Not sure Rustle - we didn't get into that detail.

I was more interested in getting them to look at the comments on flyontrack.co.uk and here to see what was being said and hopefully reply to it.

In the absence of anything else so far I thought it might help to share the reply I got !

We'll keep trying!!

Well, Ive seen it all! This post makes 60 on the subject of new NOTAM procedures. I only hope to God someone at NATS takes note of what THE CUSTOMERS are saying. Blue Robin made the point on the 23rd - Any PILOTS involved in this bag of of bones?
Also Rotor on the On Track website. Keef, you are too kind - It might be a good idea but hardly well thought out!

Whoever said it was almost certainly a result of having to cut costs, hit the nail on the head. I bet some Herbert at West Drayton or Heathrow or wherever, is really looking forward to his promotion on having saved NATS a couple of thousand quid.

I am not going to plow the same furrow - you've all made the point very eloquently, Not enough Beta testing, no parallel issue for a few weeks to get it right. I personally found the long reply from NATS mentioned here, and reproduced by one of the On Track guys extremely cavalier and insulting to our intelligence. It really was a case of "This is what you are getting - all the info is there if you look for it and filter out what you don't need. Take it or leave it."

So what do we do about it. Bravo AC-DC! Whack in MORs if you really think it's dangerous. Write those letters and e-mails.
Don't let it be yet another case of "apathy rules" . Believe me if you shout loud enough - they'll hear. Get on the On Track website, perhaps a little bit out of their remit, but I understand they do have the collective ears of some of the CAA bods in General Aviation.

Having got all that off my chest, I'm going to have a beer! Mutter, Mutter, Mutter.

Thanks BOF.

I know of one pilot who has already filed a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) to the CAA to say that Safety Standards have been reduced by the new NOTAM system, and I can only agree that this will gain immediate attention.

Apart from that, letting rip here and at www.flyontrack.co.uk reaches a surprisingly large audience!!

Whatever method you choose, just keep at it and the system will improve. The final version - once you've all had your desires met -should be worth striving for and be safer for everyone.

Remember the A1/A8 we used to get from AIS which enabled NotamPlot to work?

Then we learned they were not available anymore, "to save costs"?

Then Flap40 said they were available.

Quite correct.

They are, and I have today's. Produced by AIS! Complete with all LAT/LONG data.

So we now have a situation where NATS is deliberately not supplying us, the users, with data to enable us to flight plan safely, whilst continuing to peddle us their useless replacement.

I ask again:

Is AIS-site MOR-able?

FlyOnTrack, I will cross-post this to your site ;)

Rustle.

The pilot I spoke to said he was going to draw attention to his view of reduced safety standard through submitting a normal MOR to the CAA.

I'm not a CAA employee but I'm aware that MORs can be used by anyone concerned with aviation to highlight reduced safety or to put forward any safety related suggestion, and they are keen to hear any ideas from the cockpit.

The rather formal "Mandatory Occurrence Report" title tends to put people off using MOR unless they are forced to - but it shouldn't. (Most airlines use ASR "Air Safety Reports" equivalent to encourage free reporting)

If you want a reply to your MOR make sure you ask for one!

The following image is one page of the A8 Bulletin from Wednesday 28/8/2002.

Apparently they haven't been available since the 19/8/2002.

Hmmm. Any comments NATS? :confused:

http://www.artifaxsoftware.com/files/a8.jpg

As a matter of interest, how long does it take to register at the new site? I've been waiting for 3 days now for response.

WHC, you may not get a response ever.

Suggest you try your login again - mine suddenly started working, but I was never advised it had been activated.

I too am very concerned about this. I am actually concerned about conflicting with a NOTAM that I have missed because of the difficulties with this 'upgraded' site. As a professional pilot I would subsequently get my backside kicked by the CAA even though they have a disclaimer on the site pages to cover themselves.

There is a similar thread on 'Rotorheads'.

Everyone with a complaint - PLEASE email NATS and tell them about it.

If we don't all do this, it will become too late and we'll be stuck with it.

The contact link is on the NATS site. :(

Had my PPL skills test today, and trying to read NOTAMs during pre-flight was 'interesting'. Fortunately my examiner couldn't get the bastard system from hell to work either, so we agreed that we had done the best we could.... :rolleyes:

Evo7

So let me get this strait. You took your skill test, with an examiner, and neither of you could access any NOTAMS, so you said “we did our best” and went anyway!! I think the vast majority of PPL’s have probably given up as well.

The frustrating thing is that NATS are going to get away with it by simply ignoring us. Our only hope of getting the system changed is the aviation press, and that is a long shot.

Hope you passed by the way.

Rod

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. We could access them, but couldn't get any sort of route filtering to work and in the end we had to wade through 36 pages of randomly-ordered London-FIR NOTAMs in the pre-flight and just hope we didn't miss anything. I spent most of my flight-planning hour fighting that damn thing.. :mad: ... but I passed :)

I beat the examiner 2-1 on useful NOTAMs - we both spotted one about Portsmouth, but I also managed to find out that Farnborough was SSR-only yesterday (hidden on page 7 of a EGHR -> EGTB route after all sorts of crap about Welsh NDBs and North Sea oilrigs).

I wouldn't mind this damn system so much if it could at least put the useful ones first. If we must have a complete area briefing, why can they not do something like putting the NOTAMs in order of distance from a named aerodrome? Too simple, I guess....

Evo7,

They are sorted by "type", then alphabetically by ICAO :(
(Useful isn't it)

Old system:

Know Lat/Long area you are going to fly in, get relevant NOTAMs by Lat/Long (they were grouped by Lat/Long), modify route as necessary, fly.

New system:

Know area you want to fly in, wade through pages of irrelevant cr@p - missing things buried in the noise, hope and pray that the relevant stuff is actually included (often it isn't), fly.

NB: This assumes you can actually log-in, it doesn't crash 3 times, and your printer has a ready supply of rainforest.

One of the other undesirable side effects of this garbage is the additional "tension" when flying -- no longer do you have all the command information you require.

All-in-all a complete fiasco, and still nothing from NATS by way of apology for the "service", comments on when it's likely to get better, nothing.

And there was me thinking it was random... :)

There was a suggestion that Goodwood should hold a sweepstake to guess the number of people busting the NOTAMed TRA during the revival weekend :(

Has anyone had a satisfactory response as to why the old A1/A8 notams are still available on the MARS system but not available to us?
And why NATS claimed that A1/A8 didn't exist anymore?

Evo7,

The contents may be random, the sorting is by ICAO ;)


BBDO,

Negative on both counts.

I have asked and I know others have asked.

I think they are on auto-pilot and have gone to sleep :p

In a competitive environment someone would have had to say something by now.

Have a read of the comments on www.flyontrack.co.uk if you haven't done so already.

Having spoken to an Editor or two, the aviation press is on the case. Should see some results in the next few weeks.

There are some people even NATS cannot ignore.

It will be interesting to see the "spin" they use.

Rod

Very interesting. I emailed them yesterday at about 0930. Got a reply about 2 hours later. I simply asked them to read the link, register here and reply on this forum to sort of settle us all down a bit. Looks like an automated reply that i got back.........
Thankyou for your feedback. AIS has acknowledged receipt of the feedback.It
maybe the case that some have been missed and others duplicated. I attach a
user guide which has already gone out to some individuals.

Regards

AIS

Attached was a user guide(!) in Adobe format........ :rolleyes:

I shouldn't say this but i will... the words chocolate fireguard come to mind......

BRL,

There's a NATS Forum but I can't post in there to send the link to this thread...

Can you? Maybe someone reading in there can shed some light on this appalling mess.

Rustle, I can sort that out. :)

It would be a bit better if they had the bottle to come on-line and admit they got it wrong and its going to be sorted out soon but they havn't even got the decency to do that :mad: