AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIS Consultation Meeting 8 Aug
Some of you may know that I reprsent 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.
Mike
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.
Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recent discussion about airspace infringement (Gloucester) should provide you with some useful material.
There are some good third party NOTAM plotters that present a graphical interface. I would have thought the AIS is very very long overdue providing access to NOTAM information in this way. I suspect this would greatly assist pilots with their self brief.
There are some good third party NOTAM plotters that present a graphical interface. I would have thought the AIS is very very long overdue providing access to NOTAM information in this way. I suspect this would greatly assist pilots with their self brief.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely agree with Fuji that the single most important issue has to be a re-vamp to the Notam system which encourages people to read them. Graphical would be by far the best - but also high on the list would be removing the large number of totaly useless Notams (the whole of Wales being used for a military exercise, for example, or the fact that some transponder code has been allocated to a different unit - neither of which provide anything useful to pilots).
FFF
--------------
FFF
--------------
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My god the notam website, useful data for your route, so critical its unreal.
The website is difficult to use, impossible to trust and if its not down then it takes you ages to sift out the Cardiff notams when flying over Brighton!!!
I have given up totally on the website, the problem is when i call AIS they think there is no problem at all and are in fact proud of the user interface.
Ok i will stop ranting, maybe a suggestion to them would be to send out a questionaire to the pilots on the same lists as they would send chirp (for example) so they find out first hand what the problems are and dont continue to have their heads buried in the sand.
DBB
The website is difficult to use, impossible to trust and if its not down then it takes you ages to sift out the Cardiff notams when flying over Brighton!!!
I have given up totally on the website, the problem is when i call AIS they think there is no problem at all and are in fact proud of the user interface.
Ok i will stop ranting, maybe a suggestion to them would be to send out a questionaire to the pilots on the same lists as they would send chirp (for example) so they find out first hand what the problems are and dont continue to have their heads buried in the sand.
DBB
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may like to let AIS know that, as an ATC unit at a very busy regional airport handling everything from G/A to widebody commercial stuff, we access our notam information from a Scandinavian web site, purely because the NATS site is useless.
Its user unfriendly, is incapable of letting the user decide what they want, and often contains out of date information.
Its a shame that they don't listen to their customers.
Its user unfriendly, is incapable of letting the user decide what they want, and often contains out of date information.
Its a shame that they don't listen to their customers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep em rolling chaps.
A couple of interjections here.
1. The raw data is not produced by AIS, they are responsible for publishing it, not producing it. 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.
Under ICAO it is the State within whose airspace the flight originates which is responsible for providing the briefing service and it is therefore important that all States adhere to a common standard of presentation, otherwise professional pilots would find the briefing presentation different everywhere they went, which could be dangerously confusing.
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. You may not agree with that but it is a fact and AIS, which is part of NATS, have no influence. It might also be thought undesirable for NATS/AIS to offer value added chargeable services over and above those services that it provides as a contractor on behalf of the CAA which are required to meet the UK's international treaty obligations. This might be seen as unfair competition by commercial briefing services because of their priveliged position. Incidentally I do know that NATS have been evaluating the possibility of value added services as a revenue generator.
If you can give me some workable proposals for the above it will greatly help the case.
2. Niknak
I'm concerned about your problem and will send you a PM with my contact details so you can give me more detail.
The ICAO NOTAM system is predicated on the assumption that State NOTAM offices decide which of their NOTAM series are distributed internationally and also which NOTAM series they subscribe to from other (foreign) State NOTAM offices in order to provide a briefing service that is applicable to flights originating within their airspace. Taking NOTAM from a foreign state carries the risk of missing data.
Mike
A couple of interjections here.
1. The raw data is not produced by AIS, they are responsible for publishing it, not producing it. 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.
Under ICAO it is the State within whose airspace the flight originates which is responsible for providing the briefing service and it is therefore important that all States adhere to a common standard of presentation, otherwise professional pilots would find the briefing presentation different everywhere they went, which could be dangerously confusing.
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. You may not agree with that but it is a fact and AIS, which is part of NATS, have no influence. It might also be thought undesirable for NATS/AIS to offer value added chargeable services over and above those services that it provides as a contractor on behalf of the CAA which are required to meet the UK's international treaty obligations. This might be seen as unfair competition by commercial briefing services because of their priveliged position. Incidentally I do know that NATS have been evaluating the possibility of value added services as a revenue generator.
If you can give me some workable proposals for the above it will greatly help the case.
2. Niknak
I'm concerned about your problem and will send you a PM with my contact details so you can give me more detail.
The ICAO NOTAM system is predicated on the assumption that State NOTAM offices decide which of their NOTAM series are distributed internationally and also which NOTAM series they subscribe to from other (foreign) State NOTAM offices in order to provide a briefing service that is applicable to flights originating within their airspace. Taking NOTAM from a foreign state carries the risk of missing data.
Mike
Originally Posted by Mike Cross
Do you have any suggestions for funding it? Under government funding policy CAA has to recover its costs from usersMike
Those who wish or require airspace to be restricted (or used in a 'non-conventional' manner) should pay for the priviledge and the consequent requirement of notifying other airspace users of the restriction.
Pilots avoiding restrictions by NOTAM are not using the restricted airspace and therefore are not users per se.
A
edited to say I do recognise that NOTAMs are not only about airspace restrictions.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may like to let AIS know that, as an ATC unit at a very busy regional airport handling everything from G/A to widebody commercial stuff, we access our notam information from a Scandinavian web site, purely because the NATS site is useless.
It's true that one can get notams from countless websites, official and unofficial. It works for enroute information, and for international airports, because (ICAO or no ICAO) a hypothetical plane could fly that route from the UK and that makes the briefing wholly in accordance with the regs.
One problem is that ais.org.uk seems to be the only free site offering a narrow route briefing, and that is key to reducing the amount of rubbish.
However, if you are an airport ATC unit then presumably you are interested only in your local area notams, in which case you would not be doing an NRB. This then differs from the requirement of a pilot who (if flying somewhere) should be using the NRB. Unless he's just bimbling. I wonder if anyone has analysed the % of busts due to bimbling v. A-B flights?
This might be seen as unfair competition by commercial briefing services because of their priveliged position
This is a useless excuse. NATS are responsible for safe and efficient airspace operation and have no business supporting unconnected and non-revenue-generating (for NATS) commercial information providers.
It's like that stupid ludicrous excuse handed out by the CAA, for why they generate those virtually unusable A4 approach charts (unusable because of the very small print, and no DA/MDA shown directly). They say (face to face, when asked at e.g. trade shows) that they don't want to compete with commercial providers. So, they play into the hands of Jeppesen and Aerad, whose products are then able to be priced at approximately (the annual sub, for European coverage only) the same amount as an Annual check for a single engine aircraft
The CAA could have spent the same amount of time producing A5 plates, same as the free ones which the Americans seem to have no problems producing, and which incidentally keep Jepp prices way down for US coverage
Taking NOTAM from a foreign state carries the risk of missing data.
I realise that is the standard disclaimer, Mike, but the reality must be that this is nonsense, for a hypothetical plane could have flown that route, and landed at that airport, following a UK departure. In fact in the European context it isn't that unreal, since any jet/turboprop can fly just about any European route in one go, and most decent tourers can go 2/3 to the far ends of Europe (from the UK) on one tank.
It's true that one can get notams from countless websites, official and unofficial. It works for enroute information, and for international airports, because (ICAO or no ICAO) a hypothetical plane could fly that route from the UK and that makes the briefing wholly in accordance with the regs.
One problem is that ais.org.uk seems to be the only free site offering a narrow route briefing, and that is key to reducing the amount of rubbish.
However, if you are an airport ATC unit then presumably you are interested only in your local area notams, in which case you would not be doing an NRB. This then differs from the requirement of a pilot who (if flying somewhere) should be using the NRB. Unless he's just bimbling. I wonder if anyone has analysed the % of busts due to bimbling v. A-B flights?
This might be seen as unfair competition by commercial briefing services because of their priveliged position
This is a useless excuse. NATS are responsible for safe and efficient airspace operation and have no business supporting unconnected and non-revenue-generating (for NATS) commercial information providers.
It's like that stupid ludicrous excuse handed out by the CAA, for why they generate those virtually unusable A4 approach charts (unusable because of the very small print, and no DA/MDA shown directly). They say (face to face, when asked at e.g. trade shows) that they don't want to compete with commercial providers. So, they play into the hands of Jeppesen and Aerad, whose products are then able to be priced at approximately (the annual sub, for European coverage only) the same amount as an Annual check for a single engine aircraft
The CAA could have spent the same amount of time producing A5 plates, same as the free ones which the Americans seem to have no problems producing, and which incidentally keep Jepp prices way down for US coverage
Taking NOTAM from a foreign state carries the risk of missing data.
I realise that is the standard disclaimer, Mike, but the reality must be that this is nonsense, for a hypothetical plane could have flown that route, and landed at that airport, following a UK departure. In fact in the European context it isn't that unreal, since any jet/turboprop can fly just about any European route in one go, and most decent tourers can go 2/3 to the far ends of Europe (from the UK) on one tank.
Last edited by IO540; 7th Jul 2006 at 09:24.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to basics.
The remit of the AIS in so far as NOTAMs are concerned should be to publish this information freely to pilots in an effective way.
If that is not their remit I would be interested to know what it is?
As with most public and private organisations, it would do no harm for the AIS to set out on their web site their mission statement or charter so we know exactly what it is they set out to do.
The fact of the matter would seem to be their largest user in terms of numbers (GA) and the users that most requires the information being presented in clear and user friendly terms (because they have not got the support of a team at company dispatch) have been complaining for years that the presentation of the data is confusing at best and all but useless at worst for any flight that doesn’t follow a predetermined route.
Take a look at the FAA presentation of this material:
http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/.../tile_2_5.html
Simple, clear, straightforward.
So how is it that the FAA comply with their international obligations and yet are able to give the user a graphical interface?
I thought one of the reasons for the inclusion of “Q” codes was to enable precisely this sort of presentation. Does this mean that so far as the UK FIRs are concerned Q codes have not been correctly implemented or perhaps there are some other technical reasons why the FAA can provide a graphical interface but we cant? Again, I believe the users (us) would be interested to know.
.. .. .. As I said back to basics, establish what the remit should be, and meet it, because otherwise I suspect the AIS has simply failed in its obligations to its users and will continue to fail.
The remit of the AIS in so far as NOTAMs are concerned should be to publish this information freely to pilots in an effective way.
If that is not their remit I would be interested to know what it is?
As with most public and private organisations, it would do no harm for the AIS to set out on their web site their mission statement or charter so we know exactly what it is they set out to do.
The fact of the matter would seem to be their largest user in terms of numbers (GA) and the users that most requires the information being presented in clear and user friendly terms (because they have not got the support of a team at company dispatch) have been complaining for years that the presentation of the data is confusing at best and all but useless at worst for any flight that doesn’t follow a predetermined route.
Take a look at the FAA presentation of this material:
http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/.../tile_2_5.html
Simple, clear, straightforward.
So how is it that the FAA comply with their international obligations and yet are able to give the user a graphical interface?
I thought one of the reasons for the inclusion of “Q” codes was to enable precisely this sort of presentation. Does this mean that so far as the UK FIRs are concerned Q codes have not been correctly implemented or perhaps there are some other technical reasons why the FAA can provide a graphical interface but we cant? Again, I believe the users (us) would be interested to know.
.. .. .. As I said back to basics, establish what the remit should be, and meet it, because otherwise I suspect the AIS has simply failed in its obligations to its users and will continue to fail.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
From the France AIP
You decide to fly from any of those countries to France and take your brief from the AIS of the State of departure you will get French Series B. Take the brief from any other State and you won't.
It's easy to define a rectangular block of airspace and get a brief for it (e.g to cover an ATSU's area) how to do it is explained in the Website User Guide on Page 14. Once set up it can be re-used on demand by pulling it from the Briefing Handbook.
FA
Your link does not point to NOTAM but to maps showing Temporary Flight Restrictions. These refer to the originating NOTAM but this service ONLY shows you the TFR's. (It won't for example tell you if the navaid you are intending to use is unserviceable or a runway is out of service for maintenance). 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.
The Q Line info was inserted into the brief at my request as a facilitator to allow anyone who wanted to to design a software application to allow the brief to be presented graphically and/or to allow more detailed filtering than is available from the AIS site. To the best of my knowledge no-one has yet done so. The Q line contains the ICAO data fields that are designed for the job of selection and display by electronic means. Ian Fallon's NotamPlot had to get this information via a third party (Avbrief) because the info was not included in the AIS offering. It now is. Prior to inclusion a separate feed was required from NATS, which Avbrief and the other commercial briefing organisations have.
I hope these explanations help. Thanks for all of your input.
Mike
From the France AIP
Series B: Information of a limited international scope and concerning
more particulary other flights (restricted international publication limited
to the European region).
Series D: containing information on aerodromes used for general aviation.
Publication are restricted to the countries involved within the scope
of SCHENGEN agreements (Germany, Austria, Belgium,Denmark,
Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden,
Iceland and Norway).
more particulary other flights (restricted international publication limited
to the European region).
Series D: containing information on aerodromes used for general aviation.
Publication are restricted to the countries involved within the scope
of SCHENGEN agreements (Germany, Austria, Belgium,Denmark,
Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden,
Iceland and Norway).
It's easy to define a rectangular block of airspace and get a brief for it (e.g to cover an ATSU's area) how to do it is explained in the Website User Guide on Page 14. Once set up it can be re-used on demand by pulling it from the Briefing Handbook.
FA
Your link does not point to NOTAM but to maps showing Temporary Flight Restrictions. These refer to the originating NOTAM but this service ONLY shows you the TFR's. (It won't for example tell you if the navaid you are intending to use is unserviceable or a runway is out of service for maintenance). 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.
The Q Line info was inserted into the brief at my request as a facilitator to allow anyone who wanted to to design a software application to allow the brief to be presented graphically and/or to allow more detailed filtering than is available from the AIS site. To the best of my knowledge no-one has yet done so. The Q line contains the ICAO data fields that are designed for the job of selection and display by electronic means. Ian Fallon's NotamPlot had to get this information via a third party (Avbrief) because the info was not included in the AIS offering. It now is. Prior to inclusion a separate feed was required from NATS, which Avbrief and the other commercial briefing organisations have.
I hope these explanations help. Thanks for all of your input.
Mike
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how is it that the FAA comply with their international obligations and yet are able to give the user a graphical interface?
a) Funding by taxpayer, and
b) They prevent every tom dick and harry (usually trying to cover their ar*e, by reporting a duff light bulb on some lamp-post) injecting nonsense into the system (within the USA), and
c) I don't think you can use the FAA facilities to get a briefing for a flight from Goodwood to Bembridge (even though a decent bizjet could fly from the USA, to Goodwood, and onto Bembridge ) Even though the UK data should be in their data stream!
a) Funding by taxpayer, and
b) They prevent every tom dick and harry (usually trying to cover their ar*e, by reporting a duff light bulb on some lamp-post) injecting nonsense into the system (within the USA), and
c) I don't think you can use the FAA facilities to get a briefing for a flight from Goodwood to Bembridge (even though a decent bizjet could fly from the USA, to Goodwood, and onto Bembridge
) Even though the UK data should be in their data stream!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I would say is that if they want someone who knows how to build fast, simple yet comprehensive facilities for display data on a website (like http://fly.dsc.net) and reliability (like PPRuNe), you know where to find me. There is no excuse at all for not displaying NOTAMs on an online map these days.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q Line info was inserted into the brief at my request as a facilitator to allow anyone who wanted to to design a software application to allow the brief to be presented graphically and/or to allow more detailed filtering than is available from the AIS site.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 7th Jul 2006 at 13:48.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Error
No locations to process!
Is what I get to the above URL.
Getting back to Drauk's suggestion of a graphical interface: what I think one could do is have a list of checkboxes so one could choose which items to view; e.g. RAC, COM, NAVW.
That facility would greatly reduce the amount of stuff which would need to be plotted.
The problem is... what tag do restricted and prohibited areas, etc, appear under? They, and any airfield notams, are the stuff that actually matters.
No locations to process!
Is what I get to the above URL.
Getting back to Drauk's suggestion of a graphical interface: what I think one could do is have a list of checkboxes so one could choose which items to view; e.g. RAC, COM, NAVW.
That facility would greatly reduce the amount of stuff which would need to be plotted.
The problem is... what tag do restricted and prohibited areas, etc, appear under? They, and any airfield notams, are the stuff that actually matters.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent a couple of hours putting something together which allowed the plottable NOTAMS to be displayed in Google Earth. Having it on a dynamic Google Map would be better (thus no need for Google Earth) but the API doesn't or didn't allow one to draw circles, so you end up plotting loads of points to approximate a circle, but with so many NOTAMs that's a lot of data.
The problem with any of these type of things of course is all the disclaimers one must include which basically say "you can't rely on this, you have to check AIS". Still, it doesn't seem to stop people using fly.dsc.net - usage is going up and up at the moment.
The problem with any of these type of things of course is all the disclaimers one must include which basically say "you can't rely on this, you have to check AIS". Still, it doesn't seem to stop people using fly.dsc.net - usage is going up and up at the moment.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Fuji, I may be going thick (very possible given that the temp/dp spread is close to zero right now) but I can't see anything special there. Yes I can see all the usual dross, and any coordinate lists don't seem to get plotted. There is no reliable way to plot coordinate lists anyway, given the possibility of typos.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with IO540
I put in EGHP with a radius of 20nm and got pages and pages, including:-
If Stoke on Trent's only 20nm from Popham why does it take so long to get there?
I put in EGHP with a radius of 20nm and got pages and pages, including:-
H4892/05 - AUS 06-01-0084/5402/AS2 CONSTRUCTION SITE CRANE (LIT AT NIGHT) OPERATING WI 1NM RADIUS 5300N 00212W (CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, STOKE-ON-TRENT, STAFFORDSHIRE)ON-SITE CONTACT 07990718325 SFC 115FT AGL 04 JAN 00:01 2006 UNTIL 04 OCT 23:59 2006 ESTIMATED