Fast online Notams
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'course not - its a pity my last comment detracted from the main point of my submission eh?
If I, and many others, are prepared to pay use Avbrief, pay to update NotamPro and pay to update our GPSs , then I don't know why we would be unwilling to pay for the use of your service.
Nothing wrong with being commercial
Why not take a poll? (no not pill !) (or maybe take a pill as well !)
If I, and many others, are prepared to pay use Avbrief, pay to update NotamPro and pay to update our GPSs , then I don't know why we would be unwilling to pay for the use of your service.
Nothing wrong with being commercial
Why not take a poll? (no not pill !) (or maybe take a pill as well !)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for that - just get someone to buy the aeroplane and the ad will go away!
http://fly.dsc.net/fs/n22nn
http://fly.dsc.net/fs/n22nn
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a home
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drauk,
My UK routes involve 5 hour tours of both FIRs at low and high level, VFR and IFR. Turning points are 70 - 80% defined by Lat and Long over sea areas - some coastal, but equally likely to be near the boundaries. Over land I use Lat and Long as well. Radial and distance from a navaid could be used, but that involves more work on my part to translate the turning points.
Your graphical plot receives high praise so I'm interested in trying it out. Many people would say that if you feed the right information in to the NATS Narrow Route Brief you'll get what you want - I beg to differ, but at the moment its the best thing on offer - it will accept Lat and Long, won't produce a plot and generates a forest if you do the sorts of routes I mean. It can be (f)rigged to cut down the forest, but to ensure total coverage the saving is relatively small.
I've tried a couple of other plotted presentations, but they sometimes suffer from a lack of discrimination when listing particular classes of notam, eg after the main plotted information, a list of remaining, unplottable, notams will give several tens of frequency and SSR code changes - fair enough - then in the same list "oh by the way" an unlit mast of 250' asl at X somewhere in the Thames Estuary - which should be plottable and I would want to know about.
I presume Lat and Long would be difficult?
BS
My UK routes involve 5 hour tours of both FIRs at low and high level, VFR and IFR. Turning points are 70 - 80% defined by Lat and Long over sea areas - some coastal, but equally likely to be near the boundaries. Over land I use Lat and Long as well. Radial and distance from a navaid could be used, but that involves more work on my part to translate the turning points.
Your graphical plot receives high praise so I'm interested in trying it out. Many people would say that if you feed the right information in to the NATS Narrow Route Brief you'll get what you want - I beg to differ, but at the moment its the best thing on offer - it will accept Lat and Long, won't produce a plot and generates a forest if you do the sorts of routes I mean. It can be (f)rigged to cut down the forest, but to ensure total coverage the saving is relatively small.
I've tried a couple of other plotted presentations, but they sometimes suffer from a lack of discrimination when listing particular classes of notam, eg after the main plotted information, a list of remaining, unplottable, notams will give several tens of frequency and SSR code changes - fair enough - then in the same list "oh by the way" an unlit mast of 250' asl at X somewhere in the Thames Estuary - which should be plottable and I would want to know about.
I presume Lat and Long would be difficult?
BS
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if I may take up an old discussion, with reference to the posts by Mike Cross (yes, I'm aware you're only the messenger) regarding where and how to get the data, etc., I have a couple thoughts:
* Why can't ICAO (or even individual aviation authorities) come up with a system for the data to be distributed electronically, in machine readable form, directly from the national aviation authorities to the end user (to be crude, think an XML-based web service)? Is there any initiative at all in this respect, which I would have thought a rather obvious move?
* As far as certified data providers go, why would the provider, rather than the originator of the data, be in need of certification? Can't quite understand that one without my cynic hat on.
* Why can't ICAO (or even individual aviation authorities) come up with a system for the data to be distributed electronically, in machine readable form, directly from the national aviation authorities to the end user (to be crude, think an XML-based web service)? Is there any initiative at all in this respect, which I would have thought a rather obvious move?
* As far as certified data providers go, why would the provider, rather than the originator of the data, be in need of certification? Can't quite understand that one without my cynic hat on.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LH2
The XML initiative is a thing called AIXM (Aeronautical Information Exchange Model) being developed by Eurocontrol with support from the FAA. It's been under development for some time and a quick Google will turn up more information.
ANSP certification is something out of EASA and is to my mind something of a joke. The CAA have taken a light touch with it and seem more concerned with the financial stability of the ANSP than anything else (a similar approach to their major work in consumer protection for air travellers). It's not difficult to justify a need for standards on the part of the data handler. To give you an analogy, it's perfectly possible to turn a perfectly good and wholesome food product into something toxic by poor handling. The main focus is however more on the provision of Air Traffic Services than NOTAM. It's not really an issue at the moment for people like drauk but we need to keep an eye on it.
What's caused the problem for drauk and others is their decision to develop something based on PIB (Pre-Flight Information Bulletins) rather than the raw data. The result is that when the format of the PIB and the method of getting it changes (as it has) you're faced with a major re-write of your own software. The raw data is to a standard ICAO format which has not changed.
The decision has been forced on them by the fact that provision of PIB is free while a raw data feed has to be paid for. An exception is Notamplot, which gets a free feed from Avbrief who pay for a raw data feed. Other commercial briefing services and the airlines also use a raw data feed, which they pay for. This inhibits the provision of a free data feed. Those who pay for it would understandably be upset if someone else got it for free. A further complication is that the data is in theory the property of the originator.
NATS have been helping drauk explore the possibility of getting a feed of the raw data and Eurocontrol have come up with what I think is a pretty reasonable cost. The trouble is that we can't expect someone like drauk to put his hand into his own pocket to pay for it, no matter how reasonable the cost might be.
I've been in correspondence with Eurocontrol to see if we can come up with a framework for something that would allow NATS to provide a raw data feed for UK and near european FIR's to "no charge" service providers in a way that would avoid conflict with commercial interests. You'll appreciate that this won't be easy. The response is encouraging but it's certainly not something that can be done overnight. First we need to get Eurocontrol, who hold the database, to agree in principle, then we need to get the CAA to agree to fund NATS so they can commission EAD to write the software.
I hope this explanation of AOPA UK's current activity in this area is helpful.
Mike
The XML initiative is a thing called AIXM (Aeronautical Information Exchange Model) being developed by Eurocontrol with support from the FAA. It's been under development for some time and a quick Google will turn up more information.
ANSP certification is something out of EASA and is to my mind something of a joke. The CAA have taken a light touch with it and seem more concerned with the financial stability of the ANSP than anything else (a similar approach to their major work in consumer protection for air travellers). It's not difficult to justify a need for standards on the part of the data handler. To give you an analogy, it's perfectly possible to turn a perfectly good and wholesome food product into something toxic by poor handling. The main focus is however more on the provision of Air Traffic Services than NOTAM. It's not really an issue at the moment for people like drauk but we need to keep an eye on it.
What's caused the problem for drauk and others is their decision to develop something based on PIB (Pre-Flight Information Bulletins) rather than the raw data. The result is that when the format of the PIB and the method of getting it changes (as it has) you're faced with a major re-write of your own software. The raw data is to a standard ICAO format which has not changed.
The decision has been forced on them by the fact that provision of PIB is free while a raw data feed has to be paid for. An exception is Notamplot, which gets a free feed from Avbrief who pay for a raw data feed. Other commercial briefing services and the airlines also use a raw data feed, which they pay for. This inhibits the provision of a free data feed. Those who pay for it would understandably be upset if someone else got it for free. A further complication is that the data is in theory the property of the originator.
NATS have been helping drauk explore the possibility of getting a feed of the raw data and Eurocontrol have come up with what I think is a pretty reasonable cost. The trouble is that we can't expect someone like drauk to put his hand into his own pocket to pay for it, no matter how reasonable the cost might be.
I've been in correspondence with Eurocontrol to see if we can come up with a framework for something that would allow NATS to provide a raw data feed for UK and near european FIR's to "no charge" service providers in a way that would avoid conflict with commercial interests. You'll appreciate that this won't be easy. The response is encouraging but it's certainly not something that can be done overnight. First we need to get Eurocontrol, who hold the database, to agree in principle, then we need to get the CAA to agree to fund NATS so they can commission EAD to write the software.
I hope this explanation of AOPA UK's current activity in this area is helpful.
Mike
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mike,
thanks for your informative reply, which I shall revisit at some latter point. Excuse the brevity for now but I'm rather pressed for time these days.
Would it be possible for you to expand a little bit on that? Also, approximately what would "a reasonable cost" be? PM, if you wish.
thanks for your informative reply, which I shall revisit at some latter point. Excuse the brevity for now but I'm rather pressed for time these days.
NATS have been helping drauk explore the possibility of getting a feed of the raw data and Eurocontrol have come up with what I think is a pretty reasonable cost
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been in correspondence with Eurocontrol to see if we can come up with a framework for something that would allow NATS to provide a raw data feed for UK and near european FIR's to "no charge" service providers in a way that would avoid conflict with commercial interests.
The name wouldn't start with a "J" by any chance?
There is NO mandate in this game to support any commercial interest. This data should be free at the point of delivery.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH2
If you're asking "how much?" then I'd prefer not to be explicit as I was simply copied in on the correspondence and not the main addressee. You'll have to take my word that it was not unreasonable. However, no matter how low it is it would still be money out of the personal pocket of the person who's providing a service for free. That's why I was exploring the possibility of getting NATS to fund access not only for drauk but also for anyone else providing a free service.
IO
No one precisely and I have no idea who you mean by "J" unless it's Jeppesen.
At the moment it's an entirely level playing field. Anyone wanting access to raw data to provide a briefing service can get it for a fee. NATS, the airlines, and the commmercial briefing services all pay for access to the data held by EAD. The alternative is to maintain your own database, populated by a feed from the AFTN and subscribing to NOTAM from all of the ICAO States. Until recently that's what NATS did. They've now decided that it is more efficient to share a common European database rather than run their own.
CAA funds NATS to deliver PIB in accordance with the UK's obligations under the Chicago Convention. NATS does it by paying EAD to provide the website that forms the delivery mechanism. CAA in return recovers the costs from en-route charges. The majority of GA pilots don't pay these charges and get the NATS service free. The only real difference betweeen what NATS are doing and what any other briefing service is doing is that NATS are paying EAD to run the NATS website, whereas other commercial briefing services simply pay for access to the data and then run their own websites.
To my mind you cannot create an unfair situation where some users pay for access to the same product and others do not. EAD is a commercial organisation and if you want them to do the job without charging fees then they would need to be funded to do so. It's a little outside AOPA UK's remit to suggest that the governments of the Eurocontrol countries should provide funding to a commercial organisation. It would in any case be a daft idea because it would be practically impossible to prevent commercial concerns outside the funding States from gaining access to what is a worldwide database.
The way to deal with access for "free to user" providers IMHO is for sponsored access with some restrictions. The sort of thing I have in mind is to limit it to European rather than worldwide data, to limit access to providers of free to user services for leisure pilots that are not bundled with any paid-for product, and not to allow the data to be passed on to a third party for re-use. The avenue I'm exploring is for CAA to provide funding to allow NATS to sponsor access.
This is a long and carefully thought out reply to a simple question. I hope it illustrates to you that apparently simple ideas end up requiring a lot of careful consideration.
If you're asking "how much?" then I'd prefer not to be explicit as I was simply copied in on the correspondence and not the main addressee. You'll have to take my word that it was not unreasonable. However, no matter how low it is it would still be money out of the personal pocket of the person who's providing a service for free. That's why I was exploring the possibility of getting NATS to fund access not only for drauk but also for anyone else providing a free service.
IO
No one precisely and I have no idea who you mean by "J" unless it's Jeppesen.
At the moment it's an entirely level playing field. Anyone wanting access to raw data to provide a briefing service can get it for a fee. NATS, the airlines, and the commmercial briefing services all pay for access to the data held by EAD. The alternative is to maintain your own database, populated by a feed from the AFTN and subscribing to NOTAM from all of the ICAO States. Until recently that's what NATS did. They've now decided that it is more efficient to share a common European database rather than run their own.
CAA funds NATS to deliver PIB in accordance with the UK's obligations under the Chicago Convention. NATS does it by paying EAD to provide the website that forms the delivery mechanism. CAA in return recovers the costs from en-route charges. The majority of GA pilots don't pay these charges and get the NATS service free. The only real difference betweeen what NATS are doing and what any other briefing service is doing is that NATS are paying EAD to run the NATS website, whereas other commercial briefing services simply pay for access to the data and then run their own websites.
To my mind you cannot create an unfair situation where some users pay for access to the same product and others do not. EAD is a commercial organisation and if you want them to do the job without charging fees then they would need to be funded to do so. It's a little outside AOPA UK's remit to suggest that the governments of the Eurocontrol countries should provide funding to a commercial organisation. It would in any case be a daft idea because it would be practically impossible to prevent commercial concerns outside the funding States from gaining access to what is a worldwide database.
The way to deal with access for "free to user" providers IMHO is for sponsored access with some restrictions. The sort of thing I have in mind is to limit it to European rather than worldwide data, to limit access to providers of free to user services for leisure pilots that are not bundled with any paid-for product, and not to allow the data to be passed on to a third party for re-use. The avenue I'm exploring is for CAA to provide funding to allow NATS to sponsor access.
This is a long and carefully thought out reply to a simple question. I hope it illustrates to you that apparently simple ideas end up requiring a lot of careful consideration.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Firstly - Thank you for your efforts to persuade the CAA to provide a raw data feed.
But I'm not sure I entirely agree with your arguments on the commercial nature of NOTAM provision. It seems to me that if anyone has to pay for NOTAM distribution then it should logically be the originators of the NOTAMs - they are the cause of the "problems" so they should be the ones to pay. Obviously this is a complete non-starter for safety reasons, but I don't see this automatically means that we should have to pay to receive the information. If someone wants to reserve a chunk of airspace for their own use why should I need to pay to get a map of where it is?
Secondly there is an important distinction between using the NOTAM data for personal information and re-distributing it for commercial gain (however small.) In the second case it is reasonable you have to pay a fee, but not I think in the first case. In fact, this is the situation that already exists. NATS terms and conditions state that you must not "modify or download the Website or its contents (except caching or as necessary to view Content)." This is the important element in avoiding the unfair situation you mention, the format of the data seems to me irrelevant.
Your idea of a free, but restricted service, for the leisure pilot seems a good idea if it gets around the problem. The best of luck getting the CAA to agree.
Cheers,
Alan
Firstly - Thank you for your efforts to persuade the CAA to provide a raw data feed.
But I'm not sure I entirely agree with your arguments on the commercial nature of NOTAM provision. It seems to me that if anyone has to pay for NOTAM distribution then it should logically be the originators of the NOTAMs - they are the cause of the "problems" so they should be the ones to pay. Obviously this is a complete non-starter for safety reasons, but I don't see this automatically means that we should have to pay to receive the information. If someone wants to reserve a chunk of airspace for their own use why should I need to pay to get a map of where it is?
Secondly there is an important distinction between using the NOTAM data for personal information and re-distributing it for commercial gain (however small.) In the second case it is reasonable you have to pay a fee, but not I think in the first case. In fact, this is the situation that already exists. NATS terms and conditions state that you must not "modify or download the Website or its contents (except caching or as necessary to view Content)." This is the important element in avoiding the unfair situation you mention, the format of the data seems to me irrelevant.
Your idea of a free, but restricted service, for the leisure pilot seems a good idea if it gets around the problem. The best of luck getting the CAA to agree.
Cheers,
Alan
