NOTAM site 'upgrade'
Let's face it - NATS is going to take zero notice of e-mails from concerned citizens and even less notice of posts on Pprune and On Track (No offence Danny). It is now a profit-making organisation and doesn't give a toss what you or I think of the service it provides. After all, it doesn't make any money from us, does it?
However, it is regulated by the CAA which, in turn, runs a very good scheme to allow people to report safety related shortcomings in the system - MORs. If the CAA receives an equivalent number of MORs, it must react. Those MORs will show up in the annual stats, as would a lack of action on the part of SRG and those stats are, by law, in the public domain.
A copy of the MOR form (CA1673) is included in CAP 382, which is available in .pdf format from the SRG website HERE. You will need to print out pages 24 and 25 of the full document to obtain the complete form.
If SRG is deluged in MOR reports (which anyone can submit) they will have to take some action. I have already submitted one, what about the rest of you?
However, it is regulated by the CAA which, in turn, runs a very good scheme to allow people to report safety related shortcomings in the system - MORs. If the CAA receives an equivalent number of MORs, it must react. Those MORs will show up in the annual stats, as would a lack of action on the part of SRG and those stats are, by law, in the public domain.
A copy of the MOR form (CA1673) is included in CAP 382, which is available in .pdf format from the SRG website HERE. You will need to print out pages 24 and 25 of the full document to obtain the complete form.
If SRG is deluged in MOR reports (which anyone can submit) they will have to take some action. I have already submitted one, what about the rest of you?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB,
Excellent advice.
I have as well (26/8/02).
Don't forget when you FAX it to them on 01293 573 972 to mark the address as Attention: SDD (Safety Data Department)
Also, you do not need the form, a letter will do
Excellent advice.
I have as well (26/8/02).
Don't forget when you FAX it to them on 01293 573 972 to mark the address as Attention: SDD (Safety Data Department)
Also, you do not need the form, a letter will do
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA accepts that change can be very difficult but we are re-assured to know that AIS is taking all constructive comments seriously. In time we hope the system will once again become user friendly.
If you have any constructive comments or suggestion to make on the new AIS Service please email them to [email protected] We will ask AIS to consider all reasonable suggestions when we talk to them next.
AOPA is watching the development of this issue with interest and will apply more pressure in future if changes to the system are not forthcoming.
If you have any constructive comments or suggestion to make on the new AIS Service please email them to [email protected] We will ask AIS to consider all reasonable suggestions when we talk to them next.
AOPA is watching the development of this issue with interest and will apply more pressure in future if changes to the system are not forthcoming.
QDM
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree. Compare the attitude of AOPA UK and the CAA (who so far seem to have been silent on this issue) with these quotes from the AOPA US website about TRAs (Temporary Restricted Areas) and US NOTAMS:
------------
Aug. 28 — The FAA has acknowledged what many pilots already know; flight service station briefers don't always tell them about temporary flight restriction areas (TFRs). Now the agency vows it will fix the problem.
In a letter to AOPA President Phil Boyer, Acting FAA Administrator Monte Belger said the FAA is implementing a "TFR Action Plan" to improve the flow of TFR information to general aviation pilots.
FAA is responding to AOPA's demand for action to improve the notam system to provide pilots with timely, accurate, and understandable information, particularly concerning TFRs.
"AOPA is encouraged by this strong response from Mr. Belger," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior vice president of Government and Technical Affairs. "Ongoing security-related airspace restrictions and inadvertent incursions are some of the most pressing problems facing general aviation. It is critical that FSS personnel and pilots have the most current information."
......
FAA has also committed to implementing graphical notams as soon as possible. It is currently testing a Jeppesen product that would plot TFRs on aeronautical charts. In mid-July, the FAA published several security TFR maps on its Web site. FAA also installed a "hot-link" capability from DUAT to the FAA Web site.
According to Belger, the FAA has also sent a notice to FSSs, holding them accountable for providing the information while conducting pilot weather briefings. FAA will place special emphasis on TFR dissemination in all future evaluations of the system.
-------------
'TFR Action Plan', 'Graphical NOTAMs', 'AOPAs demand(!)' ..... it's a different world. I wonder if the UK powers-that-be ever look at this stuff....they certainly don't seem to speak this language
I'm particularly struck by the talk in the last para about 'accountability', especially when compared with the pathetic disclaimer on the NATS website. It seems no-one in the UK wants to stand up and take responsibility for this mess. I'm sure if there is an accident the CAA and NATS will be queuing up to blame the pilot....
------------
Aug. 28 — The FAA has acknowledged what many pilots already know; flight service station briefers don't always tell them about temporary flight restriction areas (TFRs). Now the agency vows it will fix the problem.
In a letter to AOPA President Phil Boyer, Acting FAA Administrator Monte Belger said the FAA is implementing a "TFR Action Plan" to improve the flow of TFR information to general aviation pilots.
FAA is responding to AOPA's demand for action to improve the notam system to provide pilots with timely, accurate, and understandable information, particularly concerning TFRs.
"AOPA is encouraged by this strong response from Mr. Belger," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior vice president of Government and Technical Affairs. "Ongoing security-related airspace restrictions and inadvertent incursions are some of the most pressing problems facing general aviation. It is critical that FSS personnel and pilots have the most current information."
......
FAA has also committed to implementing graphical notams as soon as possible. It is currently testing a Jeppesen product that would plot TFRs on aeronautical charts. In mid-July, the FAA published several security TFR maps on its Web site. FAA also installed a "hot-link" capability from DUAT to the FAA Web site.
According to Belger, the FAA has also sent a notice to FSSs, holding them accountable for providing the information while conducting pilot weather briefings. FAA will place special emphasis on TFR dissemination in all future evaluations of the system.
-------------
'TFR Action Plan', 'Graphical NOTAMs', 'AOPAs demand(!)' ..... it's a different world. I wonder if the UK powers-that-be ever look at this stuff....they certainly don't seem to speak this language
I'm particularly struck by the talk in the last para about 'accountability', especially when compared with the pathetic disclaimer on the NATS website. It seems no-one in the UK wants to stand up and take responsibility for this mess. I'm sure if there is an accident the CAA and NATS will be queuing up to blame the pilot....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am concerned about a GA pilot's liability as a result of these continuing problems with obtaining NOTAMs. The AIS login page carries the warning that:
"The information on this site is collated from a number of varied sources and is considered to be as reliable as possible at the time of publication. National Air Traffic Services Ltd and the UK Civil Aviation Authority, while exercising great care in the compilation of this information, will not be responsible for the accuracy of the contents of AIS publications, omissions therein, the adequacy or the receipt of this information"
So even if we can access NOTAM information (and it was unavailable for much of yesterday), we are officially unable to trust it. So from whom do we get accurate NOTAMs, if not from NATS - and where does legal responsibility lie in the case of an infringement occurring because of a NATS error?
Air safety!
"The information on this site is collated from a number of varied sources and is considered to be as reliable as possible at the time of publication. National Air Traffic Services Ltd and the UK Civil Aviation Authority, while exercising great care in the compilation of this information, will not be responsible for the accuracy of the contents of AIS publications, omissions therein, the adequacy or the receipt of this information"
So even if we can access NOTAM information (and it was unavailable for much of yesterday), we are officially unable to trust it. So from whom do we get accurate NOTAMs, if not from NATS - and where does legal responsibility lie in the case of an infringement occurring because of a NATS error?
Air safety!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick, its working!!!
However, my 'narrow route' flight from EGWU to EGNT came up with the attached.
COM : FROM 02/08/29 00:01 TO 02/10/31 23:59 L1584/02
E)THE MODE 3/A SSR CODE 7010 WILL BE USED FOR THE AIRBORNE TRIALS OF
A PROTOTYPE LIGHT AVIATION SSR TRANSPONDER. THE TRAILS WILL BE
CONDUCTED FROM MOD BOSCOMBE DOWN. ACTIVITY WILL TAKE PLACE IN A BLOCK
OF AIRSPACE TO A MAX OF 50NM WEST AND SOUTHWEST OF MOD BOSCOMBE DOWN
BTN 1500FT AGL AND FL50. THE CODE WILL REMAIN UNVALIDATED AND
UNVERIFIED BUT THE ACFT WILL BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF MOD BOSCOMBE
DOWN ATC
Relevance?
However, my 'narrow route' flight from EGWU to EGNT came up with the attached.
COM : FROM 02/08/29 00:01 TO 02/10/31 23:59 L1584/02
E)THE MODE 3/A SSR CODE 7010 WILL BE USED FOR THE AIRBORNE TRIALS OF
A PROTOTYPE LIGHT AVIATION SSR TRANSPONDER. THE TRAILS WILL BE
CONDUCTED FROM MOD BOSCOMBE DOWN. ACTIVITY WILL TAKE PLACE IN A BLOCK
OF AIRSPACE TO A MAX OF 50NM WEST AND SOUTHWEST OF MOD BOSCOMBE DOWN
BTN 1500FT AGL AND FL50. THE CODE WILL REMAIN UNVALIDATED AND
UNVERIFIED BUT THE ACFT WILL BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF MOD BOSCOMBE
DOWN ATC
Relevance?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure if there is an accident the CAA and NATS will be queuing up to blame the pilot....
These people -- NATS and the CAA -- must be morons to have allowed such an absurd situation to develop.
QDM
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QQQ. Whilst I do not support NATS' position in this matter I find your coments to be rather flippant. A couple of points:
a. The CAA does not necessarily have an "extremely punitive attitude to airspace infringements", it looks at every single case (including the pilot's response) in isolation.
b. ATC is there for the good of all. To adopt a "lets not talk to them attitude" smacks of poor airmanship.
a. The CAA does not necessarily have an "extremely punitive attitude to airspace infringements", it looks at every single case (including the pilot's response) in isolation.
b. ATC is there for the good of all. To adopt a "lets not talk to them attitude" smacks of poor airmanship.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. The CAA does not necessarily have an "extremely punitive attitude to airspace infringements", it looks at every single case (including the pilot's response) in isolation.
To adopt a "lets not talk to them attitude" smacks of poor airmanship.
If these bureaucrats actually cared about flight safety and had an ounce of sense, they would do their best to include people like me, not give me plenty of reasons to exclude myself.
QDM
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QQQ, in the last 2 years I have personally been involved in 17 formal investigations regarding significant unauthorised/inadvertant penetration of Class A CAS. This has involved lengthy radio tape transcripts, impounding of radar tapes, statements from all concerned and thorough investigation. Only once was an individual subject to "punitive" treatment (£2000 fine) as, despite all this evidence, he swore blind that he had not penetrated CAS. In every other circumstance, the Authority and the individuals concerned agreed about the cause of the error and identified apprpriate lessons.
Believe me - I have not been dreaming.
Believe me - I have not been dreaming.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe me - I have not been dreaming.
But look, this absurdity with the NOTAMs is extremely annoying and there is no way I am going to put myself at risk if the information I am given is incomplete, inaccurate and difficult to access.
QDM
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QQQ/WBS
I've not been involved with that many cases (only two in the last ten years, neither of them because I was the bad boy, I'm happy to say).
In both cases, the "offender" was given a stern ticking off, and that was it. In one case, it must have cost the CAA quite a bit, cos one of their inspectors came to my office to interview me about what I'd seen (a chap doing aerobatics inside controlled airspace, without talking to ATC).
General
So I check the NOTAM site, find nothing about Red Barrows or PJE on my route, and fly. I get an MOR filed against me for infringing one, or both.
I go to court, show that I'd consulted the NOTAM site (with my printout to prove it) and argue that I took all reasonable care - what else could I have done?
Although the NATS site has the weasel-words, what OTHER source of information could I have used to avoid infringing?
I think "reasonable care and due diligence" would stand me in reasonable stead with a reasonable judge.
What else COULD the CAA argue we should do, other than not fly at all - and we have licences and a legal right to do that, don't we?
Or don't we have a "right" to fly?
I've not been involved with that many cases (only two in the last ten years, neither of them because I was the bad boy, I'm happy to say).
In both cases, the "offender" was given a stern ticking off, and that was it. In one case, it must have cost the CAA quite a bit, cos one of their inspectors came to my office to interview me about what I'd seen (a chap doing aerobatics inside controlled airspace, without talking to ATC).
General
So I check the NOTAM site, find nothing about Red Barrows or PJE on my route, and fly. I get an MOR filed against me for infringing one, or both.
I go to court, show that I'd consulted the NOTAM site (with my printout to prove it) and argue that I took all reasonable care - what else could I have done?
Although the NATS site has the weasel-words, what OTHER source of information could I have used to avoid infringing?
I think "reasonable care and due diligence" would stand me in reasonable stead with a reasonable judge.
What else COULD the CAA argue we should do, other than not fly at all - and we have licences and a legal right to do that, don't we?
Or don't we have a "right" to fly?
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Keef has it right (God bless you, Father!) regarding the legal risks that we should calculate, and that aspect won't stop me flying (there's not miuch that would, other than bad wx!).
However, what I am concerned about is that we may unwittingly run safety risks, as opposed to legal risks due to, say, lack of availability of NOTAM info when the site is down, and/or omission of some information in the NOTAM briefing for whatever reason, such as blundering into an Air Display or PJE that might have been avoided.
However, what I am concerned about is that we may unwittingly run safety risks, as opposed to legal risks due to, say, lack of availability of NOTAM info when the site is down, and/or omission of some information in the NOTAM briefing for whatever reason, such as blundering into an Air Display or PJE that might have been avoided.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If someone has to die to get NATS to listen it is a very sad state of affairs. They are obviously not going to respond to us. Keep putting in the complaints to the CAA and the press and hope we get to them before the inevitable happens to some poor sod that did his best but was denied vital safety info by the body required to provide it.
Rod
Rod
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we're talking. I fully agree that the new NOTAM site, as it stands, is a potential flight safety hazard. However, as a GA pilot, I feel we must ensure that we are seen to have made best effort to fully acquaint ourselves with extant regulations and NOTAMs. Subsequently, any failing can then attributed to where the blame actually lies. In an earlier post, I stated that I feared the complexity of the site may well encourage a tendancy to ignore good practice. Lets be professional and show NATS that they are not dealing with a two-bit, disorganised rabble.
PS. QQQ - I hope I did not offend.
PS. QQQ - I hope I did not offend.