this is a bit off the main thrust of the thread... but just wanted to say microlighters: we love you too, so relax
Andy
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People still seem to be making excuses for not getting/reading NOTAMS. There is no excuse.
Sorry microlighters, didn't mean to cause offence about the power(!)plant. Didn't realise you were so sensitive. And before you ask, I have flown one. Didn't have a grass box on it either.
Luv, Reichman
Sorry microlighters, didn't mean to cause offence about the power(!)plant. Didn't realise you were so sensitive. And before you ask, I have flown one. Didn't have a grass box on it either.
Luv, Reichman
You can't really blame the chaps - there are still quite a lot of airfields that ban microlights still (Thruxton or Biggin to name two) and some very experienced pilots are very-closed minded about them. I must admit, as somebody who flies most things, it irritates me sometimes that I can go somewhere in my (unsilenced) PA28 that I couldn't in my (silenced) flexwing, presumably my airmanship is similar regardless of what I'm flying.
And this is definitely getting off-topic, so I'll belt up.
G
And this is definitely getting off-topic, so I'll belt up.
G
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NotamPlot
OK, I'll bite! 
I'm hoping to release a new version of NotamPlot shortly.
Again it will be on the basis of an unenforced donation to charity.
Hopefully it will in some way address some of the limitations of the current system.
Keep an eye on the following URL for updates over the next few weeks....
http://www.notamplot.flyer.co.uk
Ian
I'm hoping to release a new version of NotamPlot shortly.
Again it will be on the basis of an unenforced donation to charity.
Hopefully it will in some way address some of the limitations of the current system.
Keep an eye on the following URL for updates over the next few weeks....
http://www.notamplot.flyer.co.uk
Ian
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian,
Hooray! You are a prince amongst aviators (and coders)!
Andy,
I should have added a tongue-in-cheek smiley, but there doesn't seem to be one!
If you make the journey to an airfield very close to yours sometime soon I'll take you for a spin in a microlight. If we feel too proletarian after that we'll take the Cirrus round the block too and restore our social standing!
Now, off in search of this other thread...
Hooray! You are a prince amongst aviators (and coders)!
Andy,
I wasn't previously aware of this shoulder chip!
If you make the journey to an airfield very close to yours sometime soon I'll take you for a spin in a microlight. If we feel too proletarian after that we'll take the Cirrus round the block too and restore our social standing!
Now, off in search of this other thread...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MC
Tried a narrow route briefing VFR from Switz to UK.
Impressed. VOR on maintenance in Switz, info on Paris region, and nothing to affect in UK.
What is a hls?
Previous remarks withdrawn.
Tried a narrow route briefing VFR from Switz to UK.
Impressed. VOR on maintenance in Switz, info on Paris region, and nothing to affect in UK.
What is a hls?
Previous remarks withdrawn.