AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Mike says, why notam something about a plane flying - or even a number of them flying. Gosh, I went for a flight today and saw a whole bunch of planes flying. Nothing in the notams about those.... That's a scandal worthy of the Daily Mail.
Incidentally, that small jet in question might go fairly fast at FL350 but it will be limited to 250kt below 10,000ft. Any half decent knackered old turboprop can do that. No notams for those!
One can chop down the average route briefing by 90%, in exactly the time it takes to read it. The other 10% needs to be read a second time.
Incidentally, that small jet in question might go fairly fast at FL350 but it will be limited to 250kt below 10,000ft. Any half decent knackered old turboprop can do that. No notams for those!
One can chop down the average route briefing by 90%, in exactly the time it takes to read it. The other 10% needs to be read a second time.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally, that small jet in question might go fairly fast at FL350 but it will be limited to 250kt below 10,000ft. Any half decent knackered old turboprop can do that. No notams for those!
FRA Falcons have CAA dispensation from the speed restriction, associated with their military trials and training roles, due to the fact they are operating on behalf of the MoD or other relevant defence related organisation. In this case, because it is a trial with BAe Systems, and due to its location, it is more than likely a trial involving a warship and its onboard equipment.Perhaps the NOTAM should mention that the aircraft is possibly flying faster than 250Kts, degrading the 'see and be seen' principle, and then everyone would be happy with it being published
But then that's up to the 'sponsor' to tell AIS that's why they want people to know about it I suppose, so it's back to square 1. Whether the sponsors 'man on the scene' is totally au fait with aviation and the requirements of other airspace users, is another aspect which could explain the amount of required 'interpolation' required for a NOTAM such as this.
It's not satisfactory, but unless everyone starts with the same level of knowledge (which could be lacking from both the reader and the sponsors
), there's always going to be debate and argument about whether a NOTAM is relevant, whether it contains enough detail, or whether something should have been published and wasn't. There is an organisation who might have such knowledge, called the Airspace Utilisation Section, who do publish a lot of information on trials and such to interested parties through NOTAM, AIC, or Airspace Co-ordination Notices (ACNs). However, they don't have sole rights to raise NOTAMs, and are not a 24/7 unit, so often people will do their own thing through AIS, not always with the best results.The whole issue is a much bigger one than the original request posed by Mike Cross. It's a political and policy matter, which rests with the CAA and the MoD to decide upon. Improvements to NOTAM relevance and publishing 'rules and guidance' would need someone to raise them formally through those organisations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last weekend I had the pleasure of a fly-by of the Reds in formation a few miles north of Seaton, similar level to myself.
A week or two previously I was at 2100 ft in Class G en-route to Nuneaton when I found myself head-on to a fairly large twin at the same level. As it turned right it revealed itself to be a twin of the circa 200 seats variety and I suspect it had Thomsonfly writ large in it's side (I wasn't THAT close). Neither was NOTAMmed, nor would I have expected them to be.
Mike
A week or two previously I was at 2100 ft in Class G en-route to Nuneaton when I found myself head-on to a fairly large twin at the same level. As it turned right it revealed itself to be a twin of the circa 200 seats variety and I suspect it had Thomsonfly writ large in it's side (I wasn't THAT close). Neither was NOTAMmed, nor would I have expected them to be.
Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should not be forgotten that almost the exclusive user of lower airspace outside of controlled airspace is GA. The majority of GA operates at speeds of less than 140 knots.
These aircraft are the users and their needs paramount. If NOTAMS fail to communicate the information needed by these users then the system has failed.
As is quite evident from this thread, referring to a DA20 does not leave the matter free from interpretation but in fact causes confusion. Whether or not it should, is academic - face up to reality - how many GA users know or care what a DA20 is - what they want to know is what it is doing, how fast it is going and whether it is able to manouever.
It is extraordinary (and in reality not the case) that users can inject whatever they like into the system. Were this so, and using the same logic, every time I particate an aeros, I would post a NOTAM to ensure I had a "protected" area in which to operate.
No, as I have said previosuly NATS have a duty of care to their "customers" to provide them with the information THEY require to enable the safe conduct of flight. They are patently failing to meet that duty of care. No amount of tinkering with the presentation of their web site will change such an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
These aircraft are the users and their needs paramount. If NOTAMS fail to communicate the information needed by these users then the system has failed.
As is quite evident from this thread, referring to a DA20 does not leave the matter free from interpretation but in fact causes confusion. Whether or not it should, is academic - face up to reality - how many GA users know or care what a DA20 is - what they want to know is what it is doing, how fast it is going and whether it is able to manouever.
It is extraordinary (and in reality not the case) that users can inject whatever they like into the system. Were this so, and using the same logic, every time I particate an aeros, I would post a NOTAM to ensure I had a "protected" area in which to operate.
No, as I have said previosuly NATS have a duty of care to their "customers" to provide them with the information THEY require to enable the safe conduct of flight. They are patently failing to meet that duty of care. No amount of tinkering with the presentation of their web site will change such an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
No, as I have said previosuly NATS have a duty of care to their "customers" to provide them with the information THEY require to enable the safe conduct of flight. They are patently failing to meet that duty of care. No amount of tinkering with the presentation of their web site will change such an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA.
The CAA pay NATS to provide an AIS in accordance with international treaty, and that's exactly what they do.
In fact AIS go quite a bit further than the minimum requirements, but since there is difficulty in comprehending the simple bit, I won't even attempt the more difficult bit.
That there is a current issue with the AIS website is clearly an AIS issue with their (website) supplier and is being pursued. Vigorously
If there is an "issue" with the content of NOTAM, that needs to be taken up with the sponsor of the NOTAM. AIS might assist in this regard by helping you find out who the sponsor is if it is not apparent.
If there is an issue with what is being demanded of NATS/AIS, then that should be taken up with the CAA - as they are the "customer" of the service.
I know that doesn't assist people who cannot understand that NATS is a private company which sells some services to the CAA, but them's the facts.
Comments like:
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
It should not be forgotten that almost the exclusive user of lower airspace outside of controlled airspace is GA. The majority of GA operates at speeds of less than 140 knots.
MILITARY LOW FLYING SYSTEM
Military low flying occurs in most parts of the UK at any height up to 2000ft above the surface. However the greatest concentration is between surface and 1000ft... (etc.)
Military low flying occurs in most parts of the UK at any height up to 2000ft above the surface. However the greatest concentration is between surface and 1000ft... (etc.)
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
I still don't think you have grasped the divisions of responsibility. NATS have a duty of care to provide what the CAA tell them to. Nothing more or less because then they would be stepping outside their authority and contract. It is the CAA that have the ultimate duty of care to the end user since AIS is their responsibility and remit (even if 'subcontracted'). It is laid down in ICAO what a State is mandated to provide, and the State is represented in the UKs case by the CAA.
Bleat all you want to NATS, but unless the CAA change their contract or request NATS to provide something different, you will probably just be pissing in the wind
As CAA (DAP) attend the meetings which started this whole thread off, it is their lugholes which should be bashed with changes required by the user community. If subsequently they did then agree to what users say they want, proclaim changes should be made, and NATS (having been contracted to provide them) failed to deliver, then NATS could be held to account for duty of care and a host of other things no doubt. You'd have a point then
Users can inject whatever they like in to the system, however, the users have to go through AIS, who issue the relevant NOTAM. It is not for AIS to say who can and can't post a NOTAM, it is for them to apply the formatting, provide advice on the wording, and apply editing if too confusing or unwieldy. This is done by discussing things with the 'sponsor', be that the Military, an organisation, or an individual, as required. They will also provide advice on whether the NOTAM adds anything of value and might try and dissuade you from filing one if they don't see it as a hazard or worthy of notification. So to some extent that is the filter from a user injecting something directly in to the NOTAM world. I would imagine the 'rules' for publication have a degree of interpretation and leeway. Certainly things like bird of prey sites or kite flying don't really seem too relevant to me, but then they might be very relevant to a helo pilot doing a low level pipe line survey through those areas.
NOTAMS also don't offer 'protection' as you call it, unless in the form of a TRA or other airspace restriction, but merely serve to advise airspace users of an activity and then leave it to airmanship and judgement of airspace users to take appropriate and safe measures as required. Remember if transponder equipped you can also squawk the aerobatics conspicuity code which will also allow other airspace users to be warned of your activity
The system is by its nature a 'one size fits all', so it will never fully address the needs of one user without being detrimental to another. The trick to getting it right is one of balance I suppose. And if GA as a body (not you or I as individuals, but a ground swell of documented opinion or representation) feel it needs to be tightened up or streamlined, then the message needs to be passed to the CAA for them to act upon (not NATS, not AIS ... but the CAA), who then will direct those bodies (or other contractors) to carry out its requirements.
Note that I am NOT saying the system is good or suitable for use by everyone. It is plainly not. I am saying that you need to be focusing any demands on the CAA since they are the only ones who have the power to make changes which are in line with its national and international obligations.
IO540
Probably about right ... so why don't we push for the 250Kts limit to be raised to 350Kts across the board ??
As a general point, some have pointed out that large scale military exercises cover a lot of the UK and so the focus is diluted since you could encounter the aircraft anywhere. In my experience most of the said NOTAMs also offer a contact telephone number for the exercise sponsor. By calling this number you can be briefed on the expected timings and routeings of exercise traffic and also whether it is likely to go ahead (due to weather or operational factors). Knowing from the sponsor that a 40 aircraft strike package is on a very defined route for only an hour of the notified activity is much better than dismissing the whole NOTAM out of hand because of its generality
I still don't think you have grasped the divisions of responsibility. NATS have a duty of care to provide what the CAA tell them to. Nothing more or less because then they would be stepping outside their authority and contract. It is the CAA that have the ultimate duty of care to the end user since AIS is their responsibility and remit (even if 'subcontracted'). It is laid down in ICAO what a State is mandated to provide, and the State is represented in the UKs case by the CAA.
Bleat all you want to NATS, but unless the CAA change their contract or request NATS to provide something different, you will probably just be pissing in the wind
As CAA (DAP) attend the meetings which started this whole thread off, it is their lugholes which should be bashed with changes required by the user community
. If subsequently they did then agree to what users say they want, proclaim changes should be made, and NATS (having been contracted to provide them) failed to deliver, then NATS could be held to account for duty of care and a host of other things no doubt. You'd have a point then
It is extraordinary (and in reality not the case) that users can inject whatever they like into the system. Were this so, and using the same logic, every time I particate an aeros, I would post a NOTAM to ensure I had a "protected" area in which to operate.
NOTAMS also don't offer 'protection' as you call it, unless in the form of a TRA or other airspace restriction, but merely serve to advise airspace users of an activity and then leave it to airmanship and judgement of airspace users to take appropriate and safe measures as required. Remember if transponder equipped you can also squawk the aerobatics conspicuity code which will also allow other airspace users to be warned of your activity
The system is by its nature a 'one size fits all', so it will never fully address the needs of one user without being detrimental to another. The trick to getting it right is one of balance I suppose. And if GA as a body (not you or I as individuals, but a ground swell of documented opinion or representation) feel it needs to be tightened up or streamlined, then the message needs to be passed to the CAA for them to act upon (not NATS, not AIS ... but the CAA), who then will direct those bodies (or other contractors) to carry out its requirements.
Note that I am NOT saying the system is good or suitable for use by everyone. It is plainly not. I am saying that you need to be focusing any demands on the CAA since they are the only ones who have the power to make changes which are in line with its national and international obligations.
How fast (IAS) can a Falcon go at low level?
I would guess no more than 350kt. I don't see that a problem for visual separation, significantly relative to 250kt.
I would guess no more than 350kt. I don't see that a problem for visual separation, significantly relative to 250kt.
Probably about right ... so why don't we push for the 250Kts limit to be raised to 350Kts across the board ??
As a general point, some have pointed out that large scale military exercises cover a lot of the UK and so the focus is diluted since you could encounter the aircraft anywhere. In my experience most of the said NOTAMs also offer a contact telephone number for the exercise sponsor. By calling this number you can be briefed on the expected timings and routeings of exercise traffic and also whether it is likely to go ahead (due to weather or operational factors). Knowing from the sponsor that a 40 aircraft strike package is on a very defined route for only an hour of the notified activity is much better than dismissing the whole NOTAM out of hand because of its generality
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"To suggest that GA is an exclusive user (or even "almost" exclusive user) of lower airspace OCAS is bizarre."
I was very careful to use the words I did becasue I suspected someone could not resist making this point. If you beleive that sufficient high speed military sorties are flown each year in these budget challenged times to make the forces a significant user of lower airspace relative to total movements per year then you have different information to me.
"NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA."
Really.
In the same way I suppose the NHS's customer is the DoH or a PLC its shareholders.
I really must remember next time I see my doctor that I am not his customer.
The CAA pays the bills in the same way PLC's shareholders provide the capital.
Any organisation that provides a service has a duty of care to ensure that service meets the needs of its end user. In the commercial world if it fails to do so it goes bust. If NATS had to survive in the comercial world it would have gone bust long ago.
The AIS has a duty to the CAA to tell them the service it is providing is inadequate. The CAA has a similiar duty to ensure it is getting value for money and the service that it has contracted is the one needed.
As I have said before, I am entirely happy the AIS go on providing an inadequate service to their customers which fails to provide the service needed whilst watching infringements increase each year and whilst argueing that they are doing what their funder requires of them.
However, asking how that service can been improved is an entirely pointless excercise because I will not be convinced that fiddling around with the user interface will have the slightest impact on GA reviewing the NOTAMs before every flight.
I hope there is never a serious incident becasue someone hasnt read the NOTAMS but should I be proved wrong I am very glad I shall not be the person from the AIS telling the relatives that we did all that was asked of us by our customers.
I was very careful to use the words I did becasue I suspected someone could not resist making this point. If you beleive that sufficient high speed military sorties are flown each year in these budget challenged times to make the forces a significant user of lower airspace relative to total movements per year then you have different information to me.
"NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA."
Really.
In the same way I suppose the NHS's customer is the DoH or a PLC its shareholders.
I really must remember next time I see my doctor that I am not his customer.
The CAA pays the bills in the same way PLC's shareholders provide the capital.
Any organisation that provides a service has a duty of care to ensure that service meets the needs of its end user. In the commercial world if it fails to do so it goes bust. If NATS had to survive in the comercial world it would have gone bust long ago.
The AIS has a duty to the CAA to tell them the service it is providing is inadequate. The CAA has a similiar duty to ensure it is getting value for money and the service that it has contracted is the one needed.
As I have said before, I am entirely happy the AIS go on providing an inadequate service to their customers which fails to provide the service needed whilst watching infringements increase each year and whilst argueing that they are doing what their funder requires of them.
However, asking how that service can been improved is an entirely pointless excercise because I will not be convinced that fiddling around with the user interface will have the slightest impact on GA reviewing the NOTAMs before every flight.
I hope there is never a serious incident becasue someone hasnt read the NOTAMS but should I be proved wrong I am very glad I shall not be the person from the AIS telling the relatives that we did all that was asked of us by our customers.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 17th Jul 2006 at 07:53.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rustle
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.
Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about and I hope no-one reading your posts comes away thinking that you do.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope there is never a serious incident becasue someone hasnt read the NOTAMS but should I be proved wrong I am very glad I shall not be the person from the AIS telling the relatives that we did all that was asked of us by our customers.
Not reading (or obtaining) NOTAMs is not anyones fault except the pilots. There are plenty of other ways to get aeronautical information aside from the Internet AIS service. You could pay for a briefing pack from someone like Jetplan for your trip. You could phone AIS using one of those old fashioned telephone thingies. You could speak to an ATC unit for FIS, be it by RT or telephone. With your pilots licence comes responsibilities. These might involve you having to get off your arse and make an effort, but you still have them to discharge. The harder job in your example is going to be the insurers telling the relatives that they ain't getting a penny because the pilot did not comply with the requirements for the safe conduct of flight (by adequately briefing themselves), or the CAA telling them they broke the law (posthumously) by endangering themselves and others.
Any organisation that provides a service has a duty of care to ensure that service meets the needs of its end user.
In the commercial world if it fails to do so it goes bust. If NATS had to survive in the comercial world it would have gone bust long ago.
The AIS has a duty to the CAA to tell them the service it is providing is inadequate.
However, asking how that serivce can been improved is an entirely pointless excercise because I will not be convinced that fiddling around with the user interface will have the slightest impact on GA reviewing the NOTAMs before every flight.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I know that doesn't assist people who cannot understand that NATS is a private company"
NATS is a public private partnership between the Airline Group, a consortium of seven UK airlines, which holds 42%, NATS staff who hold 5%, UK airport operator BAA plc, with 4%, and the government which holds 49% and a golden share.
"Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about"
"Think I might take my own advice and give up in this place on this topic."
OK
NATS is a public private partnership between the Airline Group, a consortium of seven UK airlines, which holds 42%, NATS staff who hold 5%, UK airport operator BAA plc, with 4%, and the government which holds 49% and a golden share.
"Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about"
"Think I might take my own advice and give up in this place on this topic."
OK
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
NATS is a public private partnership between the Airline Group, a consortium of seven UK airlines, which holds 42%, NATS staff who hold 5%, UK airport operator BAA plc, with 4%, and the government which holds 49% and a golden share.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar
We don't have formal terms of reference. However there is little point in discussing in detail things that the attendees have no jurisdiction over. So for example a detailed discussion of shortcomings in the Chicago Convention would be a fairly fruitless exercise.
The main people who can be influenced at the meeting are AIS themselves and the CAA, through Steven Hill, the CAA's Manager, Aeronautical Charts and Data. AUS do put in an appearance but they do not come under Steven so it's a matter of putting forward arguments and trying to get people on side. For example, as a result of previous meetings a fair bit of work has gone into liaison between AIS and AUS to update the standard templates used by AUS.
As this discussion illustrates, everyone has their own point of view, and they all differ. You for example seem to like the idea of mil exercises being included even where the information is fairly general, others don't.
This discussion has been very useful on a number of levels. It's certainly helped me to crystallise in my own mind some of the issues and it's also helped improve peoples knowledge and understanding of how the system works.
Mike
We don't have formal terms of reference. However there is little point in discussing in detail things that the attendees have no jurisdiction over. So for example a detailed discussion of shortcomings in the Chicago Convention would be a fairly fruitless exercise.
The main people who can be influenced at the meeting are AIS themselves and the CAA, through Steven Hill, the CAA's Manager, Aeronautical Charts and Data. AUS do put in an appearance but they do not come under Steven so it's a matter of putting forward arguments and trying to get people on side. For example, as a result of previous meetings a fair bit of work has gone into liaison between AIS and AUS to update the standard templates used by AUS.
As this discussion illustrates, everyone has their own point of view, and they all differ. You for example seem to like the idea of mil exercises being included even where the information is fairly general, others don't.
This discussion has been very useful on a number of levels. It's certainly helped me to crystallise in my own mind some of the issues and it's also helped improve peoples knowledge and understanding of how the system works.
Mike
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rustle
Fuji, you have no idea what you're talking about and I hope no-one reading your posts comes away thinking that you do.
So many times there are things written in here that are wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is only through the generousness of others that the right things are posted back.
Thank you to MIKE for carrying on with this discussion properly with people who can make the difference. It is on your back that I joined AOPA
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Not reading (or obtaining) NOTAMs is not anyones fault except the pilots.”
.. .. .. And I have never disagreed.
What I have said, and do say, is NATS should be responsible for providing this information in the best possible way to its customers. In turn pilots are obliged to ensure they brief themselves correctly. Neither component is working. It should be in all our interests to establish why not.
“The CAA is not obligated to give the AIS contract to NATS, so it is a commercial world arrangement. If the CAA are not happy, they can invoke contractual rights. When it comes up to tender they can offer it to other parties if they think they will get a better service at the right price.”
That would prove a very good way for the government to find its majority interest worthless overnight. Perhaps you might also like to tell us how a commercial arrangement works when in these circumstances.
“NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA.”
Really.
NATS don’t think so.
Next time you are at one of their meetings, you should look at the “customers and suppliers” section of their web site and see what the think.
“Remind me how much funding for NATS comes from the government then...?”
I have to admit I don’t fully understand the comment. Maybe a bit too pithy for me. However if you are suggesting not much, remind me how you would value the goodwill arising from the Government “favouring” NATS with the contract. Remind me what "commitments" were made by the “private” investors with regards to any future sale of their shares.
"So many times there are things written in here that are wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is only through the generousness of others that the right things are posted back."
As some one once said on another thread - simply inspired. Thanks for a great contribution to the debate.
"That there is a current issue with the AIS website is clearly an AIS issue with their (website) supplier and is being pursued. Vigorously
If there is an "issue" with the content of NOTAM, that needs to be taken up with the sponsor of the NOTAM. AIS might assist in this regard by helping you find out who the sponsor is if it is not apparent.
If there is an issue with what is being demanded of NATS/AIS, then that should be taken up with the CAA - as they are the "customer" of the service."
and
"If I fly on an airline and it happens to be on a sub leased aircraft from another operator, any beef I have would be with the carrier I booked my travel with. How they then resolve that with their subcontractor is not my concern, as long as my issue is dealt with to my satisfaction."
You and mike should talk.
.. .. .. And I have never disagreed.
What I have said, and do say, is NATS should be responsible for providing this information in the best possible way to its customers. In turn pilots are obliged to ensure they brief themselves correctly. Neither component is working. It should be in all our interests to establish why not.
“The CAA is not obligated to give the AIS contract to NATS, so it is a commercial world arrangement. If the CAA are not happy, they can invoke contractual rights. When it comes up to tender they can offer it to other parties if they think they will get a better service at the right price.”
That would prove a very good way for the government to find its majority interest worthless overnight. Perhaps you might also like to tell us how a commercial arrangement works when in these circumstances.
“NATS' (or more correctly AIS' in this instance) "customer" is the CAA.”
Really.
NATS don’t think so.
Next time you are at one of their meetings, you should look at the “customers and suppliers” section of their web site and see what the think.
“Remind me how much funding for NATS comes from the government then...?”
I have to admit I don’t fully understand the comment. Maybe a bit too pithy for me. However if you are suggesting not much, remind me how you would value the goodwill arising from the Government “favouring” NATS with the contract. Remind me what "commitments" were made by the “private” investors with regards to any future sale of their shares.
"So many times there are things written in here that are wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is only through the generousness of others that the right things are posted back."
As some one once said on another thread - simply inspired. Thanks for a great contribution to the debate.
"That there is a current issue with the AIS website is clearly an AIS issue with their (website) supplier and is being pursued. Vigorously
If there is an "issue" with the content of NOTAM, that needs to be taken up with the sponsor of the NOTAM. AIS might assist in this regard by helping you find out who the sponsor is if it is not apparent.
If there is an issue with what is being demanded of NATS/AIS, then that should be taken up with the CAA - as they are the "customer" of the service."
and
"If I fly on an airline and it happens to be on a sub leased aircraft from another operator, any beef I have would be with the carrier I booked my travel with. How they then resolve that with their subcontractor is not my concern, as long as my issue is dealt with to my satisfaction."
You and mike should talk.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 17th Jul 2006 at 10:42.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case I didn't mention it earlier:-
The UK's obligations under the Chicago Convention include:-
(The above from Chapter 8 of Annex 15 to the Convention)
The Governement department responsible is the Department of Transport who use the CAA as their agent, who in turn contract the work out to NATS.
What we get is quite a lot more than what is required, and the provision of the service is in large part funded by en-route charges, which few of us pay.
If you want to agitate for provision of more and better services to GA it doesn't need the brain of Eistein to work out where the funding will come from.
Mike
The UK's obligations under the Chicago Convention include:-
8.1 Pre-flight information
8.1.1 At any aerodrome/heliport normally used for international
air operations, aeronautical information essential for
the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and
relative to the route stages originating at the aerodrome/heliport
shall be made available to flight operations personnel,
including flight crews and services responsible for pre-flight
information.
....
8.1.3 A recapitulation of current NOTAM and other information
of urgent character shall be made available to flight
crews in the form of plain-language pre-flight information
bulletins (PIB).
8.1.1 At any aerodrome/heliport normally used for international
air operations, aeronautical information essential for
the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and
relative to the route stages originating at the aerodrome/heliport
shall be made available to flight operations personnel,
including flight crews and services responsible for pre-flight
information.
....
8.1.3 A recapitulation of current NOTAM and other information
of urgent character shall be made available to flight
crews in the form of plain-language pre-flight information
bulletins (PIB).
The Governement department responsible is the Department of Transport who use the CAA as their agent, who in turn contract the work out to NATS.
What we get is quite a lot more than what is required, and the provision of the service is in large part funded by en-route charges, which few of us pay.
If you want to agitate for provision of more and better services to GA it doesn't need the brain of Eistein to work out where the funding will come from.
Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
You are of course correct. Once again within your remit I thank you for all you have done in the past and will doubtless achieve in the future.
I have no criticism what so ever within this remit and fully understand you have to “work” within those constraints.
I do however feel strongly that your remit does not address the real problem nor is it likely to provide a solution. If AOPA support you, and since you clearly know a great deal about how the process works, it does not seem to me unreasonable that AOPA should widen your brief - assuming you would want to take the task on!
Who will pay?
Firstly, the fact that others are able to provide this information free of charge and subject ot the usual warnings would suggest that it is neither rocket science, nor a particularly costly exercise.
Secondly, and as previously suggested, there is a case that the providers of some NOTAMS derive the sole benefit. In the commercial world (as we keep getting told it is) it is not unusual for those that benefit to pay.
You are of course correct. Once again within your remit I thank you for all you have done in the past and will doubtless achieve in the future.
I have no criticism what so ever within this remit and fully understand you have to “work” within those constraints.
I do however feel strongly that your remit does not address the real problem nor is it likely to provide a solution. If AOPA support you, and since you clearly know a great deal about how the process works, it does not seem to me unreasonable that AOPA should widen your brief - assuming you would want to take the task on!
Who will pay?
Firstly, the fact that others are able to provide this information free of charge and subject ot the usual warnings would suggest that it is neither rocket science, nor a particularly costly exercise.
Secondly, and as previously suggested, there is a case that the providers of some NOTAMS derive the sole benefit. In the commercial world (as we keep getting told it is) it is not unusual for those that benefit to pay.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a carrot to NATS and the CAA might be useful here.
A better service would lead to fewer infringements.
Unfortunately my view is that any benefit from improving ais.org.uk will be limited, all the time the PPL training syllabus and establishment remain as they are.
And that is a much harder nut to crack. The flight training business is very vocally anti any modernisation, and is about the only unified voice in GA. And the CAA is becoming ever more distant when it comes to doing anything proactive.
A better service would lead to fewer infringements.
Unfortunately my view is that any benefit from improving ais.org.uk will be limited, all the time the PPL training syllabus and establishment remain as they are.
And that is a much harder nut to crack. The flight training business is very vocally anti any modernisation, and is about the only unified voice in GA. And the CAA is becoming ever more distant when it comes to doing anything proactive.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I think you have hit the main issue right on the nail with your last post. It is a far deeper problem than what AIS do, or don't, provide (which is already over the obligations of the UK to provide, as mentioned by Mike).
Fuji
If you ain't happy, ask for your money back
I think you have hit the main issue right on the nail with your last post. It is a far deeper problem than what AIS do, or don't, provide (which is already over the obligations of the UK to provide, as mentioned by Mike).
Fuji
If you ain't happy, ask for your money back
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(which is already over the obligations of the UK to provide, as mentioned by Mike)."
Yep, I think we have got to grips now with their doing something more than they are obliged too.
"If you ain't happy, ask for your money back"
.. .. .. you may well make the point in jest,
but you have also hit the nail on the head.
So lets sum up:
The CAA isnt going to do anything becasue apparently no one will pay,
and NATS arent going to do anything, because their only responsibility is to the CAA,
and if there is anything wrong with the NOTAMs, well thats the responsibility of the sponsor,
and AOPA isnt going to do anything because it is not in their remit,
and because the end user doesnt pay a direct fee, he cant ask for his money back.
Brilliant.
I cant argue against it. Personally, as I said before it just completely baffles me why you would want to bother doing anything about it - you must be mad, or got nothing better to do with your time.
As I said before, it would actually be far better if NATS did the absolute minimium possible, and left us to get the service we want from another provider.
Moreover, that is why I would never join AOPA in the UK given they are wasting their time and their members subs on such a pointless excercise.
(Not that I dont have great respect for Mike for trying - I just would not bother myself)
Yep, I think we have got to grips now with their doing something more than they are obliged too.
"If you ain't happy, ask for your money back"
.. .. .. you may well make the point in jest,
but you have also hit the nail on the head.
So lets sum up:
The CAA isnt going to do anything becasue apparently no one will pay,
and NATS arent going to do anything, because their only responsibility is to the CAA,
and if there is anything wrong with the NOTAMs, well thats the responsibility of the sponsor,
and AOPA isnt going to do anything because it is not in their remit,
and because the end user doesnt pay a direct fee, he cant ask for his money back.
Brilliant.
I cant argue against it. Personally, as I said before it just completely baffles me why you would want to bother doing anything about it - you must be mad, or got nothing better to do with your time.
As I said before, it would actually be far better if NATS did the absolute minimium possible, and left us to get the service we want from another provider.
Moreover, that is why I would never join AOPA in the UK given they are wasting their time and their members subs on such a pointless excercise.
(Not that I dont have great respect for Mike for trying - I just would not bother myself)