AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
What is AIS stand point on reliability? I notice the site is off line at the moment. This is isn't the first time i've encountered it either. Given the importance the CAA places on not flying without current notams, shouldn't system reliabilty be slightly higher up the list of priorities?
The other item worth bringing up, is the publication of the Luton airspace changes. I pointed one of my students to the yellow AIC detailing the changes, only to find a broken link. I emailed AIS and I got a prompt response (one brownie point on that score). The answer was they had moved the info on to the AD page and deleted the AIC but not the link. Bearing in mind this is a fairly fundamental change that is not yet been printed on any chart, isn't a bit soon to start removing important info and hiding it elsewhere. PPL's who only fly in the summer months (and I know several) may miss such an important change despite diligent pre-flight planning. Even LOOP published a reference to the AIC without realising it had been removed.
Many thanks to Mike et al who work to improved this under-performing system.
What is AIS stand point on reliability? I notice the site is off line at the moment. This is isn't the first time i've encountered it either. Given the importance the CAA places on not flying without current notams, shouldn't system reliabilty be slightly higher up the list of priorities?
The other item worth bringing up, is the publication of the Luton airspace changes. I pointed one of my students to the yellow AIC detailing the changes, only to find a broken link. I emailed AIS and I got a prompt response (one brownie point on that score). The answer was they had moved the info on to the AD page and deleted the AIC but not the link. Bearing in mind this is a fairly fundamental change that is not yet been printed on any chart, isn't a bit soon to start removing important info and hiding it elsewhere. PPL's who only fly in the summer months (and I know several) may miss such an important change despite diligent pre-flight planning. Even LOOP published a reference to the AIC without realising it had been removed.
Many thanks to Mike et al who work to improved this under-performing system.
There are also changes in airspace at both Newcastle and, particularly, Bristol and Cardiff coming up shortly.
Yet the CAA 1:500 000 won't have these for how long? Next April is it??
It is essential that a single source for all such changes to current Class G airspace shall be provided when such a large chunk is grabbed and turned into Class D. The CAA Aeronautical Charts website for 1:500 000 is neither easy to find nor easy to use - why is an electronic version with this information shown graphically available!
How do you avoid it if it is so difficult to find out where the new airspace is?
I consider that a new CAA 1:500 000 should be produced FREE OF CHARGE for all those who have Edition 32 which will be largely unfit for purpose when the Bristol/Cardiff/Luton - and who knows where else - changes have come into effect. Issued in April, largely out of date by the end of August is wholly unreasonable.
Incidentally, the AIS website has an out-of-date chart catalogue - but at least there will be another AIC coming out soon which shows the changes to Luton, London City, Bristol and Cardiff....
Yet the CAA 1:500 000 won't have these for how long? Next April is it??
It is essential that a single source for all such changes to current Class G airspace shall be provided when such a large chunk is grabbed and turned into Class D. The CAA Aeronautical Charts website for 1:500 000 is neither easy to find nor easy to use - why is an electronic version with this information shown graphically available!
How do you avoid it if it is so difficult to find out where the new airspace is?
I consider that a new CAA 1:500 000 should be produced FREE OF CHARGE for all those who have Edition 32 which will be largely unfit for purpose when the Bristol/Cardiff/Luton - and who knows where else - changes have come into effect. Issued in April, largely out of date by the end of August is wholly unreasonable.
Incidentally, the AIS website has an out-of-date chart catalogue - but at least there will be another AIC coming out soon which shows the changes to Luton, London City, Bristol and Cardiff....
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Jul 2006 at 14:49.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ho Hum....
So a "Radius Search" doesn't give you NOTAM affecting a radius? Is that what you mean.
As far as I can see it gives you a/d NOTAM for a radius followed by the entire FIR. I think I'll stick to the Narrow Route Brief thanks.
Beagle
See my new post re the Bristol/Cardiff changes
Jimbo
AIS do take downtime very seriously, which is one of the reasons they have fallback positions.
http://www.nats.co.uk/text/109/prefl...ins_pibs_.html
Recorded info an all TRA's and airspace restrictions 0500 354802 (24hrs)
AIS Duty Officer 020 8745 3450/3451 (24hrs)
The downtime stats are published (Web Site Uptime link on the login page)
There is currently an issue with transient 500 errors which is being addressed by the software provider.
Mike
So a "Radius Search" doesn't give you NOTAM affecting a radius? Is that what you mean.
As far as I can see it gives you a/d NOTAM for a radius followed by the entire FIR. I think I'll stick to the Narrow Route Brief thanks.
Beagle
See my new post re the Bristol/Cardiff changes
Jimbo
AIS do take downtime very seriously, which is one of the reasons they have fallback positions.
http://www.nats.co.uk/text/109/prefl...ins_pibs_.html
Recorded info an all TRA's and airspace restrictions 0500 354802 (24hrs)
AIS Duty Officer 020 8745 3450/3451 (24hrs)
FAX ON DEMAND (FOD)
The VFR briefs are also available by fax; they are updated every 15 minutes
(Check your own fax user guide regarding FOD)
Fax for a VFR Brief for the London FIR dial: 020 8557 0064
Fax for a VFR Brief for the Scottish FIR dial: 020 8557 0065
The VFR briefs are also available by fax; they are updated every 15 minutes
(Check your own fax user guide regarding FOD)
Fax for a VFR Brief for the London FIR dial: 020 8557 0064
Fax for a VFR Brief for the Scottish FIR dial: 020 8557 0065
There is currently an issue with transient 500 errors which is being addressed by the software provider.
Mike
STOP PRESS!
I have been reliably informed that, due to the number of substantial airspace changes which will have occurred during the time between the launch of the Edition 32 chart and 31 Aug 2006, a further revised chart (Edition 32A) will be released soon.
But it will cost the same as the Edition 32, and no - we won't be getting any refund.
I have been reliably informed that, due to the number of substantial airspace changes which will have occurred during the time between the launch of the Edition 32 chart and 31 Aug 2006, a further revised chart (Edition 32A) will be released soon.
But it will cost the same as the Edition 32, and no - we won't be getting any refund.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, what I mean is that one needs to actually read the report. You asked for all NOTAMS within 20 nm of popham, and cited H4892/05, saying
In a 20nm radius of popham, the FAA site actually says there are "No active NOTAMS for this location". The NOTAM you cited is listed under "EGTT LONDON ATCC".
What this demonstrates to me is that even the better people can make mistakes with NOTAMS if they don't take the time to read them properly. There is obviously a presentation problem here, but if something went wrong the PIC would be to blame.
Somebody said that even the FAA couldn't give a report from goodwood to bembridge, well put them in and you will find that the FAA certainly can. You just need to take the time to sort the wheat from the chaff, it's called planning, and if I can do it then anybody can.
If Stoke on Trent's only 20nm from Popham why does it take so long to get there
What this demonstrates to me is that even the better people can make mistakes with NOTAMS if they don't take the time to read them properly. There is obviously a presentation problem here, but if something went wrong the PIC would be to blame.
Somebody said that even the FAA couldn't give a report from goodwood to bembridge, well put them in and you will find that the FAA certainly can. You just need to take the time to sort the wheat from the chaff, it's called planning, and if I can do it then anybody can.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
Agreed
There are no active NOTAM for Popham because it does not have an AIP entry because it is unlicensed. If it's not in the AIP you're not going to get any NOTAM for it.
There's also no NOTAM for Lasham (same logic), Thruxton or Blackbushe. All fair enough.
There are no en-route NOTAM listed for the 20nm radius, they're all buried in the mass of FIR NOTAM. If you think you're getting radius NOTAM without going through the FIR listing you're mistaken.
There are 17 FIR NOTAM for a NRB 10nm either side of track Popham to Blackbushe current during the next 48 Hr period.
I don't think I'm misreading it at all.
Mike
What this demonstrates to me is that even the better people can make mistakes with NOTAMS if they don't take the time to read them properly.
There are no active NOTAM for Popham because it does not have an AIP entry because it is unlicensed. If it's not in the AIP you're not going to get any NOTAM for it.
There's also no NOTAM for Lasham (same logic), Thruxton or Blackbushe. All fair enough.
There are no en-route NOTAM listed for the 20nm radius, they're all buried in the mass of FIR NOTAM. If you think you're getting radius NOTAM without going through the FIR listing you're mistaken.
There are 17 FIR NOTAM for a NRB 10nm either side of track Popham to Blackbushe current during the next 48 Hr period.
I don't think I'm misreading it at all.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beags, do you want them to eat your free dinner as well?
Maybe a quick call to the charts people to find out why they are in such a predicament. Let me offer a hypothesis:
a. The charts were designed to incorporate the Bristol/Cardiff ACP.
b. Bristol/Cardiff had some last minute consultation to complete. Aware of a previous Judicial Inquiry, they did not want the ACP to be contested.
c. DAP had to, at short notice, revert to plan B removing the change from their charts.
I'm not saying that this is the case, but if you really think that you are 'owed' £13.95 (or whatever it is) by the CAA, then I suggest you turn out your pockets and go figure how much money this County's tax payer still gives you for doing the square root of diddlysquat.
Rant over.
Maybe a quick call to the charts people to find out why they are in such a predicament. Let me offer a hypothesis:
a. The charts were designed to incorporate the Bristol/Cardiff ACP.
b. Bristol/Cardiff had some last minute consultation to complete. Aware of a previous Judicial Inquiry, they did not want the ACP to be contested.
c. DAP had to, at short notice, revert to plan B removing the change from their charts.
I'm not saying that this is the case, but if you really think that you are 'owed' £13.95 (or whatever it is) by the CAA, then I suggest you turn out your pockets and go figure how much money this County's tax payer still gives you for doing the square root of diddlysquat.
Rant over.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be that "somebody"; I should have written that one is unlikely to get a graphical representation of some UK notam database item from the USA. Which is correct - because it takes human involvement.
Which is why we will never have graphical notams in the UK - nobody will pay for it. So "we" have to learn to live with the existing system.
So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?
No, but if you bought the Jepp electronic chart(s) you would (should!) get a corrected version 28 days later. The CAA could do the same: make the charts downloadable. Think how much they would save on printing. They can't make more than a couple of quid per chart, after allowing for trade discounts etc. It would enhance safety, which ought to interest them. Practically nobody is going to download the printed chart errors/updates from the website; personally I wouldn't even know where to start looking (life is too short).
Which is why we will never have graphical notams in the UK - nobody will pay for it. So "we" have to learn to live with the existing system.
So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?
No, but if you bought the Jepp electronic chart(s) you would (should!) get a corrected version 28 days later. The CAA could do the same: make the charts downloadable. Think how much they would save on printing. They can't make more than a couple of quid per chart, after allowing for trade discounts etc. It would enhance safety, which ought to interest them. Practically nobody is going to download the printed chart errors/updates from the website; personally I wouldn't even know where to start looking (life is too short).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am confused as to the point of this thread.
It seems to me from other threads pilot’s find it difficult to interpret the NOTAM and other information provided by the AIS. In consequence they either do not properly self brief or rely on other third party providers.
This situation appears unsatisfactory.
I asked the question what is it the AIS are tasked to do. I am still not certain?
If they are tasked with providing ICAO NOTAM data in raw form, clearly they have met their obligations. I would argue their remit is incorrect.
If they are tasked with providing the data in as effective a way as possible, they have failed.
Many have commented a graphical interface would be helpful.
I find the radius search provided by the FAA helpful. Consider for a moment how much GA flying does not depart from and route directly to a given destination.
Personally I also find the FAA web site easier and quicker to use.
If I were tasked by AOPA with representing GA’s interest I would want to establish what could be done to improve the way UK NOTAM information is made available to GA operators in this country. I would want to see what improvements are possible, and consider how these improvements might be funded. Whilst I recognise NOTAM information must be provided for cross border flights the vast majority of GA flights in the UK originate and terminate in the UK.
Any changes could be dismissed on the basis that the funding is not available, or the data does not lend itself to presentation in that way, or we would have to add a disclaimer, or we are constrained by the ICAO format. However, if that is the case there is little point to this thread - we should just carry on with a system that clearly is not working.
Alternatively, we should at least understand what it is the AIS is obliged to provide and what it is they might consider providing.
In my view a reasonable model is the Met Office. There web site is easy to use. They provide the information they are required to freely and effectively. They provide additional information on a subscription basis and this includes some “trial” services that are subject to the usual caveats. It is not perfect, but it is a far better effort than the AIS has made of things!
It seems to me from other threads pilot’s find it difficult to interpret the NOTAM and other information provided by the AIS. In consequence they either do not properly self brief or rely on other third party providers.
This situation appears unsatisfactory.
I asked the question what is it the AIS are tasked to do. I am still not certain?
If they are tasked with providing ICAO NOTAM data in raw form, clearly they have met their obligations. I would argue their remit is incorrect.
If they are tasked with providing the data in as effective a way as possible, they have failed.
Many have commented a graphical interface would be helpful.
I find the radius search provided by the FAA helpful. Consider for a moment how much GA flying does not depart from and route directly to a given destination.
Personally I also find the FAA web site easier and quicker to use.
If I were tasked by AOPA with representing GA’s interest I would want to establish what could be done to improve the way UK NOTAM information is made available to GA operators in this country. I would want to see what improvements are possible, and consider how these improvements might be funded. Whilst I recognise NOTAM information must be provided for cross border flights the vast majority of GA flights in the UK originate and terminate in the UK.
Any changes could be dismissed on the basis that the funding is not available, or the data does not lend itself to presentation in that way, or we would have to add a disclaimer, or we are constrained by the ICAO format. However, if that is the case there is little point to this thread - we should just carry on with a system that clearly is not working.
Alternatively, we should at least understand what it is the AIS is obliged to provide and what it is they might consider providing.
In my view a reasonable model is the Met Office. There web site is easy to use. They provide the information they are required to freely and effectively. They provide additional information on a subscription basis and this includes some “trial” services that are subject to the usual caveats. It is not perfect, but it is a far better effort than the AIS has made of things!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I think that's called an "update service"
SlimSlag
I think we're talking at cross purposes.
I asked for NOTAM within a 20nm radius of Popham. I got one for Stoke, which, last time I looked was more than 20nm away. To me that's not what I asked for.
You said
That text referred to Popham, not to a 20nm radius from Popham.
I checked on the AIS site and found 17 NOTAM within 10nm of the direct track between Popham and Blackbushe. Thse should all have been reported by the query on the FAA site. I'm sure they were, but they'll be buried somewhire in the pages of NOTAM covering the entire FIR, which rather negates the usefulness of it as a tool.
Mike
I think that's called an "update service"
SlimSlag
I think we're talking at cross purposes.
I asked for NOTAM within a 20nm radius of Popham. I got one for Stoke, which, last time I looked was more than 20nm away. To me that's not what I asked for.
You said
In a 20nm radius of popham, the FAA site actually says there are "No active NOTAMS for this location".
I checked on the AIS site and found 17 NOTAM within 10nm of the direct track between Popham and Blackbushe. Thse should all have been reported by the query on the FAA site. I'm sure they were, but they'll be buried somewhire in the pages of NOTAM covering the entire FIR, which rather negates the usefulness of it as a tool.
Mike
A decent graphical user interface is the way ahead. And there is indeed no excuse for the inability of a national provider such as AIS to come up with a 21st Century method of displaying NOTAMs on an electronic chart.
Also, regarding 'amendments already effective' to the CAA Edition 32 chart is the following entry for Luton:
LONDON/Luton
Amendments to controlled airspace in the Luton area:
London Luton Control Area (CTA-8) rising from 3500 ft altitude to FL55, bounded by the following coordinates: 515150N 0004336W - 515244N 0003828W - 515503N 0004353W - 515150N 0004336W.
London Luton Control Area (CTA-9) rising from 4500 ft altitude to FL55, bounded by the following coordinates: 515150N 0004336W - 515503N 0004353W - 515749N 0004048W - 515356N 0005006W -515048N 0004926W - 515150N 0004336W.
For a diagram detailing the changes Click here.
You will note that, at least one can click to find a diagram in this particular instance. Which is more than be said for entries such as the following:
EG D201 ABERPORTH - AMENDED LATERAL LIMITS
The following details amend 500k South and 250k Sheets 5 & 7.
530300N 0053000W - 530300N 0045319W - 524500N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W -523316N 0041200W - 521600N 0041200W - 521000N 0042942W - thence clockwise along the arc of a circle radius 3 nm centred on 520830N 0043355W to 520840N 0043847W - 520903N 0050057W - 524417N 0053000W - 530300N 0053000W.
EG D201C/D ABERPORTH
The following details amend 500k South & North and 250k Sheet 5
Add new DAs:
EG D201C Lateral Limits
525019N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W - 524500N 0045319W - 525019N 0045319W.
EG D201D Lateral Limits
531035N 0053000W - 530300N 0051612W - 530300N 0053000W - 531035N 0053000W.
EG D201C Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/ FL145.
EG D201D Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/FL 55
Also, regarding 'amendments already effective' to the CAA Edition 32 chart is the following entry for Luton:
LONDON/Luton
Amendments to controlled airspace in the Luton area:
London Luton Control Area (CTA-8) rising from 3500 ft altitude to FL55, bounded by the following coordinates: 515150N 0004336W - 515244N 0003828W - 515503N 0004353W - 515150N 0004336W.
London Luton Control Area (CTA-9) rising from 4500 ft altitude to FL55, bounded by the following coordinates: 515150N 0004336W - 515503N 0004353W - 515749N 0004048W - 515356N 0005006W -515048N 0004926W - 515150N 0004336W.
For a diagram detailing the changes Click here.
You will note that, at least one can click to find a diagram in this particular instance. Which is more than be said for entries such as the following:
EG D201 ABERPORTH - AMENDED LATERAL LIMITS
The following details amend 500k South and 250k Sheets 5 & 7.
530300N 0053000W - 530300N 0045319W - 524500N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W -523316N 0041200W - 521600N 0041200W - 521000N 0042942W - thence clockwise along the arc of a circle radius 3 nm centred on 520830N 0043355W to 520840N 0043847W - 520903N 0050057W - 524417N 0053000W - 530300N 0053000W.
EG D201C/D ABERPORTH
The following details amend 500k South & North and 250k Sheet 5
Add new DAs:
EG D201C Lateral Limits
525019N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W - 524500N 0045319W - 525019N 0045319W.
EG D201D Lateral Limits
531035N 0053000W - 530300N 0051612W - 530300N 0053000W - 531035N 0053000W.
EG D201C Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/ FL145.
EG D201D Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/FL 55
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FA
The organisation and responsibilities of UK AIS are to found in AIP GEN 3.1
They are required to provide a briefing service that meets the requirements of Annex 15 of the Chicago Convention, and as far as I am concerned they do that. The products that they are required under the convention to provide have to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) of which Annex 15 and ICAO Document 8126 (The Manual of Aeronautical Information Services) are part, as do the products of all the AIS of ICAO contracting states.
UK AIS are part of NATS and provide the service on behalf of the National Aviation Authority (the CAA).
It is of course possible for "value added" products to be provided in addition to those that are required under the treaty obligations. Traditionally this has been left to commercial organisations like Jeppesen, Aerad, Bottlang, Avbrief, Pooleys, AFE, Copperchase and other providers who re-package basic AIS data to give a variety of formats from which the buyer can choose.
In my personal view it's debatable whether, in view of their privileged position, it would be desirable for AIS to become a commercial organisation that provides value added products in competition to the commercial organisations to whom it also supplies the raw data. Other people may have different views and I am aware that NATS have been investigating the economic viability of such a move. How seriously and in how much depth I am not aware.
My concentration is on improving what is provided by AIS under the UK's Chicago Treaty obligations rather than on persuading them to produce Value Added Services, which would have to be funded by users.
I hope this helps your understanding.
Mike
The organisation and responsibilities of UK AIS are to found in AIP GEN 3.1
They are required to provide a briefing service that meets the requirements of Annex 15 of the Chicago Convention, and as far as I am concerned they do that. The products that they are required under the convention to provide have to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) of which Annex 15 and ICAO Document 8126 (The Manual of Aeronautical Information Services) are part, as do the products of all the AIS of ICAO contracting states.
UK AIS are part of NATS and provide the service on behalf of the National Aviation Authority (the CAA).
It is of course possible for "value added" products to be provided in addition to those that are required under the treaty obligations. Traditionally this has been left to commercial organisations like Jeppesen, Aerad, Bottlang, Avbrief, Pooleys, AFE, Copperchase and other providers who re-package basic AIS data to give a variety of formats from which the buyer can choose.
In my personal view it's debatable whether, in view of their privileged position, it would be desirable for AIS to become a commercial organisation that provides value added products in competition to the commercial organisations to whom it also supplies the raw data. Other people may have different views and I am aware that NATS have been investigating the economic viability of such a move. How seriously and in how much depth I am not aware.
My concentration is on improving what is provided by AIS under the UK's Chicago Treaty obligations rather than on persuading them to produce Value Added Services, which would have to be funded by users.
I hope this helps your understanding.
Mike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Since when have AIS been responsible for the UK ICAO charts? That is the responsibility of the Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA. AIS don't touch it.
Mike
Since when have AIS been responsible for the UK ICAO charts? That is the responsibility of the Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA. AIS don't touch it.
Mike
"Not me, chief, I'm airframes"
Whichever part of whichever Quango is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant. The end-user needs a single source information provider who can provide an up-to-date on-line chart with all the relevant NOTAMs on it.
I'm completely unimpressed by biz-speak words such as 'added value' - or by 'obligations under the Blah Treaty' and the like. The 'output' needs to be 'appropriate to user need' - not just legally adequate.
"Click - this is today's chart. Click - here are the temporary restrictions." Which part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend?
Ah well back to plotting out where all those s*dding birds of prey are chasing their training kites......
Whichever part of whichever Quango is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant. The end-user needs a single source information provider who can provide an up-to-date on-line chart with all the relevant NOTAMs on it.
I'm completely unimpressed by biz-speak words such as 'added value' - or by 'obligations under the Blah Treaty' and the like. The 'output' needs to be 'appropriate to user need' - not just legally adequate.
"Click - this is today's chart. Click - here are the temporary restrictions." Which part of that is so difficult for you to comprehend?
Ah well back to plotting out where all those s*dding birds of prey are chasing their training kites......
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, I really don't know why you bothered posting here. 
Far too many ******** who don't know their arse from their elbow and don't seem too bothered to find out, either
Here you are, kindly donating your spare minutes in order to represent GA at a meeting, and all you get is ridicule and abuse.
**** 'em.
Oh, and can you **** 'em for free, too, please.
Far too many ******** who don't know their arse from their elbow and don't seem too bothered to find out, either
Here you are, kindly donating your spare minutes in order to represent GA at a meeting, and all you get is ridicule and abuse.
**** 'em.
Oh, and can you **** 'em for free, too, please.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over the hill
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Cross:
I had thought my response would be slightly tongue in cheek but am starting to take it more seriously the more I think about it. We've had the addition of the Q-line, now let me introduce the 'sponsor line', a kind of advertising space.
Those who cause a notam to be generated can then be responsible for funding its publication or for finding a sponsor. Any income so generated shall be re-invested in a way that benefits the notam recipients.
splatt
Any graphical presentation would therefore be an addition to the existing format. Do you have any suggestions for funding it? Under government funding policy CAA has to recover its costs from users.
Those who cause a notam to be generated can then be responsible for funding its publication or for finding a sponsor. Any income so generated shall be re-invested in a way that benefits the notam recipients.
splatt
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Graphical would be by far the best”
- The data standard is laid down by ICAO and is not designed for graphical plotting. There are clear legal dangers in offering a service using data that was not designed for the purpose.
“Take a look at the FAA presentation of this material:
Simple, clear, straightforward.”
- In the UK the equivalent service is provided by the free phone number 0500 35480. We don't have the same number of TFR's they do in the US.
“Yet the CAA 1:500 000 won't have these for how long? Next April is it??”
- So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?
“The CAA could do the same: make the charts downloadable.”
- I think that's called an "update service"
If any of you have any points you would like me to raise please let me know.
So at least now I know why I never bothered to renew my AOPA subscription. Various points have been raised on how the service might be improved and yet each is dismissed. That seems to me to be a pointless exercise. Obviously the existing system works and works well so I suggest the AIS are left doing the absolute minimum to meet their legal obligations - or have I missed what sort of points you had in mind might be raised.
“**** 'em.”
It is called constructive debate. Pithy at times, but at least we don’t need to resort to * to express ourselves.
- The data standard is laid down by ICAO and is not designed for graphical plotting. There are clear legal dangers in offering a service using data that was not designed for the purpose.
“Take a look at the FAA presentation of this material:
Simple, clear, straightforward.”
- In the UK the equivalent service is provided by the free phone number 0500 35480. We don't have the same number of TFR's they do in the US.
“Yet the CAA 1:500 000 won't have these for how long? Next April is it??”
- So if you'd bought the Jepp chart would you expect Jepp to give you a new one for free?
“The CAA could do the same: make the charts downloadable.”
- I think that's called an "update service"
If any of you have any points you would like me to raise please let me know.
So at least now I know why I never bothered to renew my AOPA subscription. Various points have been raised on how the service might be improved and yet each is dismissed. That seems to me to be a pointless exercise. Obviously the existing system works and works well so I suggest the AIS are left doing the absolute minimum to meet their legal obligations - or have I missed what sort of points you had in mind might be raised.
“**** 'em.”
It is called constructive debate. Pithy at times, but at least we don’t need to resort to * to express ourselves.