AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug

[IO540]

rustle

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.

I would suggest a different posting style might bring about a greater and perhaps even original contribution to knowledge.

The questions being asked here are for the most part entirely reasonable. Some suggestions cannot and will not IMO ever be implemented (the graphical plotting one in particular - it cannot be done reliably automatically on the current data feed and who is going to pay someone to do it?) but others are perfectly fair game.

It's very obviously truly hard to bring about any change in this game. I once spoke (face to face) with the man who seemed to be CAA'd head of charting, and asked him why they don't a) produce their VFR charts in a freely downloadable form and b) produce their approach charts in a directly usable Jepp/Aerad-style A5 form. (To most experienced VFR/IFR pilots who actually live in the 20th, never mind the 21st century, these are really obvious things to implement; they would aid flight safety and there is no apparent overall cost). His reply was that they do not wish to compete with commercial data providers. That sort of reply is perhaps acceptable in the ivory tower these people live in but in the real world it is patent nonsense. But they really do believe they are doing The Right Thing. It's hard to see how anything can be changed - except through tiny increments and perhaps Mike Cross is after feedback of that sort.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

“**** 'em.”

It is called constructive debate. Pithy at times, but at least we don’t need to resort to * to express ourselves.

Constructive debate can only happen when (all) parties to the debate know WTF they're talking about.

As is apparent from several comments above (which provoked my previous post) there are a few whiners who should know better but have either "forgotten", are ignorant, or are just stirring things up.

I think "pithy", in this context, is spelled with two esses.

BTW, the "****" is a software issue, not a user fault.

IO, it was the "instructor"'s post immediately before my last which really got my goat. He of the "twatco" and other useful expressions.

[Fuji Abound]

"Constructive debate can only happen when (all) parties to the debate know WTF they're talking about."

Actually - no.

I dont think this was ever intended to be a debate between technical experts.

MiKe asked for end user points to take to the meeting.

An end user is concerned with deriving from the system what he wants. He is not interested in how to write the code.

In this instance a number of end users have suggested how the system could be more user friendly.

It may well be there is neither the funding, the know how, the desire or the ability within the system to adopt these proposals - I suspect that doesnt stop us asking.

[IO540]

I don't see a problem with

"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?

As noted already, the implementation may never take place (not least because NATS and CAA are different bodies, and in particular the CAA nowadays likes to point out that they are no more than an enforcement body for EASA) but it's a reasonable request.

I suppose we could suggest to Mike Cross that he could ask NATS to ask the CAA to ask the flight training industry to teach all PPLs (and all current PPLs at their 2-yearly checks) about www.ais.org.uk and how to get the best out of it. See how far he gets with that one.

[Mike Cross]

FA
I'm happy to assist. Where I can see drawbacks or issues with what is being suggested I'll put them forward. It's up to the person who made the suggestion to deal with the question I raise. Bu@@ering about with my answers and attaching them to selective quotes, or even invented ones doesn't really move anything forward.

Some of you may know that I represent AOPA UK at regular meetings on AIS matters. These are generally attended by representatives from AIS, CAA (DAP) commercial briefing services and airlines.
The next meeting is scheduled for 8 August. If any of you have any points you would like me to raise please let me know.

I don't know how I can make this any plainer - Charts are NOT part of the UK AIS remit. Which part of that do you have difficulty in understanding?

With respect to your two points that are to do with AIS I have replied to both of them explaining the reasons why I don't think they are viable. You're free to disagree with me and make your own representations to those responsible if you wish.

A lot of useful ideas have been raised, that have the potential for improving things and I'll be raising them at the meeting.

The raising of additional funding from users by the CAA so that they may commission additional services from NATS/AIS is however not something for the meeting. It would require a policy decision from CAA. If you want to lobby for it, please feel free.

My personal view is that I'd prefer the CAA to do less rather than more, bearing in mind that everything they do seems to hit my pocket.

What I am trying to do is work within the existing funding to improve what is provided to users. We already have all of the NOTAM, AIC's, AIP data including all of the aerodrome and approach plates, and a worldwide database of aeronautical facilities freely available, downloadable and printable. The way that data is provided is capable of improvement. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Mike

[Fuji Abound]

Mike - let me be clear - I greatly appreciate what you do - thank you.



"Bu@@ering about with my answers and attaching them to selective quotes,"

That is your perception. Mine is that I have picked on a few of the issues raised and the response.



"The way that data is provided is capable of improvement. That is what I am trying to achieve."

I would be interested, and indeed it would be helpful, to know which of the points raised you intend to take forward.



In short, the issue I am struggling with is you have asked for suggestions. You gave, nor implied, any limitations. As a result it is clear that many of the "I wish" you are not prepared to put forward because the funding is not available, or you dont want to pay for it, or for some other reason. So if you are going to canvas suggestions it would be more constructive if we had had some understanding of the limitations within which we had to work.

It maybe within these limitations there is nothing worthwhile doing as I have already suggested .

[Mike Cross]

My list so far (no particular order):-

1. The use by AUS Mil of reporting points in NOTAM scoped for VFR that do not appear on the ICAO VFR chart with no reference to geographical features that do appear.

2. Misuse of the NOTAM system for passing information that should properly be disseminated by an address list (e.g. SSR codes)

3. Issuance of NOTAM where there is no practical action that can be taken by the recipient other than the normal practice of keeping a good lookout (e.g. some military exercises) because the activity is insufficiently specific with regard to location or time.

4. Request to ensure that a plain text geographic location reference be included in NOTAM where the location is not clear (e.g. only geographic co-ordinates or ICAO code would otherwise be provided)

5. Change the AIS login screen to allow usernames and passwords to be cached allowing automatic login. Allowing the return key when pressed while the insert point is in the password field to execute the login.

6. Provide default values where appropriate in the yellow mandatory field boxes. e.g. in the NRB enter the current date as a default briefing ID and enter "VFR" in the FL box. This will mean the minimum entry to get a brief is departure and arrival a/d

7. Improve validation error messages by including examples of correct input.

8. Various changes to labelling with the aim of making the site more intuititive for users (e.g rename "PIB Help" to "User Guide")

9. Check boxes to allow choice of which NOTAM are included when a brief is printed.

10. Improvements to typefaces and layout to aid legibility.

11. Splitting the NOTAM dropdown so the first stage menu contains Narrow Route Brief, Saved Briefings and Other Briefings. Choice of Other Briefings would then display a list of the other briefings available. This will help guide users into using the NRB.

12. Reducing the amount of data emebedded within the html code downloaded to the user's browser to improve bandwidth usage and aid those who use GPRS or other slower technologies.

No doubt I'll come up with more before the date. This list is from memory as my draft list is at the office.

WRT alternative presentations. The full text of the Q Line has for some months been included in briefings. This was done at my request and allows anyone who wants to to write software that will allow users to filter and display the information in ways that are not possible using the AIS site, including graphically. I'm not aware of anyone using it that way yet but the way is open. Prior to this you could only get the Q Line via a NATS feed from AIS which was beyond the reach of the end-user. Avbrief generously made a feed available for Ian Fallon's NotamPlot and offered it free also to any other producer of free software. It's no longer necessary for them to do so as the data can now be obtained direct from AIS. The addition of the automated login will allow the process to be made seamless from the user's point of view.

Mike

[Fuji Abound]

Mike - thanks for the clarrification.

Without commenting in detail, the examples given are very helpful, and I think are far more indicative of the suggestions you have in mind.

Hopefully more will be forthcoming from others.

I can appreciate these points should improve some shortcomings in the way the data is provided at the moment, and in the way the user interacts with the AIS web site. For those who wish to obtain NOTAMs in this way that must be a step forward.

From my own point of view the lack of a satisfactory "official" graphical interface will remain a significant and unacceptable shortcoming. I shall continue to use "commercial" providers. I hope that everything will be done to enable commercial providers to efficiently and accurately use the data supplied by the AIS.

Finally, the AIS would do well to look at the Met Office model. As I understand the position the Met Office are ultimately responsible and accountable to the Secretary of Defense. It is evident to me that they provide the data required of them by the CAA and yet have also striven to provide as much value added data as possible (albeit on a subscription basis). In terms of the presentation of the Met Office web site and the additional value added components the AIS has a great deal to learn from them.

That the AIS web user interface remains so poor and requires basic elements of web site design to be brought to their attention by the AOPA representative suggests to me the AIS is in need of a rather more fundamental review.

[selfin]

Mike, do ask the AIS to place a prominent link to http://www.eurocontrol.int/ead/publi...EAD_Basic.html

[IO540]

Excellent list Mike. Can't fault it or add to it.

As a general comment/question: is there any way to automatically separate out stuff that is mandatory for VFR? Is there any code word/tag?

For example the only stuff that really matters en route (to VFR pilots, navigating generally using DR or GPS) is temp controlled airspace or a TRA. All the other stuff that has a habit of containing coordinate lists (NAVW etc) is actually irrelevant; mil flying can and does take place just about anywhere, anyway.

I realise the purists would not like this kind of separation (perhaps done by colour coding), as it would supposedly encourage pilots to not read the rest (a bit like GPS is frowned upon because it supposedly encourages poor flight planning) but it would really aid readability of the whole thing.

[Mike Cross]

IO540

Tricky one that

Here's a random example

EGTT
AGA :
Q)EGTT/QFAAP/IV/NBO/E/000/020/5016N00516W002
FROM 06/06/08 09:13 TO 06/12/31 23:59 B1036/06
D)H24
E)AUS 06-06-0507/1829/AS3
PORTREATH. OPERATIONS ON THIS DISUSED AIRFIELD ARE BY STRICT PPR ONLY CONTRACTORS ARE WORKING ON ALL HARD SURFACES.
F)SFC G)2000FT AGL

The line starting Q) contains the ICAO coding that is used for sorting and selection.

The decode is as follows:-
EGTT is the FIR
QFAAP is coding laid down in ICAO document 8126. Q is simply a prefix to indicate the start of the code. FA means its an Aerodrome, AP means it's available, prior permission required.
IV - applicable to IFR and VFR
NBO - indicates for immediate attention of aircraft operators, for inclusion in Bulletins and Operationally significant for IFR flights
E - it's an en-route NOTAM, other options are A - Aerodrome or W - Nav Warning
000/020 height band affected as a FL, here it's the height of the ATZ
5016N00516W - geographical centre of the affected area.
002 - Radius of influence in nm. Here it's the radius of the ATZ

A letter R as the second character in the Q code signifies an airspace reservation.

e.g. QRTCA would be used for the activation of a TRA so in theory if you filtered only to display NOTAM with that code that's all you'd get. The danger is that you'd miss something else of importance. As an example there was a fatality some years ago where a light aircraft crashed in Wales. The AAIB report suggested that the pilot was attempting to navigate using a VOR that was NOTAMMED as out of service and flew into a mountian in poor weather.

I think It's a good idea though that we should be able to highlight certain NOTAM and this could be done based on the coding, e.g. make them print in bold (so they show up in a black and white print) and perhaps in a different colour.

I think there's also an opportunity for a cheap and simple software tool to apply more personalised filtering to the brief. For example I have no conventional navaids so info on VOR, NDB, DME etc outages is of no interest and could easily be filtered using check boxes.

Part of the difficulty may be that the ICAO documents you need are not freely available on the WWW, they have to be bought from ICAO. If anyone is interested in writing such software I'll be happy to help facilitate the information they need.

A key part of any such software should be that the results screen should indicate the filters that have been applied, in the same way that the AIS output does.

Mike

[IO540]

ICAO docs are online at

http://dcaa.slv.dk000/icaodocs/

(above URL has a smiley in the middle of it; obviously a bug in the software here, but it seems to work)

Not sure about whether it is all of them but it looks complete. Good old Denmark

I don't buy the duff-VOR thing because a VFR pilot should be in VMC, and an IFR pilot should know to ident the navaid. Plus an IFR pilot will most likely be using a GPS (probably as well as VOR/DME). But in any case one could inhibit any filtering of navaids for an "IFR" briefing.

Perversely it appears one could filter out the NAVW stuff, which IMHO is nearly always worthless, and which often contains the coordinate lists.

I fly c. 150hrs/year and, reviewing the NRB output and dumping stuff like NAVW of mil exercises (on the basis they could be anywhere anyway), I have to plot coordinate lists maybe 2x a year. So either I am doing something very wrong, or there is some fundamental thing that could be done.

[Mike Cross]

Sadly doc 8126 (Manual of Aeronautical Information Services) is not on that list.

I also suspect ICAO's legal department might have a word if they knew about it

I agree with you re a lot of the mil stuff but we have to persuade AUS (Mil) that it's not necessary to issue.

TRA's are more problematic. The Farnborough TRA being a good example. The simplest way would be to slap a big circle over Farnborough up to a defined height. However this would result in more airspace being taken than is strictly necessary. You therefore take only what is necessary and end up with a complex set of co-ordinates.

AIC are the correct path under ICAO for info requiring graphical content, which is why TRA's like this also tend to have an associated AIC.

Mike

[DFC]

Originally Posted by Mike Cross

EGTT
AGA :
Q)EGTT/QFAAP/IV/NBO/E/000/020/5016N00516W002
FROM 06/06/08 09:13 TO 06/12/31 23:59 B1036/06
D)H24
E)AUS 06-06-0507/1829/AS3
PORTREATH. OPERATIONS ON THIS DISUSED AIRFIELD ARE BY STRICT PPR ONLY CONTRACTORS ARE WORKING ON ALL HARD SURFACES.
F)SFC G)2000FT AGL
The line starting Q) contains the ICAO coding that is used for sorting and selection.
The decode is as follows:-
EGTT is the FIR
QFAAP is coding laid down in ICAO document 8126. Q is simply a prefix to indicate the start of the code. FA means its an Aerodrome, AP means it's available, prior permission required.
IV - applicable to IFR and VFR
NBO - indicates for immediate attention of aircraft operators, for inclusion in Bulletins and Operationally significant for IFR flights
E - it's an en-route NOTAM, other options are A - Aerodrome or W - Nav Warning
000/020 height band affected as a FL, here it's the height of the ATZ
5016N00516W - geographical centre of the affected area.
002 - Radius of influence in nm. Here it's the radius of the ATZ

An there is a perfect example of why people searching enroute notams get too much cr8p. That NOTAM should be designated as an Aerodrome NOTAM and not as an enroute NOTAM. The WIP is applicable to people who intend to use the aerodrome as a destination or alternate and not to people who will simply be passing by some 5000ft above it.

There are many more examples for for example the changes to the London City CTA being published with a radius of influence that covers the whole FIR. Who flying round Blackpool needs to know that the London City airspace has changed.

The whole idea of the radius of influence is that only NOTAMS that affect a proposed route are displayed. The AIS incorrect use of the figures causes many of the problems.

----------

Before going to any meeting Mike, make sure you are thoroughly familiar with a service provided by Austrocontrol using the same software as AIS use. It is available at www.homebriefing.com and you will find that it is a fully integrated service providing met as well as notam and even claculating groundspeds and time enroute for flights. It also enables flight plans to be filed. All together a far better use of the software than UK AIS are making.

Also ensure that you are thoroughly familiar with the Eurocontrol objectives for Aeronautical Information Management and their proposed methods of implementation including graphical tools (which are already available) they requirements for integrated met and NOTAM briefings and the E-AIPs.

Having a look at both of those will give you a fair idea of where the Europe-wide briefing service is going and what one provider is doign to acheive the aims of good integrated service provision.

Regards,

DFC

PS,

BEagle,

I bet you will find that there is a crease in your chart. You will find it just after the new one comes out and in accordance with the NOTAM from the CAA, return it and get a free one in return.

[Mike Cross]

DFC

Problem is as I indicated earlier. It would require a policy decision and funding from CAA.

I will mention it, but this meeting's somewhat lower down the food chain than what's needed for a policy change.

I know UK AIS have been sitting on the fence regarding EAD, I'll find out what the state of play is now. Certainly at the time it was introduced amid much fanfare it was extremely clunky and unworkable from my POV. That said I haven't looked at it for at least a couple of years so I'll try and find the time to do so,

I suspect to some extent new developments can hinder investment decisions. Given the prospect of the unified EAD or spending money on a stand-alone system such as Olivia, homebriefing.com, dfs.de or ais.org.uk which way do you jump?

Mike

[IO540]

Mike

"AIC are the correct path under ICAO for info requiring graphical content, which is why TRA's like this also tend to have an associated AIC."

One more for your list: give a URL to the AIC PDF file in the notam. (Afraid the French have already thought of this ) That of course assumes that the ais.org.uk website permits direct access to these files; why do they need a password?????

The other suggestion, related to above, would be to keep copies of current AIC PDFs in a short path, e.g.

www.ais.org.uk/aic/aic20060711a.pdf

and not buried deep within the directory hiercharchy, resulting in unwieldy URLs.

I also don't understand the colour codes: pink, mauve, white etc. It sounds like some colour markers that WW1 generals would stick on the battlefield model in their bunker, and that's probably where it comes from. But we've already had WW2, quite a while ago......

EAD works sort-of OK now. Their problem is that they bought in the user interface, which was written for a different purpose and is far too bloated for what EAD are doing with it. A bit like NATS really... I think their objective (Frequentis is the company) is to flog as many of their commercial tools as possible.

As someone who flies into Europe, I would go for a usable EAD every time.

DFC

Homebriefing doesn't provide a narrow route briefing. The NRB is the key to removing cr*p from notam listings.

[fltcom]

I'll keep mine nice and simple.

Like many others, I have given up using the AIS website - it is simply too user 'unfriendly' I now get my NOTAMS from other sources. Please just make it easier to use. - thats about it for now.

Fly...

[Fuji Abound]

I couldnt help thinking a little more about this one.

It would seem there is very little in the budget to do anything.

Moreover the AIS have had a very long time now to implement a reasonable web site (and I am not talking about any of the extras suggested here). It would seem that they either havent got the funding or are incapable of getting even that much right.

With respect Mike, and I know from your earlier comments you also have an eye on CAA costs, perhaps we a far better of leaving things exactly as they are - cheap, cheerful and basic.

In that way the commercial providers can get on and do what is required and if we all have to pay a small fee so be it. It will probably cost a lot less than expecting the AIS to get extra funding from the CAA, which doubtless will only be passed on to GA given your earlier comments.

Moreover, there are clearly a host of other national authorities all providing the same information throughout Europe (never mind the rest of the world) - whatever happened to a single source European provider escapes me, and why every national authority throughout Europe should be spending their time doing much the same job I have no idea.

So, in short, my recommendation would be to tear up your list of points (as well intended as they are), tell the AIS they are doing a fine job, just dont change anything and whatever they do, dont ask for any more funding, and invest your well spent time in a pursuit more likely to assist GA - how about a PPL/IR .

[rustle]

Mike, don't forget to add the resilient option to your list as site unavailability (despite having the backup FIR NOTAM brief hosted elsewhere) is still a major PITA if you want or need plates or copies of AICs.

Thanks

[MikeJ]

Mike Cross,
I'm delighted you are taking this up for us all. Never mind the inevitable irrelevent comments from several on Pprune! You have had some very sensible comments from many.

However, I've been following this thread, and to me, there's a bit of 'Emporer's clothes' about it. Since I am planning to fly Fairoaks to Rochester tomorrow through the dreaded LHR LGW gap, I thought I would do a test.

A narrow route briefing gave me 16 entries, but only 3 could possibly be relevent.
Among many I got: UHF change for the Lichfield corridor, cancellation of Coltishall MATZ, Newcastle airspace changes, some telephone no. changes, a Met research flight whose eastern extremity was 1 deg W, but was phenominally long in lists of Lat/Long to search to find this out. Quite apart from the helium balloon up to 500' in Regents Park.

Why does a pilot need to know changes to SSR code allocation? One can only squawk as directed.

I have heard it said that in only 50% of flights by private owners have any Notams been checked, and no wonder!

I do know that the programming of sensible filtering to eliminate unneeded stuff is very difficult, and therefore expensive. But I'll just go back to using the simple NotamPlot, free of all charge (so I'm not promoting a commercial service on Pprune) which gives me all I want so simply.

Does it not meet my legal requirements to obtain relevent info before flight?

I think that the current system is an expected result of it having been developed without any consultation on the needs of the private owner.

Very best support for you in your work on this,
MikeJ