|
The system monitors it by making an HTTP request (i.e requesting a web page) - as such it checks that web server process is serving requests rather than simple checking that the server is up. The check is done from a variety of servers, with connectivity to each being provided by different providers.
|
The FAA have just issued an advisory circular with regard to the provision of NOTAM via the Internet, you can find it at
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/ac00-62.pdf It includes, with reference to becoming a Qualified Internet Communications Provider (QICP) the following requirement:- 2. GENERAL. A person or organization that accomplishes and maintains the following as they pertain to the provider's facility (i.e., all hardware, software and Internet connectivity under the applicant’s direct control) may become an approved QICP: a. Reliability means users are able to retrieve requested data from the provider with no outage lasting longer than 10 minutes, and no more than 30 minutes of total outages (including outages due to maintenance) in any continuous 3-month period. b. Accessibility means turnaround time within the provider's facility. The provider should be capable of initiating transmission of requested data during transactions with 100% of its users within 2 minutes. Nearly three months down the line Thales IS and NATS are nowhere near achieving this standard. Mike |
drauk -
Think of the web based systems which, for example, transact billions of dollars worth of securities on a daily basis for the world's investment banks - do you think they'd do this if it couldn't be made reliable enough (for reasonable cost)? Financial systems aren't on the WWW as a rule, and if your bank's one is... change banks! They are closed systems kept well away from the wilds of the internet, and cost huge amounts of money. NATS certainly aren't going to invest in anything similar for a mere NOTAMS site. Seems to me the only reason they won't bring back the old A8 etc. is that they would lose face in doing so - modern British businesses seem far more interested in face-saving than getting the job done. |
|
I used to work for a company which claimed to have the largest website in the world, in terms of dollars transacted per day.
The number of hits on the website was pretty low, though. Ok, so we may have traded several million dollars in a single transaction, but it only took a few of those transaction to start racking up the turnover figures. And reliability was obviously important, but not mission-critical, because our counterparties could phone us if the website went down. (Our disaster recovery procedures in the London office included disabling all of the UK-based products on the (US-based) website, and asking our counterparties to pick up the phone while we resolved some technical difficulties.) If you want examples of high-reliability high-traffic websites, I suggest you look at sites such as Yahoo. Can't remember the last time I couldn't access Yahoo. It's traffic levels are far higher than the AIS pages, and it has a much larger database. FFF -------------- |
If you want examples of high-reliability high-traffic websites, I suggest you look at sites such as Yahoo. As for the idea that confidential information shouldn't be available to view over the web, e.g. financial info, that is a notion from history. Wake up, as they say, and smell the coffee. QDM |
High reliability is routine these days, as are e-banking and share dealing websites etc. - www.schwab.com is a good example of one that routinely processes tens of millions of shares a day without problems. Nothing wrong with that, but it costs. A lot. For Amazon, Yahoo and any e-Banking/e-Trading business these costs are essential - no website, no business - but I suspect AIS would choke if you told them the cost of the hardware, software and people to do it. The problem is that we are now getting used to what a good eCommerce website can do, so we expect it all the time.
We had an interesting project going with FFF's former employer to feed their traders information in real-time, anyplace, anywhere and to process their response. Reliability was critical, as they it would cost them millions if a link went down and a trader was left holding options he didn't want, and the cost was well into 8 figures (USD, not Lira :) ). That's the sort of money Amazon et al. spend too.... |
At the risk of ruining your chips guys, please remember that the banks and Amazon(s) of this world have extremely reliable websites because of two very important reasons:
1. If they fall over you WILL go elsewhere 2. They transact through them, thereby making money (strongly linked to 1 above) The Yahoo(s) and other "service" sites make money from advertising. So, are NATS/AIS to sell us the NOTAMs to pay for the site? Or are pop-up ads de-rigueur? No. Neither thanks. Just SORT IT OUT! Or roll back to known good. Edited to add this: (I appreciate that NATS is no longer "Government", per se) BRL if this breaches copyright, please edit it out... From Ananova: GOVERNMENT WEBSITES UNDER FIRE Ministers are being urged to suspend their £5 billion e-government programme amid claims that hundreds of official websites were experiencing "serious problems". An independent survey of 20 "flagship" Government websites found that three-quarters needed "immediate attention" - with the Prime Minister's own site one of the worst offenders. It warned that the Government's target of fully on-line government by 2005 was "not realistically achievable" and urged ministers to halt the web aspects of the programme while existing faults were rectified. The 200-page review was commissioned by the Interactive Bureau - a website strategy and design agency - and the research carried out by Porter Research which also publishes an annual review of the FTSE-100 web sites. It said that its findings were a "strong indication" that hundreds of Government and quasi-Government websites were in need of attention in one area or another. The 10 Downing Street site was said to be "a mess - in need of a thorough overhaul from top to bottom". "What is the point of the Prime Minister - the prime mover in bringing the Government to the people via the web - having a site which announces the opportunity for foreign journalists to ask him questions, yet gives no opportunity for members of the British Public to do so ?" the report complained. It gave the website a score of just 40.75% - marginally higher than the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency which was rated the worst of the lot. The Number 10 site scored so badly "because its navigation is inept, because of a lack of attention to detail, because it is poorly maintained, because the coding of it is of a low standard, because whole sections of it are inappropriately named, because of its slow speed of loading, because it does not work properly with some browsers - and because it allows no provision for members of the public to contact either the Prime Minister or his office". In contrast, the best of the 20 sites surveyed - the Department for Education and Skills - scored 78.5%. (c) Copyright Ananova Ltd 2002, all rights reserved. |
The online banking sites mentioned here do not transact 'billions of dollars of securities on a daily basis'. They also fall over with regularity and occasionally have massive - and occasionally well publicised - security leaks. Hardly a good example. You have to realise there's a difference between stuff aimed at consumers and the behind-the-scenes systems that do the really big stuff between banks etc.
As mentioned the sort of server setups that people like Yahoo and Amazon have are way, way beyond anything that NATS could afford - or would want to provide. And even they fall over and get things wrong. For a safety critical system like this the old text file download was great because there were so few points at which the information could end up with bits missing. NATS have put all the load on their own site, chopped up and hidden the data and put a hideous front end on it - when leaving the processing to the user of the data would make more sense - if only financially. A few different servers offering the old text file download would have been an acceptable solution to reliability problems - the load on a small text file from a few thousand pilots every day is hardly going to stretch a single server let alone a cluster of them. But add your hideous front end with all of the processing required just to serve that, and the processing to muck about with the data... and deal with authenticating users... stick it all on a single box and watch it fall over. Madness really when the existing system worked so well. |
rustle,
re Points 1 and 2, this is exactly the problem. A government monopoly leads to blind indifference to the needs of consumers and they've now made the problem worse by not publishing the A1 / A8 data anymore. If they opened up the field to competition with commercial providers, people would quite rightly go elsewhere, but as it is AIS just sits and delivers a crap, unacceptable service three months after launch. In the commercial world they would be out of business. If they publish the data, I am sure that after all this furore someone would take the challenge and deliver us a commercial service. If the alternative is no NOTAMs or the rubbish AIS service, I would be prepared to pay a few quid a year, as would most members of this forum I suspect. QDM |
Russel,
Re point 1 comparing commercial sites to the AIS site, you said of commercial sites: If they fall over you WILL go elsewhere The cost of running a site such as Yahoo or Amazon is not related to availability. It is related to the fact that these sites hold a massivate amount of data. Lots of data requiers lots of storage space to store the data on, which is expensive. They are also global sites, requiring the data to be replicated to vast number of servers around the world. In the case of Amazon, customer orders must be taken in real-time, and backed up in real-time - again, this is expensive. All that is required to maintain availability of the AIS website is two independant servers. This is not expensive - I don't know the details of the hardware they're running, but we may be talking 5-figure sums, certainly not 8 figures like Evo was talking about. (I'm not familiar with that project, Evo, but I'd guess the cost was due to the need for real time replication.) Real time replication is not required for this application - the NOTAMs can be manually copied from the main site to the backup site after they are periodically updated. And the procedures for handling a failure of the main site would then be to contact the ISP and ask them to re-direct the domain name to the backup site. There is no technical reason why the AIS site can't be made reliable for a very small cost. Lots of people on this thread are comparing apples with oranges. (I probably shouldn't have mentioned Yahoo - it's a good comparison in terms of reliability, but not in terms of cost, for the reasons I've mentioned.) Of course, making the information useful is an entirely different prospect to making it available. FFF ---------------- |
Rule of thumb is that cost scales as the square of the number of nines in the percentage uptime. If 90% uptime is OK, 99% costs 4 times as much, 99.9% costs 9 times as much etc. Reliability isn't all that cheap, but we aren't asking for the sort of five-9's reliability that Amazon look for. 99.9% is only down an hour a year after all :)
(edit: I seem to be making more posts about computers than flying at the moment. Bl**dy weather... :) ) |
The sites mentioned (like personal online banking) by others probably don't transact billions of dollars a day. But at least the examples provided show that web sites can provide a fairly reliable service. They do go wrong sometimes, just as your fax machine might, but by and large they are online well over 99% of the time.
There are plenty of examples which do transact very large $ amounts over the Internet. They do have to pay to get this reliability, but I was responding to a comment which suggested that web applications couldn't be reliable enough for NOTAMS. And I personally know of finance sites that transact very large $ amounts who pay 5 figure sums per year. Lastly, there are plenty of e-commerce sites around whose hosting bill is a few thousand pounds per year that enjoy > 99% uptime. It is true that the AIS site is not commercial - you won't go elsewhere in disgust. And it is safety critical. But, as others have said, simple text based NOTAMS could be made available from a number of servers for a tiny cost per year. The US standards mentioned earlier are well above 99% uptime, but if the AIS site was available and responsive (leaving aside for now the question of actually being able to get the data you need, just for the sake of this discussion of hosting) 99 times out of 100 and you had to use a simplified alternative for those other times, you'd probably be reasonably happy. For those that care, AIS is now at 91% for the last 4 days. The big hit was a 7+ hour outage, which makes me think that they don't monitor it or can't resolve problems remotely. |
Calm down, calm down (in my best LPL accent :) )
I think it's obvious where myself and Mike have been coming from throughout this period of "NOTAM uncertainty" :p I actually agree with everything you guys said about reliability, I was merely pointing out the differing financial clout between a cash-strapped QUANGO and a megaprofit bank/online seller. Since day one (August 2002) I've been banging on (and on) about rolling back to the "A" series PIBs, parallel developing the new super-site and getting some real user testing/feedback (I refer the honourable gents to my post on www.pplir.org) My point 1 previously was to illustrate the problem - we have zero choice at present with regards NOTAM info. Sure, you can get a half briefing from the US MIL sites, even European sites running the same software, but you cannot get your local NOTAM except from AIS-UK. AvBrief were supposed to have their unadulterated feed from AIS by September - don't know why they haven't - I'll ask. They will be well pleased to know that they'll have a raft of new subscribers! (QDM) Will these be the same forum members who, of a total of > 100 views only 7 bothered to vote on the "is 3 months long enough" poll? ================================= Copy of email to AvBrief - sent October: Paul, I have no issues with you using any ideas we've collected to enhance AvBrief. My mission (and I chose to accept it) is to make NATS/AIS do the right thing and provide useable base information. Value-add and enhancements they cannot do, and nor should they - over to you guys and the Ian Fallons of the world. |
rustle
Spoke to Paul a few days ago and he is expecting to be up and running for test purposes within 7 days. Rod |
UK AIS GTi
AIS did a software upgrade today. No change in functionality but whatever they did has lit the afterburners - speed increase is dramatic.
Mike |
They will be well pleased to know that they'll have a raft of new subscribers! QDM |
I have just tried my local 'narrow route' VFR notam print from AIS. It was much faster (but it was 20:50Z, so not many flight planners accessing the site?). Also the number of 'VRF' notam error and duplications seem to have shrunk.
Looks like a big step forward. well done AIS, Russell and Mike etc. |
Given the recent performance improvement, the system at least now seems to be consistently available, but...
Why if I specify Narrow Route width 30nm routing EGBK DCT EGBK am I not informed of military exercise PHOTON EAGLE which passes within 10nm of the airfield tomorrow morning, consisting of 18 helis operating below 1000ft QFE??!!:eek: Conversely if I specify Narrow Route width 10nm routing EGBK DCT DTY DCT EGBK, which is actually a smaller radius, the exercise is listed (albeit embedded within 2 pages of junk). The guidance in the FAQ suggests that in order to search a 50nm "local area" around a home airfield, it's necessary to specify both a search radius of 50nm and also invent a "DCT x DCT y DCT" route specifying NavAids 50nm North and 50nm South of the field. That's some whacky programming??!! |
rotorcraig - thats shocking..! http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/unhap.gif
Until now I'd been thinking the system was beginning to settle down and had become confident that, although its not is not user friendly and the user interface sucks, I could get what information I needed from it. But your tale indicates that we can't trust the system not to exclude information it should give us... I am going to maintain habit of keeping print-outs in case needed to defend myself! |
rotorcraig,
Any chance you have copies of these briefs (paper or electronic) that you could email/fax to me? Don't forget our meeting is this coming Friday - let us have your thoughts, both good (speed increases) and bad (you name it) |
Rustle,
Have recreated what I can from retrospective searches and the specific NOTAM that I held onto. On it's way to you by EMail, hope it's of use... RC |
RotorCraig's problem
I have had a look into this and it appears that the site will allow you to set the Departure and Arrival aerodromes the same on a Narrow Route Brief. However if you do so it will NOT return any en-route info.
If however you put a second location in, either in the route as RotorCraig did or by specifying different AD's then the en-route info does appear. An easy way to reproduce this is to set a narrow route EGHN (Sandown) to EGHJ (Bembridge) which is all of 3 miles. You will find you get the en-route. If however you set EGHN to EGHN DCT you get no en-route. Clearly this has the potential for a serious incident and I have flagged the problem up to Phil Bate at AIS. Mike |
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It seems that Mike Cross has (after three months of head-scratching) managed to solve my personal "missing NOTAM" problems, the results of which are quite widely known from my other posts.
When I first started using the new service, I'm was advised (by a member of NATS) that rather than entering three different flights for a triangular route, I could enter a single route starting and ending at the same place, with the other two airfields listed as alternates and appropriate turning points. It now transpires that this can eliminate the "en-route" information about, for example, airshows.... I wonder if this is the reason behind many of the other "missing NOTAM" reports??? Even if it is not the cause of all the reports, given that an awful lot of PPL flying is "local area and return to base" it could easily account for a reasonably large number of the reports. I have to agree with Mike's recommendation that this is a very serious bug and must be addressed with some urgency. Thanks to Mike for spotting this and alerting users. Yours slightly relieved, MD. |
But this just highlights the failings of the systems design - the User Interface should not be so poor and ambiguous as to allow this confusion!
Talk about a ***** unprofessional design... I reckon they've been oversold on what the system actually does, versus what they'd like it to do, and have failed to do a good enough job of analysis to ascertain the degree to which functionality provided matches with the needs of the systems GA users. Just plain lazy - and s h i t e ! |
I turned up an interesting bit of info today in the Thales website, it's a Press Release:-
@IS E-Services, a new solution from Thales Information Systems in partnership with Austro Control Paris, 29/01/02 @IS E-Services (@ES), a new ANAIS module, is available allowing Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) to offer briefing-services through Internet and Intranet based solution. The @ES has been developed with the latest Internet technologies (Java Application Server, Web browser Client, Identification Systems...) and provides Self-Briefing and Home-Briefing features for private pilots and small aircraft operators. This new solution which includes a rich and powerful interface, suits non-specialist AIS (Aeronautical Information Services) users. It is also scalable and available on different platform allowing any aviation authority to provide such services. Based on @ES, Austro Control will offer new Self-Briefing and Home-Briefing services starting in April 2002 to their customers. This new solution is also being installed in Germany, South Africa, and United Kingdom, proving the strong position of THALES IS in the aeronautical environment. If you look towards the end of Austro Control's bulletin at http://www.austrocontrol.at/ais/english/bulletin.html you will find the following:- AUSTRO CONTROL IS PRESENTLY TESTING A SELFBRIEFING-SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS TO FILE ATC-FLIGHTPLANS AND TO OBTAIN A COMBINED AIS AND MET-BRIEFING FROM SELFBRIEFING STATIONS AT THE AUSTRIAN AIRPORTS. SOON THIS SERVICE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE VIA INTERNET. PILOTS ARE INVITED TO TESTRUN THE SYSTEM AND GIVE US THEIR FEEDBACK. FOR DETAILS CONTACT AIS/ARO. mmmmm...... wonder why it's 7 months late? Mike |
I wonder if [email protected] have seen this thread?
|
Answering my own question, but I believe they have seen this thread.
Hello Austria :) |
AIS Changes
For an update on the meeting that took place at AIS Heathrow on Friday please go to:-
http://www.telecall.uk.com/ais/news!.htm Then get back here and start posting! Mike |
Russell,
You and Mike need some kind of award for all that you're doing. If I wasn't an insufferably tight git I'd be putting my hand in my pocket right now. ;) It's a shame to see AIS so woefully unprepared and complacent for the meeting: "Phil Bate accepted the criticism and explained that a workshop was being arranged between AIS and Thales AIS to address issues. They did not yet have a date fixed but he expected it to take place before Christmas. AIS were pressed to give a timeframe for the work to be carried out but said that they were unable at present to do so. It was pointed out to them that they had been in possession of the proposals for some time and they should have been able to come to the meeting with some idea of timescale. Mike Cross asked Phil Bate what discussions had taken place between AIS and Thales IS with regard to the proposals. Phil Bate said that that was a matter for the Project Manager but he was not aware of any formal requests to Thales IS to carry out any investigation of the proposals. Mike Cross pointed out that a copy of the proposals had been passed by him to Thales IS well in advance of the meeting." And it doesn't sound like the raw data will be made available and the consulting with the CAA legal dept is just a fob off. Amazing, really, that this fellow Bate can talk about his worries with regard to liability issues if the raw data is made available. One wonders where he'd stand himself with relation to corporate manslaughter charges if somebody comes a cropper as a result of this shambles. The complacency is breathtaking, but well done you chaps. QDM |
QDM,
Exactly. The minutes paint a picture of bureaucratic obfuscation and complacency which would do credit to the writers of 'Yes, Minister'. Depressing that our safety is reliant on the likes of Mr Bates. Thank goodness for rustle and mrcross, but perhaps they need to take some sharp implements along to the next meeting. |
Well done Mike & Russel, your efforts are appreciated.
I am not shocked by the minutes though... it will take time. I think we all know plenty of organisations (even some well funded IT groups within some large investment banks I could name!) where projects go wrong, take a lot of time to set right, and yes people come to meetings not fully prepared! As irksome as it may seem, rather than pour scorn onto this particular hapless / incompetent (strike out which ever emotive word you prefer to - it makes no difference) lot, the more productive way forward in my view is to recognise that it will have been difficult for them to have come forward to admit their mistakes and/or weaknesses; and that it is a very good sign that they have engaged at all with us as outsiders (ok, customers!)... it would have been easier for them to refuse the meeting and just issue statements that they were dealing with it! So I say lets not scare them away from the table, lets be thankful that M&R are energetic enough to engage on our behalf, and thankful that the regulator too hasn't hesitated to get involved. Who knows what pressures these poor b*ggers at the coalface may be under in terms of lack of budget, lack of training, lack of expertise, or whatever. I know the need for blame is strong - I feel it too as this fiasco has exposed safety issues and could have been avoided with better planing and better software than that which oozed from somewhere in the bowels of Thales [yuk!] To see how it could/should be done for contrast, take a look at the facilities provided in Airservices Australia Brieifing Service which includes a full area listing combining both wx and NOTAMS (this example is for the southern half of NSW): http://www.airservices.gov.au/brief/.../avreq?area=21 - an easy "one-stop-shop" for all the briefing info needed for a flight within that region (vast - at least as big as the UK!). But my main point is that even though what has delivered to us been is sub-standard and frustrating in the exteme, I believe that we have to take a positive attitude at this stage in order to have people do what we want them to do. Its M & R's positive and constructive engagement that seems to have made progress thus far - lets not take the easy route of just pointing out the obvious which I fear may be counter-productive. And no, I don't work for NATS ;) |
It's a very frustrating situation for all of us. Having been closely involved I hope this will shed some light.
AIS bought the software as an "off the shelf" solution from Thales IS. I understand that Phil Bate was not the manager of UK AIS at the time that decision was made. We know that the bulk of the problems are to do with availability (outages) and the results that are obtained from the software. Thales IS should be roundly condemned for having provided software that is still not working properly three months AFTER it went live. (Any bugs should have been sorted out BEFORE going live) Anyone know a good way of exerting pressure on Thales IS? Because the Project Manager declines to discuss anything with me and Thales IS, for resons of client confidentiality, cannot; I can only give you a fairly sketchy view but to me it looks like this. AIS are not computer experts and certainly can't set all this up on their own. Thales IS are the software vendors and they and NATS IT department are responsible between them for providing and maintaining the hardware and software platform which AIS use to deliver the goods. That hardware and software platform has performed in a manner that is unsatisfactory to a significant proportion of users for over three months. That failure has to be the fault of NATS IT or Thales IS, or both of them. AIS have overall responsibility for the project but don't have the in-house expertise themselves to fight their own corner. Their Project Manager actually works for one of their suppliers, which is not a situation that you would expect to see in normal business. AIS certainly have overall responsibility but we won't see a significant breakthrough until NATS IT and Thales IS start delivering. Mike |
QDM
>>And it doesn't sound like the raw data will be made available and the >>consulting with the CAA legal dept is just a fob off. I agree that Nats are probably expecting the legal angle to delay things. However do not give up on this. The regulator, John Gentleman, was well fired up to get this done ASAP. His own words were “I will get this started first thing Monday”. Remember 95% of the raw data is already available via a number of other sources, including the US military. We have supplied John Gentleman with sample s/w for him to play with so he can get a feel for what is possible with a modern user interface. The number one request we received from pilots was to get NotamPlot/Pro working again. We need the raw data to do this and we will keep pushing to get it. Fortunately there does no appear to be any technical problem with the provision of the raw data, so our unhelpful friends at Nats IT and THALES IS should not be too much of an obstacle. Help us keep up the pressure! Rod |
Help us keep up the pressure! QDM |
QDM
Any or all of the following; http://www.nats.co.uk/operational/Op...il%2020021.pdf gives peoples names addresses and e-mails within NATS Lodge a formal complaint with NATS, details at http://www.nats.co.uk/operational/Co...Ed2-Aug-02.pdf Write to the Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling or to your local MP http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm also further details available from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/perso...,9379,,00.html Write to Anne McIntosh, Shadow Minister in the Department of Transport http://politics.guardian.co.uk/perso...,-3830,00.html to give her ammunition. She has already asked a parliamentary question of the Department of Transport and written to the Chairman of the CAA. Her husband is a Director of Delta Airlines. File an MOR if you think that the system is causing safety issues http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.pdf Post comments or carry out any activity that is critical of NATS and/or Thales Information Systems for failing to have the system working properly three months after it went live. And last but not least, my number one suggestion, right now. A politely worded letter, on paper, to John Gentleman, in support of the raw data download and NotamPro/Plot style presentation. Details for John (the Regulator) are at; http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP723.pdf Rod |
Thanks, Rod. I'll get onto the last one right away and urge others to do the same.
QDM |
Decoding ICAO... A SemiSolution for NotamPro
AltAIS (Logon Page)
Some of you may be aware of 'AltAIS', a simple web site I set up in September to help people get into the AIS more quickly, and even access the Area Briefings without JavaScript enabled (though you do still need cookies). Well, over the last couple of days I've written another page that parses a given Notam to insert the latitude and longitude of each ICAO airfield code that it recognises. A few Notams still slip the net, namely those about danger areas (I haven't found a source that gives their coordinates), En-Route Nav Aids (it is harder to decode these, as the idents could easily be confused with plain text), and the very few about other locations where no lat and long is given. AltAIS NOTAM Parser Once you have your Notam on screen from the AIS site, copy and paste the content into my 'Parser' page. Hit the 'PROCESS' button. Wait a couple of seconds for it to do its magic. Finally, copy the parsed Notam text from my page into NotamPro. Heypresto. Look at all those red blobs!!! I have never used NotamPlot, so don't know if it works the same way. Le me know if a simple change will make the difference. |
Before you all put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) you may want to have a browse through some of this lot:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/ais/sympo..._symposium.htm http://www.eurocontrol.int/ais/sympo...ease%20dgs.pdf Extract from press release: With the objective to achieve ever higher levels of safety, speakers from Europe and around the world confirmed that Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) users now needed high quality aeronautical information to be processed and delivered more quickly to the customer using electronic media. Other speakers outlined emerging technologies that are paving the way to new and innovative ways to originate, process, publish, integrate and use aeronautical information. Dusty_B The danger area, navaid &tc. co-ords and radius of influence are in the Q-Line as well. |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:32. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.