NOTAM - Please Help
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTAM - Please Help
May I ask for your assistance please?
We are very close to being able to close off the NOTAM issues but we need feedback from you. In particular on the new VFR briefs, the backup arrangements, and the Fax download.
Four new VFR briefs are now available from www.ais.org.uk you will find them listed on the NOTAM drop-down menu. They are intended to replace the old A1/A8 bulletins for display at aerodromes.
Two issues have been raised with us:-
1. The FIR briefs are not sorted in the manner we requested. We asked for a South-North sort of localised NOTAM (as per the old A8 bulletin), with FIR-wide NOTAM in another section. What we have been given is a sort of the localised NOTAM, first by type (there are 5 types) and THEN geographically, North-South rather than South-North.
2. Glider pilots have indicated that the period of validity of the brief is too short. I checked this morning and got a validity period of six and a half hours. Some glider flights last longer than this, and equally a pilot operating away from base may find this too short.
Are you happy with these or should we ask for modifications? My personal preference would be for the sort to be geographic (South-North) and then by type and for the validity period to be 12 hours. You may have a better idea.
Secondly, we now have VFR/IFR briefs available at http://www.nats.co.uk/operational/pibs/index.shtml as backup in the event of the AIS server being inaccessible. Any comments on these?
Thirdly fax download is available on the following numbers:-
VFR BRIEF ON LONDON FIR DIAL 020 8557 0064
VFR BRIEF ON SCOTTISH FIR DIAL 020 8557 0065
VFR BRIEF ON LONDON AERODROMES DIAL 020 8557 0051
VFR BRIEF ON SCOTTISH AERODROMES DIAL 020 8557 0052
The procedure is to use the polling facility on your fax machine or else to dial manually and press the START button on your fax machine when answered. I have had problems using a Panafax UF315 but am not aware of anyone else having any problem. Feedback would be appreciated if you could try it out. Currently the system can only handle one call at a time on each of the numbers so you may get engaged tone if it is already in use.
Work continues on improving usability and browser compatibility.
Please give us your feedback. Recent reports of a failure to read NOTAM costing a pilot UKL 600 in fines and costs for infringing TRA highlight the need to get it right.
Thanks in advance for your response
Mike Cross
We are very close to being able to close off the NOTAM issues but we need feedback from you. In particular on the new VFR briefs, the backup arrangements, and the Fax download.
Four new VFR briefs are now available from www.ais.org.uk you will find them listed on the NOTAM drop-down menu. They are intended to replace the old A1/A8 bulletins for display at aerodromes.
Two issues have been raised with us:-
1. The FIR briefs are not sorted in the manner we requested. We asked for a South-North sort of localised NOTAM (as per the old A8 bulletin), with FIR-wide NOTAM in another section. What we have been given is a sort of the localised NOTAM, first by type (there are 5 types) and THEN geographically, North-South rather than South-North.
2. Glider pilots have indicated that the period of validity of the brief is too short. I checked this morning and got a validity period of six and a half hours. Some glider flights last longer than this, and equally a pilot operating away from base may find this too short.
Are you happy with these or should we ask for modifications? My personal preference would be for the sort to be geographic (South-North) and then by type and for the validity period to be 12 hours. You may have a better idea.
Secondly, we now have VFR/IFR briefs available at http://www.nats.co.uk/operational/pibs/index.shtml as backup in the event of the AIS server being inaccessible. Any comments on these?
Thirdly fax download is available on the following numbers:-
VFR BRIEF ON LONDON FIR DIAL 020 8557 0064
VFR BRIEF ON SCOTTISH FIR DIAL 020 8557 0065
VFR BRIEF ON LONDON AERODROMES DIAL 020 8557 0051
VFR BRIEF ON SCOTTISH AERODROMES DIAL 020 8557 0052
The procedure is to use the polling facility on your fax machine or else to dial manually and press the START button on your fax machine when answered. I have had problems using a Panafax UF315 but am not aware of anyone else having any problem. Feedback would be appreciated if you could try it out. Currently the system can only handle one call at a time on each of the numbers so you may get engaged tone if it is already in use.
Work continues on improving usability and browser compatibility.
Please give us your feedback. Recent reports of a failure to read NOTAM costing a pilot UKL 600 in fines and costs for infringing TRA highlight the need to get it right.
Thanks in advance for your response
Mike Cross
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fax polling works OK
Hi mrcross, I just tested the polling using a Panafax UF-770 to dial 020 8557 0064 (London FIR VFR brief) and it worked OK, albeit giving a very lengthy report - 14 pages - which took nearly 7 minutes to receive. My only complaint besides the one you have already mentioned (i.e. it would be better to have the thing sorted first by LAT/LONG then by type) is that the list is further sorted into two sections, the first "Specific FIR" (radius of influence 30NM or less) and "General FIR" (radius of influence greater than 30NM) - this is an arbitrary distinction and doesn't help and together with the above means the entire list has to be sifted through to be sure not to miss anything pertinent to one's planned route.
I think the one-click PIBs on the AIS website and the backup briefs on the NATS site are good.
Excellent work to all concerned!
Andy
I think the one-click PIBs on the AIS website and the backup briefs on the NATS site are good.
Excellent work to all concerned!
Andy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Andy
The reasoning behind this is:-
All NOTAM have a geographic centre and a radius of influence. The geographic centre of something affecting the whole of EGTT would be somewhere in the Midlands, with a radius big enough to cover the entire FIR. If it affects both FIR's it's geographic centre is even further north.
On Friday I flew Popham to Sandown and would have ignored something in the Midlands as being irrelevant to my intended flight, however it would have been relevant if it affected the whole FIR.
The cut-off of 30nm was chosen so that you should only need to search from 30nm north of your intended area of operation to 30nm south in order to find anything that might affect you.
You then need to check the second section to find anything affecting a wider area.
Hope this makes sense
Mike
The
the list is further sorted into two sections, the first "Specific FIR" (radius of influence 30NM or less) and "General FIR" (radius of influence greater than 30NM) - this is an arbitrary distinction and doesn't help and together with the above means the entire list has to be sifted through to be sure not to miss anything pertinent to one's planned route
All NOTAM have a geographic centre and a radius of influence. The geographic centre of something affecting the whole of EGTT would be somewhere in the Midlands, with a radius big enough to cover the entire FIR. If it affects both FIR's it's geographic centre is even further north.
On Friday I flew Popham to Sandown and would have ignored something in the Midlands as being irrelevant to my intended flight, however it would have been relevant if it affected the whole FIR.
The cut-off of 30nm was chosen so that you should only need to search from 30nm north of your intended area of operation to 30nm south in order to find anything that might affect you.
You then need to check the second section to find anything affecting a wider area.
Hope this makes sense
Mike
The
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
Mike's explaination makes perfect sense. I wonder how easy it would be to re-train the entire pilot population to know that they have to search for everything within 30 miles of their track in the first half, and the whole of the second half? Especially instructors, who will need to pass this on to the next generation...
I have had an opportunity to use the new format, and it's a huge improvement. Even with the sorting by type first (what are the 5 types, anyway? Some of them are obvious, some less so) it only took a few minutes to check the Notams, compared to around 1/2 hour previously.
FFF
--------------
I have had an opportunity to use the new format, and it's a huge improvement. Even with the sorting by type first (what are the 5 types, anyway? Some of them are obvious, some less so) it only took a few minutes to check the Notams, compared to around 1/2 hour previously.
FFF
--------------
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF - Here they are:-
AGA - Aerodromes, Air Routes & Ground Aids
COM - Communications
RAC - Roles of the Air and Air Traffic Services
NAVW - Navigation Warnings
OTH - Other
Useful page for understanding the acronyms and abbreviations is http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/gen/10202.PDF Takes a short time to download so don't give up.
The education issue is one that we, AIS, and the CAA recognise. You should see more information being put out through various media in the coming months. In the meantime if your airfield is one that doesn't put the FIR brief up, please ask them to. Today's EGTT brief runs 14 pages at the default settings on Internet Explorer, reduces to 12 if you use View/Text Size to reduce the font and will go even smaller if you reduce the margins.
Mike
AGA - Aerodromes, Air Routes & Ground Aids
COM - Communications
RAC - Roles of the Air and Air Traffic Services
NAVW - Navigation Warnings
OTH - Other
Useful page for understanding the acronyms and abbreviations is http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/gen/10202.PDF Takes a short time to download so don't give up.
The education issue is one that we, AIS, and the CAA recognise. You should see more information being put out through various media in the coming months. In the meantime if your airfield is one that doesn't put the FIR brief up, please ask them to. Today's EGTT brief runs 14 pages at the default settings on Internet Explorer, reduces to 12 if you use View/Text Size to reduce the font and will go even smaller if you reduce the margins.
Mike
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks fine to me. I think I agree with Mike on sorting sequence. Happy.
I just pulled up a narrow route briefing for EGMC to EGKB (IFR), max alt 4500 feet. I got what I assume is all the relevant stuff, but also a load that is very irrelevant, for example about upper airways routings - including Amsterdam to Shannon FIR limits.
I reckon the following are not relevant:
B0554/03
B0347/03
B0544/03
U2628/02
B0084/03
B0077/03 (not even sure what this is telling me)
L0817/03
B0591/03
Leaving those off would have reduced six pages to about two.
Still a heck of a lot better than before the "gang of three" began their efforts, though.
I just pulled up a narrow route briefing for EGMC to EGKB (IFR), max alt 4500 feet. I got what I assume is all the relevant stuff, but also a load that is very irrelevant, for example about upper airways routings - including Amsterdam to Shannon FIR limits.
I reckon the following are not relevant:
B0554/03
B0347/03
B0544/03
U2628/02
B0084/03
B0077/03 (not even sure what this is telling me)
L0817/03
B0591/03
Leaving those off would have reduced six pages to about two.
Still a heck of a lot better than before the "gang of three" began their efforts, though.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one point concerning......
I tend to plan my flights the evening before say at 8pm. I check NOTAMS and then leave final wx check + winds aloft until the next morning. It would be nice to have a bulletin that would cover the whole of the next day i.e. 24 hours as the 12 hours would only take me to 8am.
I notice the NATS operational covers 48 hours, the one I looked at this evening did at any rate.
Lastly, I agree that geographic then type filtering is the best way.
Cheers
Barney
P.S. I assume that I should not have to check the NOTAMS again directly before stepping in the cockpit if my flight is and was covered by the period of the NOTAM I initially looked at?
validity period to be 12 hours
I notice the NATS operational covers 48 hours, the one I looked at this evening did at any rate.
Lastly, I agree that geographic then type filtering is the best way.
Cheers
Barney
P.S. I assume that I should not have to check the NOTAMS again directly before stepping in the cockpit if my flight is and was covered by the period of the NOTAM I initially looked at?
Last edited by Barney_Gumble; 24th Apr 2003 at 20:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BG
Thanks for the input
How far in advance you make the check is something for which there is no hard & fast rule. These days as soon as disaster strikes an Emergency TRA is slapped on to keep the press helicopters at bay.
If there was say a rail crash at 23:00 with a TRA being imposed at 23:59 and you bimbled into it at 15:00 the next day "they" might wave the big stick. On the other hand a check the previous evening for a flight starting at 09:00 might well be considered reasonable.
One hopes that something of that ilk would in any case be broadcast on the FIS and by nearby ATC units at regular intervals.
NavAids do go out of service. There was a fatal accident where the AAIB found the pilot was relying on a VOR that was notammed as out of service and flew into high ground.
So I suppose the answer, as with the weather, is to work from the most up to date info that you can reasonably obtain.
Microsoft Word has a useful tool under Tools/Track Changes/Compare Documents which would allow you to quickly compare the brief you downloaded and checked last night with this morning's one and highlight the differences.
Mike
Thanks for the input
How far in advance you make the check is something for which there is no hard & fast rule. These days as soon as disaster strikes an Emergency TRA is slapped on to keep the press helicopters at bay.
If there was say a rail crash at 23:00 with a TRA being imposed at 23:59 and you bimbled into it at 15:00 the next day "they" might wave the big stick. On the other hand a check the previous evening for a flight starting at 09:00 might well be considered reasonable.
One hopes that something of that ilk would in any case be broadcast on the FIS and by nearby ATC units at regular intervals.
NavAids do go out of service. There was a fatal accident where the AAIB found the pilot was relying on a VOR that was notammed as out of service and flew into high ground.
So I suppose the answer, as with the weather, is to work from the most up to date info that you can reasonably obtain.
Microsoft Word has a useful tool under Tools/Track Changes/Compare Documents which would allow you to quickly compare the brief you downloaded and checked last night with this morning's one and highlight the differences.
Mike
I'd like a 24hr version as well.
I have a problem with the +/- 4000' setting for notam applicability on the route briefings.
My flights involve up to F100 down to S.L. Can't find a mechanism that lets me set a min & max. height band for notam selection/sorting.
I'd like a 24hr version as well.
I have a problem with the +/- 4000' setting for notam applicability on the route briefings.
My flights involve up to F100 down to S.L. Can't find a mechanism that lets me set a min & max. height band for notam selection/sorting.
Still find problems using Opera or other standards compliant browsers...
I have a problem with the +/- 4000' setting for notam applicability on the route briefings.
My flights involve up to F100 down to S.L. Can't find a mechanism that lets me set a min & max. height band for notam selection/sorting.
I'd like a 24hr version as well.
I have a problem with the +/- 4000' setting for notam applicability on the route briefings.
My flights involve up to F100 down to S.L. Can't find a mechanism that lets me set a min & max. height band for notam selection/sorting.
Still find problems using Opera or other standards compliant browsers...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Tinstaafl
You can find out how the 4000 ft filtering works here
Basically on a Narrow Route brief from departure a/d to first waypoint and from last waypoint to arrival a/d you get everything from surface to FL120. For the remainder of the route you get +/- 4000 ft from the entered FL.
If you can't get what you want by manipulating the waypoints you will need to use the Route Briefing, which enables you to set upper and lower FL's but will give you the entire FIR.
As mere pilots we are not allowed to see the raw data from which the briefings are derived. However if you go to the US Department of Defense NOTAM site and select Text Type "Raw" and put EGTT in as the ICAO identifier you will get the raw data, for example:-
B0172/03 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QAZCD/IV/NBO/E/000/020/5113N00136W005
A) EGTT
B) 0304190800
C) 0304271600
D) APR 19 20 AND 27 0800-1600
E) THRUXTON ATZ CLOSED DUE AD UNLICENCED
In the line starting Q) (the famous "Q Line") 000/020 is the effective height band as FL (sfc to 2000 ft)
Also locked in there is all sorts of information that would allow programs like NotamPlot and NotamPro to be really effective. You can find a Q Line decode here
We're still lobbying to get this info released. NATS/AIS have no objection it's the CAA who are delaying a decision.
Browser compatibility is a priority. As you will appreciate this is commercial third party software. Some of the site functionality is dependent on features that are supported by IE5 and Communicator 4.7 or later with JavaScript and Cookies but not by other browsers. It's therefore not possible to cut out the offending code without crippling the site. An independent survey of browser usage can be found here the figures indicate that around 95.5% of page accesses are made using browsers supported by the AIS site. AIS are exploring methods of improving this percentage.
24 Hrs seems to be the consensus for validity
Mike
You can find out how the 4000 ft filtering works here
Basically on a Narrow Route brief from departure a/d to first waypoint and from last waypoint to arrival a/d you get everything from surface to FL120. For the remainder of the route you get +/- 4000 ft from the entered FL.
If you can't get what you want by manipulating the waypoints you will need to use the Route Briefing, which enables you to set upper and lower FL's but will give you the entire FIR.
As mere pilots we are not allowed to see the raw data from which the briefings are derived. However if you go to the US Department of Defense NOTAM site and select Text Type "Raw" and put EGTT in as the ICAO identifier you will get the raw data, for example:-
B0172/03 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QAZCD/IV/NBO/E/000/020/5113N00136W005
A) EGTT
B) 0304190800
C) 0304271600
D) APR 19 20 AND 27 0800-1600
E) THRUXTON ATZ CLOSED DUE AD UNLICENCED
In the line starting Q) (the famous "Q Line") 000/020 is the effective height band as FL (sfc to 2000 ft)
Also locked in there is all sorts of information that would allow programs like NotamPlot and NotamPro to be really effective. You can find a Q Line decode here
We're still lobbying to get this info released. NATS/AIS have no objection it's the CAA who are delaying a decision.
Browser compatibility is a priority. As you will appreciate this is commercial third party software. Some of the site functionality is dependent on features that are supported by IE5 and Communicator 4.7 or later with JavaScript and Cookies but not by other browsers. It's therefore not possible to cut out the offending code without crippling the site. An independent survey of browser usage can be found here the figures indicate that around 95.5% of page accesses are made using browsers supported by the AIS site. AIS are exploring methods of improving this percentage.
24 Hrs seems to be the consensus for validity
Mike
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
The figures indicate that around 95.5% of page accesses are made using browsers supported by the AIS site
Having tried a non-compatible browser once or twice, I think it's logical to assume that a user would not try it again. On the other hand, having tried a compatible browser once, a user is far more likely to return many times, thus pushing this number up.
Far more useful would be the percentage of IP addresses which have only ever attempted to access the site using a compatible browser.
FFF
------------
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Worcester
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far more useful would be the percentage of IP addresses which have only ever attempted to access the site using a compatible browser.
With my limited knowledge, I don't think that would work. Your average member of Joe Public (e.g. me) gets assigned a different IP address everytime they log onto the internet. I could log on one day and use IE5 or 6.0 and log on the next day with Netscape Navigator or something else. I would be the same user with a different IP address in each session.
FWyg.
(edited for a few tarrible spilling mistooks)
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stats mentioned are internet-wide, not site specific... now can we all come down from our soap boxes, and stop shooting the piano players please!?
"...come down of our soapboxes...."? Why should we? It's only because people like mrcross, rustle et al. were vociferous that these problems were addressed at all at AIS.
Remember: WE pay an arm & a leg for their notam etc 'service'.
The point is that this is an operational necessesity. There shouldn't be built in restrictions of access caused by proprietary coding.
Opera - and many other browsers - is quite capable of using Java, Javascript etc etc. The argument about the site won't work doesn't wash - had it been written with open useability in mind ie standards compliant.
As we move to a greater & greater reliance on electronic access to data they will have no choice but to adhere to standards. Devices for accessing information are becoming more prevalent AND more varied. They're NOT all PCs with IE/NS.
Bear in mind that as the customer it's US that ultimately pay for this. AIS are there for US. Further down the line, AIS as the customer of Thales are the ones who get to call the tune with THEM.
Further, the govermental policy is towards online access of data. Even their current Microsoft-centric move to online data is now being criticised & reviewed due to the difficulty of ensuring full access to everyone. (Forget where I read that. BBC? Business review? It Something like that. It's been in several places anyway...)
I'm certainly not having a go at mrcross. His efforts have been exemplary. I'm very much grateful for what he & the others have done. I shudder to think of the mess we'd be in were it not for you gentlemen.
Rather, it's the sheer incompetence of the AIS implementation that gets my goat.
I've come to think that it would be money well spent for AIS to reneg on the Thales contract, using whatever get-out clauses might be available, and buy Australia's system in-toto. The Oz one isn't perfect either, but certainly shines all over Thales' offering.
Back to the useability...
1. I can now get the site to mostly work with Opera 7. The drop down menus now work ie now allow selection from them however remain in the foreground when a menu option is not selected. The menu doesn't disappear unless a menu item is selected.
Interestingly, using Opera 6.04 I can get to the notams page but only by cutting & pasting the URL derived from another source. You can't tell me that a working drop down list is a site critical difficult problem, a change to which will require recoding the whole shebang.
Maybe Thales programmers need to re-open their books about HTML/Java/Javascript/PHP or which ever mechanism they chose to implement the lists.
2. Instead of an arbitrary +/- 4000' buffer why isn't it able to be specified? Perhaps defaulting to +/- <something> but a different buffer able to be selected eg +/-5000'? Alternatively, limiting altitudes in the full brief page can be chosen so how about cutting & pasting that bit of code?
Most pilots on a route aren't too interested in the whole of the country/FIR so using the full brief isn't appropriate. Just the route + alternates, at the levels they'll fly. BTW, who decided on 4000' & based on what criteria? If a single buffer had to be chosen I'd have gone for +/- 5000': That allows notam access for the entire airspace that most unpressurised/non-O2 equipped a/c can use. Still prefer the ability to choose the buffer amount though...
3. There needs to be an ability to update a previous briefing. That is obtain only the changes since the full breif was obtained. The system requires us to input a briefing ID and, now sensibly add date/time data to the output. A mechanism that can combine/filter/compare this information would be very useful.
4. The various icons don't seem to have some form of 'tooltip' description that is meaningful. The sort of thing that pops up as a tooltip is
Address http://www.ais.co.uk/aes/controlbrie...VF_ITEMID=EDLW|2003-04-17 00:00:00.0|V
Similarly, there needs to be a handler routine that explains what's wrong when the form won't submit due to something not filled out correctly. The case I just had turned out that it didn't like the number '1' as my chosen briefing ID. Damned if I know why.
The form wouldn't accept a mouse click on the 'submit' button, but I could get a Javascript window pop up by right clicking & selecting 'open page'. If I mouse-over'ed the button & pressed enter it dropped me back into the form without any explanation of what's wrong.
Remember: WE pay an arm & a leg for their notam etc 'service'.
The point is that this is an operational necessesity. There shouldn't be built in restrictions of access caused by proprietary coding.
Opera - and many other browsers - is quite capable of using Java, Javascript etc etc. The argument about the site won't work doesn't wash - had it been written with open useability in mind ie standards compliant.
As we move to a greater & greater reliance on electronic access to data they will have no choice but to adhere to standards. Devices for accessing information are becoming more prevalent AND more varied. They're NOT all PCs with IE/NS.
Bear in mind that as the customer it's US that ultimately pay for this. AIS are there for US. Further down the line, AIS as the customer of Thales are the ones who get to call the tune with THEM.
Further, the govermental policy is towards online access of data. Even their current Microsoft-centric move to online data is now being criticised & reviewed due to the difficulty of ensuring full access to everyone. (Forget where I read that. BBC? Business review? It Something like that. It's been in several places anyway...)
I'm certainly not having a go at mrcross. His efforts have been exemplary. I'm very much grateful for what he & the others have done. I shudder to think of the mess we'd be in were it not for you gentlemen.
Rather, it's the sheer incompetence of the AIS implementation that gets my goat.
I've come to think that it would be money well spent for AIS to reneg on the Thales contract, using whatever get-out clauses might be available, and buy Australia's system in-toto. The Oz one isn't perfect either, but certainly shines all over Thales' offering.
Back to the useability...
1. I can now get the site to mostly work with Opera 7. The drop down menus now work ie now allow selection from them however remain in the foreground when a menu option is not selected. The menu doesn't disappear unless a menu item is selected.
Interestingly, using Opera 6.04 I can get to the notams page but only by cutting & pasting the URL derived from another source. You can't tell me that a working drop down list is a site critical difficult problem, a change to which will require recoding the whole shebang.
Maybe Thales programmers need to re-open their books about HTML/Java/Javascript/PHP or which ever mechanism they chose to implement the lists.
2. Instead of an arbitrary +/- 4000' buffer why isn't it able to be specified? Perhaps defaulting to +/- <something> but a different buffer able to be selected eg +/-5000'? Alternatively, limiting altitudes in the full brief page can be chosen so how about cutting & pasting that bit of code?
Most pilots on a route aren't too interested in the whole of the country/FIR so using the full brief isn't appropriate. Just the route + alternates, at the levels they'll fly. BTW, who decided on 4000' & based on what criteria? If a single buffer had to be chosen I'd have gone for +/- 5000': That allows notam access for the entire airspace that most unpressurised/non-O2 equipped a/c can use. Still prefer the ability to choose the buffer amount though...
3. There needs to be an ability to update a previous briefing. That is obtain only the changes since the full breif was obtained. The system requires us to input a briefing ID and, now sensibly add date/time data to the output. A mechanism that can combine/filter/compare this information would be very useful.
4. The various icons don't seem to have some form of 'tooltip' description that is meaningful. The sort of thing that pops up as a tooltip is
Address http://www.ais.co.uk/aes/controlbrie...VF_ITEMID=EDLW|2003-04-17 00:00:00.0|V
Similarly, there needs to be a handler routine that explains what's wrong when the form won't submit due to something not filled out correctly. The case I just had turned out that it didn't like the number '1' as my chosen briefing ID. Damned if I know why.
The form wouldn't accept a mouse click on the 'submit' button, but I could get a Javascript window pop up by right clicking & selecting 'open page'. If I mouse-over'ed the button & pressed enter it dropped me back into the form without any explanation of what's wrong.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 26th Apr 2003 at 06:26.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the whole, I agree that they should make their system more standards compatible and not reliant on proprietary MS desktop components. But we are where we are for now... and with the stats cited above there just isn't enough pressure to make this change quickly with what we might regard as relatively "unenlightened" software vendors!
You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to get Opera to work... is this because you don't want to download MS IE6 or because you are running or Linux or some other desktop? In which case, have you tried to use Mozilla? I'd assume it would have similar problems.
For sure MS are starting to lose their iron-clad grip on the desktop, recently citing Linux as their greatest threat (and not only on the desktop!) and so eventually the world will catch up with the more open and standards based approach. But the popularity of MS existing products means that there isn't enough pressure on vendors as yet to always support the more open alternatives.
I understand what has been said that a re-write of the web-UI to be totally cross-browser and standards compliant would be a major task: a suggestion would be to put up an a simple "text only" style web-UI with static rather than popup links to the key menu items. Would be pretty quick to add, surely: we're talking about what, twenty odd links and a small maintenance overhead?
Hope this helps!
Andy
You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to get Opera to work... is this because you don't want to download MS IE6 or because you are running or Linux or some other desktop? In which case, have you tried to use Mozilla? I'd assume it would have similar problems.
For sure MS are starting to lose their iron-clad grip on the desktop, recently citing Linux as their greatest threat (and not only on the desktop!) and so eventually the world will catch up with the more open and standards based approach. But the popularity of MS existing products means that there isn't enough pressure on vendors as yet to always support the more open alternatives.
I understand what has been said that a re-write of the web-UI to be totally cross-browser and standards compliant would be a major task: a suggestion would be to put up an a simple "text only" style web-UI with static rather than popup links to the key menu items. Would be pretty quick to add, surely: we're talking about what, twenty odd links and a small maintenance overhead?
Hope this helps!
Andy
Hi Andy
I run Win95, 98, XP & Linux, with Linux being my preferred OS.
Opera is great because of its much more enhanced security features and cross platform availability compared to IE.
I'm certainly with you about the 'widget-ness' of the current site. A text only version is a great idea!
I'd prefer that as a near-as-dammit guaranteed access by everyone. That would ensure the maximum access to all. Especially using static links to the relevent page.
Maybe next time they'll sort out the fundamentals before jumping on the 'gee whiz' wagon....
I run Win95, 98, XP & Linux, with Linux being my preferred OS.
Opera is great because of its much more enhanced security features and cross platform availability compared to IE.
I'm certainly with you about the 'widget-ness' of the current site. A text only version is a great idea!
I'd prefer that as a near-as-dammit guaranteed access by everyone. That would ensure the maximum access to all. Especially using static links to the relevent page.
Maybe next time they'll sort out the fundamentals before jumping on the 'gee whiz' wagon....
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick boffin note to ask you not to rely on stats regarding the browser type. As someone involved in running a fairly substantial site
we know all too well the problems of platform compatibility.
We absolutely support the calls for testing and functionality across all browsers. We do that constantly here at the Towers. Discerning users avoid the mainstream offerings just as soon as they try a decent browser.
It may also help you to challenge the propeller heads coding for you whether the browser they use actually reports what it really is
For many years browsers have had the ability to 'appear' as altogether different ones in such records. Thus treat all such data with a very large pinch of salt and look after the customers instead. Directly challenge the software suppliers with this information and enjoy the resultant shoe shuffling........
They majority of you enjoy the fruits of PC equipment compatibility and resulting low price versus performance. Make the sods continue the process to its only logical conclusion - code to enable similar choice in the browser they use. On a PC, Mac, set top TV, phone or PDA.
Code for choice across all platforms and not the commercial interests of corporate giants.
Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
we know all too well the problems of platform compatibility.We absolutely support the calls for testing and functionality across all browsers. We do that constantly here at the Towers. Discerning users avoid the mainstream offerings just as soon as they try a decent browser.
It may also help you to challenge the propeller heads coding for you whether the browser they use actually reports what it really is
For many years browsers have had the ability to 'appear' as altogether different ones in such records. Thus treat all such data with a very large pinch of salt and look after the customers instead. Directly challenge the software suppliers with this information and enjoy the resultant shoe shuffling........
They majority of you enjoy the fruits of PC equipment compatibility and resulting low price versus performance. Make the sods continue the process to its only logical conclusion - code to enable similar choice in the browser they use. On a PC, Mac, set top TV, phone or PDA.
Code for choice across all platforms and not the commercial interests of corporate giants.
Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd