AIS web site login
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would have taken less than a minute and cost, to a reasonable approximation, exactly 0p to have added to the login failed screen some static text saying "this login might have failed because your account has been deleted, see FAQ 14, if that's the case you can re-register with the same name".
For an extra not-very-many seconds and an extra 0p the "see FAQ 14" could even have been a clickable link!!!
Not a lot of "funding" required, I think - it's just a question of getting it right in the first place, hardly a big deal.
For an extra not-very-many seconds and an extra 0p the "see FAQ 14" could even have been a clickable link!!!
Not a lot of "funding" required, I think - it's just a question of getting it right in the first place, hardly a big deal.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertie
No problem then. You tell Thales IS, the software vendors that they can modify the software for nothing. While you're at it I have a few minor niggles in Windows Server 2003 that you could get Microsoft to fix for free. Fact is I'm afraid, if you want a commercial software vendor to customise his product you will have to pay.
Are you going to take AIS up on their offer above? They've received no prompting from me, just responded spontaneously to your complaint. Or is your interest only in slagging them off?
Other briefing services are of course available if you don't like what AIS offer.
IO540
AIS log the briefs that are taken. At the top of your brief is a number beginning with the letter R. That is the individual brief ID. The briefs are pulled on request when incidents are investigated as a matter of routine. They are also pulled when a complaint is received. To give you a f'rinstance, a complaint was received from a pilot that the Reds display at Eastbourne was not included in his brief. By locating the brief that was taken AIS established that the user had entered the date in DDMMYY format rather than the ICAO standard of YYMMDD and got a briefing for some time into the future. therefore he only got the NOTAM that were from xxxxxx to PERM.
As the owner of an ISO9001 accreditted business I don't agree with your rather sweeping dismissal of it. Used properly it's a good tool. I do see plenty of examples of it being misused, UK AIS is not one of them. Quality systems have an important role to play, as Cessna found out to their cost when misrigged control cables were found on their production line.
AFAIK AIS have no problem with simmers using their service, and it is of course possible for you to register as M Mouse or D Duck if you choose to. However if you want to use the FAA's DUATS online system you will need to enter your Pilot's Certificate Number and your address, which are cross-checked against the FAA pilot database before you can use the system. Sorry but I can't see any problems with the AIS login requirement. Show me an example of your personal data being abused by AIS and I might sit up and take notice.
Mike
No problem then. You tell Thales IS, the software vendors that they can modify the software for nothing. While you're at it I have a few minor niggles in Windows Server 2003 that you could get Microsoft to fix for free. Fact is I'm afraid, if you want a commercial software vendor to customise his product you will have to pay.
Are you going to take AIS up on their offer above? They've received no prompting from me, just responded spontaneously to your complaint. Or is your interest only in slagging them off?
Other briefing services are of course available if you don't like what AIS offer.
IO540
AIS log the briefs that are taken. At the top of your brief is a number beginning with the letter R. That is the individual brief ID. The briefs are pulled on request when incidents are investigated as a matter of routine. They are also pulled when a complaint is received. To give you a f'rinstance, a complaint was received from a pilot that the Reds display at Eastbourne was not included in his brief. By locating the brief that was taken AIS established that the user had entered the date in DDMMYY format rather than the ICAO standard of YYMMDD and got a briefing for some time into the future. therefore he only got the NOTAM that were from xxxxxx to PERM.
As the owner of an ISO9001 accreditted business I don't agree with your rather sweeping dismissal of it. Used properly it's a good tool. I do see plenty of examples of it being misused, UK AIS is not one of them. Quality systems have an important role to play, as Cessna found out to their cost when misrigged control cables were found on their production line.
AFAIK AIS have no problem with simmers using their service, and it is of course possible for you to register as M Mouse or D Duck if you choose to. However if you want to use the FAA's DUATS online system you will need to enter your Pilot's Certificate Number and your address, which are cross-checked against the FAA pilot database before you can use the system. Sorry but I can't see any problems with the AIS login requirement. Show me an example of your personal data being abused by AIS and I might sit up and take notice.
Mike
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,611
Received 475 Likes
on
249 Posts
Please do not abuse my personal data.
Signed D.Duck
Signed D.Duck
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
I am really confused. Last time the AIS came up I got some stick for criticising the service they provide.
Since then there would seem to have been more criticism on this forum and elsewhere by many others, including among other things down time, lack of user friendliness, incorrect verbal briefs, failure to reply to emails, deleting registered users accounts without notification to mention just a few of the comments that come to mind.
You do a good job of defending them. I understand your role representing GAs interests and appreciate you may walk a tight rope.
However the fact remains that:
1. Any criticism of the AIS web site is "blamed" on Thales the commercial provider. I sense the knee jerk reaction to be - we cant do anything about it, blame Thales. However if Thales are providing such a poor service why is it their contract hasn’t been reviewed. How long do the users have to put up with - we cant do anything about that, it is down to Thales. In short will Thales be “blamed” for ever or can we look forward to the day when there is no need for a scape goat?
2. Some useful comments have come forward. On this thread alone the suggestion was notifying users if their account is terminated. This does not seem unreasonable, nor would it seem to be rocket science to achieve. Yet my perception (perhaps wrongly) is the AIS sees no reason no adopt this suggestion in future. That seems to me rather arrogant and dismissive of the “customer”. Incidentally I assume such notifications could be sent without having to rely on the Thales system to do so.
3. As Drauk has shown it would seem readily possible to produce a third party product that is infinitely superior to that achieved by the AIS at presumably very small cost. I appreciate the AIS has to meet their ICAO commitments and operate under the constraint of their contract with the CAA but is neither party interested in offering a service that does not have all the hallmarks of the most clumsy user interface of just about any web site I can think of?
I am really confused. Last time the AIS came up I got some stick for criticising the service they provide.
Since then there would seem to have been more criticism on this forum and elsewhere by many others, including among other things down time, lack of user friendliness, incorrect verbal briefs, failure to reply to emails, deleting registered users accounts without notification to mention just a few of the comments that come to mind.
You do a good job of defending them. I understand your role representing GAs interests and appreciate you may walk a tight rope.
However the fact remains that:
1. Any criticism of the AIS web site is "blamed" on Thales the commercial provider. I sense the knee jerk reaction to be - we cant do anything about it, blame Thales. However if Thales are providing such a poor service why is it their contract hasn’t been reviewed. How long do the users have to put up with - we cant do anything about that, it is down to Thales. In short will Thales be “blamed” for ever or can we look forward to the day when there is no need for a scape goat?
2. Some useful comments have come forward. On this thread alone the suggestion was notifying users if their account is terminated. This does not seem unreasonable, nor would it seem to be rocket science to achieve. Yet my perception (perhaps wrongly) is the AIS sees no reason no adopt this suggestion in future. That seems to me rather arrogant and dismissive of the “customer”. Incidentally I assume such notifications could be sent without having to rely on the Thales system to do so.
3. As Drauk has shown it would seem readily possible to produce a third party product that is infinitely superior to that achieved by the AIS at presumably very small cost. I appreciate the AIS has to meet their ICAO commitments and operate under the constraint of their contract with the CAA but is neither party interested in offering a service that does not have all the hallmarks of the most clumsy user interface of just about any web site I can think of?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Deducing from your posts how the software actually works (based on decades of experience of reverse engineering crap software) I manged to re-register myself. And I had an email from AIS today as well, so I'm sorted now thanks.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Useful points have indeed come forward.
The points re cookies for login and also the irritation of not being able to just hit return after entering your password but instead having to click on or tab to the tick mark have been raised with AIS in the past and have been on the list of things to do for a long time.
Gertie's original point was that his login didn't work and he hadn't received a reply to his email. He hasn't said as much but it looks as though we now know what happened. The automatic deletion of inactive accounts is a relatively recent change on the system. AIS are aware of the points raised.
However in the overall scheme of things these are minor irritations at worst, sorting out the recent intermittent non-availability of the site has had a much higher priority.
There are two separate systems in use here. The main database management system (AIS Dynamic Information Management Sytem or ADIMS), and the Web application (Aeronautical e-services or AES). Both of them are products of Thales IS. AIS does not own the source code to these products. AIS are a bunch of Air Traffickers, they do not employ any IT professionals. They therefore have to pay external people to do IT related tasks. They receive no funding from GA (apart from those who pay en-route charges).
AIS are happy with the performance of ADIMS but are not happy with AES. The plan is therefore to replace AES. The new product will be required to integrate with the back-end Oracle database within ADIMS. Quite how easy this will be remains to be seen. It seems to me that there are a couple of options:-
1. Tight integration, where the Web interface runs real-time queries on the core database.
2. A looser standalone application, using the approach taken by drauk, which will maintain its own database, updated from the core database, and run the queries on that.
If you have suggestions for improvement, please send them to AIS for consideration.
Forgive me, but is what we are talking about here akin to a re-arrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic? I have a few more pressing issues that I would like to see attended to, like:-
How come one executive agency of the DfT can sort out the Vehicle Testing Stations but another comes up with the Star Annual as the way of dealing with aircraft with C of R's that have been issued when they should not have, and then comes up with the latest proposals for continuing airworthiness?
Why can you learn to fly from an unlicensed field in an aircraft not maintained to PT standards with a remunerated instructor who does not hold a commercial license if the aircraft in question is an Ikarus C42 but if you want to do it in a C152 you can't?
Why is a CPL and Class 1 medical required if money changes hands for instruction but not otherwise?
Why is GA being forced down the road of Mode S when the only beneficiary is the commercial airlines wanting to build a safety case for CAT in uncontrolled airspace?
Why are Permit aircraft considered more likely to plummet if flown over a built-up area or at night or under IFR than those with a C of A?
Why are the Forums full of people saying "The CAA should do something" when everything they do restricts and complicates us more and costs us money?
The list of threats to GA is a long one. The failure of someone to respond to an e-mail and the irritation involved in having to fill in your logon details aren't terrifically high on my version of it I'm afraid.
Mike
The points re cookies for login and also the irritation of not being able to just hit return after entering your password but instead having to click on or tab to the tick mark have been raised with AIS in the past and have been on the list of things to do for a long time.
Gertie's original point was that his login didn't work and he hadn't received a reply to his email. He hasn't said as much but it looks as though we now know what happened. The automatic deletion of inactive accounts is a relatively recent change on the system. AIS are aware of the points raised.
However in the overall scheme of things these are minor irritations at worst, sorting out the recent intermittent non-availability of the site has had a much higher priority.
There are two separate systems in use here. The main database management system (AIS Dynamic Information Management Sytem or ADIMS), and the Web application (Aeronautical e-services or AES). Both of them are products of Thales IS. AIS does not own the source code to these products. AIS are a bunch of Air Traffickers, they do not employ any IT professionals. They therefore have to pay external people to do IT related tasks. They receive no funding from GA (apart from those who pay en-route charges).
AIS are happy with the performance of ADIMS but are not happy with AES. The plan is therefore to replace AES. The new product will be required to integrate with the back-end Oracle database within ADIMS. Quite how easy this will be remains to be seen. It seems to me that there are a couple of options:-
1. Tight integration, where the Web interface runs real-time queries on the core database.
2. A looser standalone application, using the approach taken by drauk, which will maintain its own database, updated from the core database, and run the queries on that.
If you have suggestions for improvement, please send them to AIS for consideration.
Forgive me, but is what we are talking about here akin to a re-arrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic? I have a few more pressing issues that I would like to see attended to, like:-
How come one executive agency of the DfT can sort out the Vehicle Testing Stations but another comes up with the Star Annual as the way of dealing with aircraft with C of R's that have been issued when they should not have, and then comes up with the latest proposals for continuing airworthiness?
Why can you learn to fly from an unlicensed field in an aircraft not maintained to PT standards with a remunerated instructor who does not hold a commercial license if the aircraft in question is an Ikarus C42 but if you want to do it in a C152 you can't?
Why is a CPL and Class 1 medical required if money changes hands for instruction but not otherwise?
Why is GA being forced down the road of Mode S when the only beneficiary is the commercial airlines wanting to build a safety case for CAT in uncontrolled airspace?
Why are Permit aircraft considered more likely to plummet if flown over a built-up area or at night or under IFR than those with a C of A?
Why are the Forums full of people saying "The CAA should do something" when everything they do restricts and complicates us more and costs us money?
The list of threats to GA is a long one. The failure of someone to respond to an e-mail and the irritation involved in having to fill in your logon details aren't terrifically high on my version of it I'm afraid.
Mike
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add an auto-login using cookies would not take much work and would save many people a lot of irritation on a daily basis.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Cross
Forgive me, but is what we are talking about here akin to a re-arrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic? I have a few more pressing issues that I would like to see attended to, like...
[list chopped]
Mike
[list chopped]
Mike
There are plenty of discussions about some on your list, anyway. Mode S makes a regular appearance on here (and elsewhere) for starters
As for Thales "getting the blame" for everything, I don't think that's the case in reality.
AIS bought something and implemented it in August 2002 (from our point of view) and it has never been up to the job. Ever.
Some aspects are better than the old briefing sheets (A1/A8); things like narrow route briefs etc. But some things are considerably worse.
Reliability never seemed to be an issue before. User unfriendliness of the system was never an issue before. Interoperability across platforms (browser etc) was never an issue before. Whole summers of unavailability were never an issue before. Logging in was never an issue before.
The "fixes" that Thales have implemented are crap. Look at the state of the pages now they've recoded it to work on browsers other than IE5! The boxes don't line up, the text looks like some loony with a crayon wrote it, the drop down menus obliterate stuff.
Technically it is Thales design and implementation that is diabolical, but the buck has to stop with the people who paid for it and presumably still pay maintenance for it.
When you can see (within nano-seconds) the sort of output that could be delivered it only highlights the failings of the present system.
Whilst I appreciate that AIS are listening, I'll wager they couldn't buy a "drauk" solution because their procurement monkeys don't have him on their list.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
A lot of your points are very valid (probably all of them) but most of them (particularly the Class 1 med for instruction) are deeply embedded job creation / revenue protection schemes which cannot be tackled without first dismantling their respective beneficiaries and axe grinders (the CAA and the flight training industry).
Think how much a flying school at a licensed airport, with a bunch of ATPL hour building instructors working there at a very handy £10/day retainer, would welcome another school setting up at a small nearby unlicensed airfield, with much more experienced PPL-level instructors working on Class 2 medicals, etc etc.
A lot of your points are very valid (probably all of them) but most of them (particularly the Class 1 med for instruction) are deeply embedded job creation / revenue protection schemes which cannot be tackled without first dismantling their respective beneficiaries and axe grinders (the CAA and the flight training industry).
Think how much a flying school at a licensed airport, with a bunch of ATPL hour building instructors working there at a very handy £10/day retainer, would welcome another school setting up at a small nearby unlicensed airfield, with much more experienced PPL-level instructors working on Class 2 medicals, etc etc.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd sooner think of the poor old hour buiilder. At the moment he gets his FATPL and then goes into instruction, where his IR and twin ratings lapse while building up his hours.
Wouldn't it be better if he entered his ATPL course AFTER he'd got the experience under his belt and came out with fresh ratings and ready for interview?
Can't the schools see the benefit of reducing their cost base?
Mike
Wouldn't it be better if he entered his ATPL course AFTER he'd got the experience under his belt and came out with fresh ratings and ready for interview?
Can't the schools see the benefit of reducing their cost base?
Mike
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIUI, most hour builders put in a concerted block of effort - over a year or so - into getting through the exams and the flight training for the MEIR (probably in a Seneca or similar).
Then they need to find a way to build whatever hundreds of hours in their logbook, while thumbing through airline job adverts.
I am not sure how many would do it the other way around because one could spend years building the hours, earning little money, and then fail the MEIR flight training or the Class 1 medical.
They would also have little flight experience, because IMHO those private pilots that do a lot of flying are those not aiming for airline jobs. The starting pay of a first officer can be £25k p.a. or even lower and anybody who thinks that is interesting isn't likely to have the budget to acquire much GA flying experience.
Whereas under the present system the school gets somebody who has perhaps 150hrs in his logbook. The vast majority of PPLs never reach 100hrs, ever.
Then they need to find a way to build whatever hundreds of hours in their logbook, while thumbing through airline job adverts.
I am not sure how many would do it the other way around because one could spend years building the hours, earning little money, and then fail the MEIR flight training or the Class 1 medical.
They would also have little flight experience, because IMHO those private pilots that do a lot of flying are those not aiming for airline jobs. The starting pay of a first officer can be £25k p.a. or even lower and anybody who thinks that is interesting isn't likely to have the budget to acquire much GA flying experience.
Whereas under the present system the school gets somebody who has perhaps 150hrs in his logbook. The vast majority of PPLs never reach 100hrs, ever.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect I didn't explain the suggestion properly.
A simple amendment to the ANO stating that "a flight for the purpose of instruction in flying for the grant or renewal of a PPL or a rating thereon is a Private Flight" would allow schools to pay PPL/FI's.
The aspiring ATPL could then be paid a pittance while building his hours, as now. He would still need 200 Hrs before doing the FI rating as now, the minimum qualification to instruct would continue to be a PPL/FI as now.
If there is a worry about whether or not he should embark on a career as a commercial pilot then this would be a far cheaper option than doing the MEIR just to see if he can pass.
If he embarks on the MEIR and ATPL with 700 to 1000 Hrs under his belt rather than 200 he'll find it easier and get more out of it, and he'll be paying interest on his loans for far less time.
A friend borrowed a load of dosh to do his FATPL and FI. He knew he needed around 750 Hrs to get an airline interview so he got a job as an instructor with a good school. During that time his MEIR lapsed (more cost) and the requirement went up from 750 to 1000 Hrs. Now he has to borrow more money to get a Type Rating. I dread to think of the interest he's paid since the original loan was taken out.
Mike
A simple amendment to the ANO stating that "a flight for the purpose of instruction in flying for the grant or renewal of a PPL or a rating thereon is a Private Flight" would allow schools to pay PPL/FI's.
The aspiring ATPL could then be paid a pittance while building his hours, as now. He would still need 200 Hrs before doing the FI rating as now, the minimum qualification to instruct would continue to be a PPL/FI as now.
If there is a worry about whether or not he should embark on a career as a commercial pilot then this would be a far cheaper option than doing the MEIR just to see if he can pass.
If he embarks on the MEIR and ATPL with 700 to 1000 Hrs under his belt rather than 200 he'll find it easier and get more out of it, and he'll be paying interest on his loans for far less time.
A friend borrowed a load of dosh to do his FATPL and FI. He knew he needed around 750 Hrs to get an airline interview so he got a job as an instructor with a good school. During that time his MEIR lapsed (more cost) and the requirement went up from 750 to 1000 Hrs. Now he has to borrow more money to get a Type Rating. I dread to think of the interest he's paid since the original loan was taken out.
Mike
Use the French site its much easier and no log in:
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/default_uk.htm
You can also re-register on the NATS site using any old garbage it accepts it OK! Thus proving what a load of twaddle the requirement to register is!
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/default_uk.htm
You can also re-register on the NATS site using any old garbage it accepts it OK! Thus proving what a load of twaddle the requirement to register is!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thus proving what a load of twaddle the requirement to register is!
That's true from the access control perspective but if you needed to prove you got a briefing for a flight 3 months previously then presumably you would supply the bogus ID under which you logged in, so they could retrieve the briefing.
Personally I use a bogus ID too but it's moot since they are bound to be logging the IP and the user is thus always traceable (short of doing it from a cafe). As with all postings on pprune
That's true from the access control perspective but if you needed to prove you got a briefing for a flight 3 months previously then presumably you would supply the bogus ID under which you logged in, so they could retrieve the briefing.
Personally I use a bogus ID too but it's moot since they are bound to be logging the IP and the user is thus always traceable (short of doing it from a cafe). As with all postings on pprune
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or from a workplace, college, or school with a shared outbound HTTP proxy. Or a home DSL service that uses dynamic IP allocation. Or a dial-up modem pool. The IP number I am currently using is shared by about five thousand people.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or a dial-up modem pool. The IP number I am currently using is shared by about five thousand people.
Apologies for getting really off topic but every ISP maintains a log of which dialup user had which IP and when. This is why being on a dynamic IP gives you no protection; a court order served on the ISP will reveal all. That's why e.g. Freeserve would block any operations (other than email reading) done via dial-up accounts if the dialler's CLI was disabled. However, there probably are dial-up ISPs who don't log the CLI.
It's possible to be accessing via a proxy which doesn't keep logs, sure. Or via an anonymising proxy website in Russia (plenty of them about, for a subscription) which will probably stick a finger up to any query. But proper ISPs do keep logs.
Apologies for getting really off topic but every ISP maintains a log of which dialup user had which IP and when. This is why being on a dynamic IP gives you no protection; a court order served on the ISP will reveal all. That's why e.g. Freeserve would block any operations (other than email reading) done via dial-up accounts if the dialler's CLI was disabled. However, there probably are dial-up ISPs who don't log the CLI.
It's possible to be accessing via a proxy which doesn't keep logs, sure. Or via an anonymising proxy website in Russia (plenty of them about, for a subscription) which will probably stick a finger up to any query. But proper ISPs do keep logs.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or a dial-up modem pool. The IP number I am currently using is shared by about five thousand people.
Apologies for getting really off topic [...]
It's possible to be accessing via a proxy which doesn't keep logs, sure. Or via an anonymising proxy website in Russia (plenty of them about, for a subscription) which will probably stick a finger up to any query. But proper ISPs do keep logs.
Apologies for getting really off topic [...]
It's possible to be accessing via a proxy which doesn't keep logs, sure. Or via an anonymising proxy website in Russia (plenty of them about, for a subscription) which will probably stick a finger up to any query. But proper ISPs do keep logs.
My point is not to get into a completely off-topic technical argument, but merely to point out that an on-line service which is set up on the basis that it will necessarily be able to identify individual human users by their IP numbers is likely to get into trouble eventually.
