BRL, nice one.

You may want to point them at www.flyontrack.co.uk as well -- there's some fairly interesting comments appearing there :(

NATS, Grrrrrr
 

This NATS AIC, AIS website is driving me me up the F*^*^*G wall,

Have they stopped you viewing/printing the IAP, STAR, SIDs etc because I cannot, for the life of me find them.

Also, why is it so bloody sloooooow.

ANGRY:mad: :mad: :mad:

Let me get this straight..
Your not happy with the new improved, easy to use, need a computer degree to get the NOTAMS website are you?
Tsk Tsk some people dont like change
Walt,,:D

The SIDs, STARs etc are under Publications, UK AIP Supplements, UK AIP, Aerodrome Data, Aerodromes Specific.

Only takes about 5 mins to get there zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

PS What's the problem with accessing the site from outside the UK? Will it automatically cancel my JAA licence if I try?

That'll be the site I couldn't manage to get to work last week, thus nearly (bar the vigilance of a reasonably switched on air trafficer) had me flying into the middle of a military airshow. That one?

G

Phild

Don't know what I was doing wrong last night, I was asked for a specific airfield I wanted info on, when I entered which one , all I got was a list of all the SIDs etc and not the actual plate.

Havn't tried the Notam function yet, so I will keep the noose slack :(

LPL

Guys, quick request

Can we keep all the AIS Site stuff in the Notam Site 'Upgrade' thread, because we're pointing quite a few people directly at it now and wouldn't want them to miss anything ;)

Just a thought :)

Cheers Rus.... going to copy this/merge it with the other thread. :)

Finally got into AIS site today- after registering 4 times, recieving no confirmation email !
Just looking over the forms at the moment, see how many 'irrelevant' notams it gives me!

Spotted this on a newsgroup, Ben Chapman has put together a simpler and faster interface to the AIS site:

http://www.benchapman.co.uk/preflight/altais/

Opens another window for the AIS site on login, then go back to Ben's window and carry out your query there, swap back to the AIS window for the results.

Gave up and went home
 

Tried to fly last Wednesday. Couldn't get a password to access the site, no one at my club was able to access the system or aparently aware of the change! Rang the tower who directed me to the briefing room in the main terminal.

Couldn't find the NOTAMs in the briefing room - asked someone who very kindly went and found them for me somewhere in the office. I found them completely unrecognisable (In my innocence I was expecting them to be ordered by lon/lat!).

After pondering over them for some time I decided to cancel the flight. I could not guarentee that I wouldn't wander across a TRA and at best end up in court or at worst be shot down. My friend who had traveled some distance was most p**sed off - but perhaps not as p**sed off as I would have been if I had inadvertantly endangered myself, my friend, other flyers or folks on the ground.

I wonder how many flyers have said "****** it - I'll fly anyway"?

And now the site is COMPLETELY down!!!
 

The AIS website is, as I type this, offline. Test using this traceroute server indicate that ... "IP packets are being lost past network "Nats (Services) Ltd" at hop 21 ... Connections to HTTP port 80 are being refused". Seems they have taken it offline for the afternoon for some reason.....

Is it asking too much to hope that the reason it's down is so that they can put the old system back again???

FFF
--------------

I tried to use it yesterday for a trip to the MIdlands today. I couldn't get it to work so I rang NATS and they were extremely helpful. They answered the phone immediately and spent some time trying to get it to work. Eventually they rang me back and then helped me to get it to work. (60% of resultant NOTAMS were irrelevant for my flight as others have found).

The only justification he could offer for this poor system was that it was free:confused: :confused:

Does this mean that they will charge for it when it works better?

FFF,

According to NATS that isn't possible - see AOPA news story.

But then NATS said the temp user-ID and password would work until 20 September as well ;)

Pulse1,

Did they mean free to them, or free to the users?

... and now its back up again... but seems the same functionaly, yet possbly slower..?

What a total shambles..............and on top of everything else, the format of dates has been altered - beware - if it says 02/09/03, it means 3rd September 2002 and not 2nd September 2003.

Here's the URL for the AOPA news item:

http://www.aopa.co.uk/cgi-bin/viewne...31140546,4618,

It's titled "AIS: New Web Service has GA Pilots Seeing Red"

The confusing bit is this quote:

"AIS will not be going back to the old way of providing NOTAM information via the web because it was too labour intensive..."

So which bit is the labour intensive bit?

Where the LAT/LONG is added as in the A1/A8s? (Which are still produced, just not available to GA pilots!)

Or maybe it's labour intensive to point a URL at the A1/A8 data, which is obviously still in electronic form.

Any thoughts anyone?

Useless.

The AOPA guard dog, having emitted a half-hearted yap, has been fed a biscuit and has slunk away.

It's all very well for AOPA to be "re-assured to know that AIS is taking all constructive comments seriously."

Are they satisfied that anything at all will be done to improve things? This is an issue with profound safety implications for us all. How long is an acceptable period for NOTAMS to be this hard to get at? Another week? A month? Six months?

I hope that some of the flying magazines can do a better job of defending our interests than AOPA.

www.ais.org.uk - Site Down
 

... again this morning.

That's alright then, I wasn't planning on flying today!!:confused: :confused:

... and now its back up again..!

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?

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 :)

Its down again:(

So it is... up and down like a "wh*re's draws" as they say...

This is from the AOPA news story. What a pathetic bunch of dishrags. No wonder their organisation can't attract membership.

QDM

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....

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!

... and its down again this morning!!!

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?:confused: :confused:

Yes, exactly. I think that given this NOTAM debacle and the CAA's extremely punitive attitude to airspace infringements with hefty fines, the only answer is to avoid talking to ATC services wherever and whenever possible. That way, if something does go wrong and you do infringe airspace no-one has your reg.

These people -- NATS and the CAA -- must be morons to have allowed such an absurd situation to develop.

QDM

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.

In your dreams.


One has to ask what the benefit is and then weigh that against the risks. In this case, the benefits do not seem to outweigh the risks. Given all this palaver, where possible I shall simply fly along squawking 7000 mode charlie, keep a listening watch and let others avoid me.

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

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.

Point taken.

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

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 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.

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

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.