AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

"I bet you it is the case."

My perception also. I was only chatting to a friend last week who is over half way through his PPL. He had no idea where or how to find NOTAM information.

"is when the staff at some air traffic unit"

.. .. .. but is there no earlier review of UK NOTAMS? I dont know the answer but I would be interested to know what checks are carried out to prevent an inaccurate NOTAM getting into the system in the first place. In other words considering just for a moment the co-ordinates, if there is an error in the co-ordinates how is this "trapped" before the information is published?

[IO540]

The contrary evidence for your question, Fuji, is the fact that the well known notam plotting programs that have been about for a few years are unable to plot some notams, due to a typo in the coordinate lists or the way they are laid out.

Mike Cross said something along the lines of somebody at NATS taking a manual look at notams entering the NATS database and manually correcting those that the system chucks out. This is contrary to what I am saying, and depending on what is actually happening it might be relevant.

I don't think anybody plots the coordinates though.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by IO540

Mike Cross said something along the lines of somebody at NATS taking a manual look at notams entering the NATS database and manually correcting those that the system chucks out. This is contrary to what I am saying, and depending on what is actually happening it might be relevant.

I think what Mike actually said is that someone from AIS will review the system-rejected ones, but that no-one reviews the ones that get onto the system on first attempt.

"Exception handling", for lack of a better description.

Since the originators are the only people who know what it is they're trying to notify it is a bit difficult for anyone else to second-guess them.

Shout at the originator if there are issues.

[IO540]

Yes, that sounds right.

There must be a massive number of notams, because NATS get the entire worldwide feed.

Even if one did just the OK ones, only a tiny fraction could ever be looked at by a human, for clarification or coordinate plotting purposes.

Is there a mechanism for "shouting at the originator"? I believe there is a contact email at NATS through which a complaint can be lodged.

However, we must not pretend that the UK is the centre of the universe - though it is for the vast majority of UK PPLs. If you do a narrow route briefing for a flight from the UK to say far end of Italy, you get an absolutely vast quantity of rubbish, perhaps 20 pages. There is nothing wrong with the UK in particular handles this. Everybody and their dog in the EC is squirting cr*p into the system.

It's no wonder people find IFR is easier than VFR... radar control the whole way, and the only notams that matter are those affecting the ends.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

If only I could view current NOTAMS..
When I login to www.ais.org.uk I receive the message
Error 500--Internal Server Error
From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error
The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.
Same thing appears to be happening daily now.
Could you ask them to get a better server?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by SQUAWKIDENT

Error 500--Internal Server Error

We've been discussing that HERE as well...

[Fuji Abound]

Dont worry leave it to the professionals and get the information from the FAA NOTAM site. Never known it to be down.

Shame about not being able to access the other information on NATS though.

[selfin]

S/ident, try EAD at, http://www.eurocontrol.int/ead/publi...EAD_Basic.html

[PPRuNe Radar]

Since the originators are the only people who know what it is they're trying to notify it is a bit difficult for anyone else to second-guess them.

Shout at the originator if there are issues.

Just to clarify, AIS are not the originators (sponsors might be a better word). They are simply the publishers, doing so on behalf of the parties who want their aeronautical information to be noted. As mentioned, AIS might pick up format errors and correct those, but they don't have any responsibility for checking the co-ordinates given to them. That lies wth the sponsor, who is responsible for making sure that the information they provide to AIS is correct, and for cross checking that what AIS publish is what was requested.

The debate has touched on it before, but it's not the remit of NATS to decide on how data is provided or to make policy decisions upon it. That lies with the CAA who have contracted NATS to provide AIS to the specification which the CAA have set. So the real people to lobby should be the CAA if major changes and innovations are to be made. No doubt NATS (or any other provider) would have a price for providing this, which the CAA would have to meet. Or in other words, the aviation industry (including you and me) would have to meet since the CAA is a 100% cost recovery organisation by UK Government direction.

Who would pay for all this? The people who get all the tax on AvGas, that's who!

That would be Mr Brown then. The CAA and NATS receive no government funding, AVGAS taxation (as well as Government aviation taxes) all disappear in to the big pot, unlike the 'ring fencing' system enjoyed by the US aviation authorities. Now maybe if we saved just 1/2% on all the wasteage and cost overruns in the defence procurement budgets, we'd have enough for a free 'Rolls Royce' aviation system, as well as paying for everything else that UK society needs

I bet you it is the case. The average old codger in this business, or any other business, wouldn't know what "internet" is if it poked him in the eye. (Of course anybody reading this will find this comment offensive - because they are on the internet). Also, nearly all PPLs drop out within a few years, so a lot of people that fly did their training in a completely different age; 10,20,30 years ago. A lot of pilots are like those Japanese soldiers that lived in the jungles for many years, never realising WW2 had ended. The farm strip scene is like that.

I fear that this is true. However, how did they get NOTAMs before the internet AIS ? And what prevents that now ?? Or is just that we have a lot of pilots out there who were never fully trained, or in some rare cases, are just plain 'gash' ?

[IO540]

how did they get NOTAMs before the internet AIS ? And what prevents that now ?? Or is just that we have a lot of pilots out there who were never fully trained, or in some rare cases, are just plain 'gash' ?

I guess the answer is composite:

1. Prior to the internet based distribution systems coming online in Europe in (very) recent years, the notam generation rate may have been a lot lower. I can't speak for this myself because I have zero personal experience pre-2000 but this has to be true, looking at the sheer volume of non-route-filtered notams. UNLESS some human operator would parse the FIR briefing (the stuff that would get pinned on the school notice board) prior to publication; are there any people in NATS who can confirm/deny this?

2. There was much less bust reporting in the "good ole days". This is like paedophiles; the # of offences committed against kids by a non family member has been reportedly constant for 50 years, but the press coverage has gone up exponentially.

3. There was almost no cheap airline activity say 20 years ago, so airports like Luton/Stan were very much quieter; Gatwick/Heathrow were quieter too. Busts were not as serious in their consequences.

4. I would speculate that since the advert of GPS, more people of a given experience level do longer journeys. (A good topic for some research; certainly enough meat for a PhD at a 3rd tier UK university). The vast majority of these people will be navigating absolutely precisely (hard not to) but if they don't know about notams they will infringe TRAs etc. Moreover, if they don't know how to plan properly, they will also infringe CAS. Before GPS, a pilot of a given intelligence / ability would have been much less likely to do a flight of say 100nm; most pilots are smart enough to know their capability. So I reckon that there was far more bimbling back then, and most bimbling is done from "little" airfields whose local area is unlikely to be affected by anything. Bimbling also doesn't require much planning. Certainly, the long VFR trips I have done across Europe I would have never attempted without GPS/VOR/DME. I could have done them using dead reckoning but I would not have considered the high cockpit workload and positional uncertainty as sensible risk management (and I am not a complete mug).

Of course the last one above is just going to be interpreted as saying that GPS has led to more infringements That is the problem: even the supposedly professional people in the AAIB or the CAA have no clue about elementary statistics, and while they have sort-of surveyed the infringing population, they have failed to survey the planning/operating habits of the far bigger non infringing population.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Thanks for the link
AIS site now says
"Oops! Your request cannot be completed. The server got the following error.
Please notify the administrator. Thank you. "
Nice english.

[pulse1]

the notam generation rate may have been a lot lower.

I wonder if this sort of thing would have been NOTAMed years ago. I will probably be flying over Cowes returning from Headcorn at that time. What's a DA20 and how fast is it going to be?


Ref: H2004/06
FIR: EGXX
Code: WELW
Traffic: VFR IFR
Purpose: PIB entry Operationally significant for flights
Scope: Nav Warning
Lower limit (FL): 000
Upper limit (FL): 150
Centre and radius (nm): 5025N00153W030
Parent ICAO: EGTT
Start date/time: 18/07/2006 15:00 UTC
End date/time: 18/07/2006 17:00 UTC
Activity period: null
Lower height limit: 000
Upper height limit: 150

AUS 06-07-0305/2187/AS4

BAE SYSTEMS TRIAL. DA20 ACFT WILL CONDUCT EQUIPMENT TRIAL

ALONG A TRACK FROM 5045N 00118W (COWES) THROUGH 5039N 00130W-5018N

00210W TO 5010N 00239W (EGD 017/023).

8X RUNS WILL BE CONDUCTED, ONE AT EACH OF LEVELS 1000FT AMSL,

3000FT AMSL, FL50, 70, 90, 110, 130 AND 150. CONTACT 01202 409013.

Incidentally, I also can't log in to the AIS server. Neither could NavPlot. However, Notamplot appears to download NOTAMS, presumably from the same source. How does one know they are up to date?

[Mike Cross]

Pulse 1

My thoughts too when I saw it.
DA20

Maybe they'll issue a special NOTAM to warn you when I go up in the Luscombe as well

IO540
There is much in what you say. Before the website you got two sets of bulletins, one for en-route and one for aerodromes, pinned up on the wall if you were lucky. They covered the whole country and it was up to you to work out which were relevant.

The upside was that you didn't get everything. You got edited highlights and it was up to the guy at AIS which ones he included and which he did not.

It was also as you say quieter then. I've been in to Stansted in a PA28 for fuel and I've also been cleared to transit Gatwick not above 1000 ft at right angles to the centreline and crossing the runway at its midpoint. Not something I make a habit of asking for now!

I gather AIS used to be the arbiters of what would or would not qualify for promulgation but the CAA took away their right to make that decision. It's difficult to find someone with operational responsibility for the day to day decision making on that.

Mike

[IO540]

You can still get a Gatwick transit, 2400ft, VMC. In fact they seem quite pleasant about it - must make a difference to see a "real plane" for a change

Most of the day, there is very little activity at Gatwick.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Maybe they'll issue a special NOTAM to warn you when I go up in the Luscombe as well

Remember though that NOTAMs are written in ICAO-ese which makes it one of these DA20s. It is using the aircraft designation required in Flight Plans.



Going to be a bit faster, and a lot harder if it hits you, than a plastic Diamond

[pulse1]

But doesn't that just reinforce the point - that safety critical information should be designed to be easily understood by those to whom it is important. In this case, at the lower altitudes, it is important to people like me and, although the FRA Falcons come over my house almost everyday, I do not recognise it as a DA20. Maybe that is not important but knowing how fast it is going is likely to be important.

I hope that Solent Radar are more likely to give me a FIS that afternoon than they usually are.

[Roffa]

Originally Posted by IO540

Most of the day, there is very little activity at Gatwick.

Didn't realise the busiest single runway airport in the world was such an aviation backwater

[Mike Cross]

Guilty but then either of them would spoil my day if it hit me.

However it doesn't detract form the main point which is:-

NOTAM
A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations

Aeroplanes fly, it's what they do.

[PPRuNe Radar]

But doesn't that just reinforce the point - that safety critical information should be designed to be easily understood by those to whom it is important. In this case, at the lower altitudes, it is important to people like me and, although the FRA Falcons come over my house almost everyday, I do not recognise it as a DA20. Maybe that is not important but knowing how fast it is going is likely to be important.

Easily understood is one thing, but much more important is using a standard which is internationally recognised and able to be interpreted by all users wherever they hail from. Hence the use of the code designated by ICAO which is published and able to be understood by all users (if they look up the right documents ).

For those who don't know where to look, or far more likely, don't have ready access to the documents detailing aircraft designators, the NOTAM published a telephone number so anyone not having knowledge of what a DA20 is could always pick up the phone and ask if at all unsure

The problem of not using standard terminology is that things are then left open to interpretation. If they had used 'Falcon aircraft', you might have thought, ''ah yes, the twin engined business jet'', Mike Cross might have thought ''ah yes, the Diamond Falcon, light single'', and I might have thought ''ah yes, an F16 military jet''. Even if they had used 'DA20 Falcon', that still rules in the Dassault Falcon (biz jet) since it is called the 'Falcon' and is called the 'DA20' by ICAO, or it could have been the aircraft designated 'DA20' and called 'Falcon' by Diamond Aircraft. If the latter, the NOTAM would probably have called it a 'DV22' which is its ICAO name

[rustle]

Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar

The problem of not using standard terminology is that things are then left open to interpretation. If they had used 'Falcon aircraft', you might have thought, ''ah yes, the twin engined business jet'', Mike Cross might have thought ''ah yes, the Diamond Falcon, light single'', and I might have thought ''ah yes, an F16 military jet''. Even if they had used 'DA20 Falcon', that still rules in the Dassault Falcon (biz jet) since it is called the 'Falcon' and is called the 'DA20' by ICAO, or it could have been the aircraft designated 'DA20' and called 'Falcon' by Diamond Aircraft. If the latter, the NOTAM would probably have called it a 'DV22' which is its ICAO name

[Tongue in cheek]
Perhaps AIS could be persuaded to include a (free) pretty picture of the aircraft involved next time to avoid confusion.
[/Tongue in cheek]