"I worry that a few % of pilots just ring up the 0500 number and then think they've got all the Notams they need. "
Dave, I wouldn't worry too much about them, the real problem is the very many who check nothing at all. I'm afraid I'm with the 'It's the CAA's fault' lobby, the current system is too difficult to understand and master by the casual user. I know Mike disagrees but, how many pilots are posting about problems getting weather information - none because the met office site is easy to use and understand. That wasn't always the case but they got their act into gear and sorted it. Will CAA/NATS do likewise, not a chance in hell I'm afraid, they simply will not accept that there is a problem.
Notam usage please help!
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
By all means lobby the CAA to provide a more "amateur friendly" way of doing it, and while you're at it do the same for TAF & METAR.
I appreciate that's a provocative suggestion but look at it in context. The system is paid for out of en-route charges and the people who pay for it don't appear to have a problem. It works the way it does because that's what is required to meet the UK's obligation under the Chicago Convention. Anything different would therefore need to be additional to, rather than instead of the current setup and would have to be paid for by users. Given the choice of being taxed to provide the funding for something new or learning how to use what's there I prefer the latter.
The alternative is to use a different presentation provided by someone other than the State. I'm fully supportive of those who want to do that and arranged a meeting last year between them, CAA, NATS, and AIS. Changes to the AIS site to facilitate proper data filtering by third party programs were introduced at my request and improvements to the old site to improve usability were also introduced at my request. Many of the improvements to the new site, such as the drop-down date entry system designed to prevent inadvertant wrong entries have come about as a result of concerns highlighted by me.
I have absolutely no problem with the accuracy of the data produced from the AIS site. I may have issues with some of the content and I certainly have issues with the accuracy and reliability of graphical plots derived from data not designed for the purpose but none of that has any bearing on the accuracy or functionality of the AIS site.
Comparison has been drawn with the Met Office site. Sorry but I don't really see any huge difference. Both require you to log in to use them and both produce data that is not intuitive to a lay person. You need a level of knowledge and skill in order to interpret what you're being told.
The 0500 number will give you all of the MANDATORY info you need. If you take heed of what's on it you won't be done for busting airspace or RA's (T). You won't however get advisory stuff like airfields not having fuel available, navaids out of service, or requests to avoid areas where events are taking place.
Brian, if you'd like to meet up with some of the people concerned, perhaps with a view to producing something for the magazine, I'll be happy to arrange it, the same goes for anyone else interested. About six people is a good manageable number. AIS have literally just moved from the Control Tower building at LHR to new offices on the Bath Road so it may take a few weeks to set up but I'll be happy to arrange it.
Edit
For info, here are the stats for this month (June) up until 25 June:-
There are 26,923 registered users (people who don't use the site for 6 months are automatically de-registered so these are active users)
There have been 27,304 logins for the month (you only have to log in for NOTAM data, not necessary to access other content such as the AIP)
29,570 NOTAM briefs have been served, of which 15,145 were Narrow Route Briefs and 3,030 were the new Point Brief.
I'll get some month on month stats and post them when I have them.
I appreciate that's a provocative suggestion but look at it in context. The system is paid for out of en-route charges and the people who pay for it don't appear to have a problem. It works the way it does because that's what is required to meet the UK's obligation under the Chicago Convention. Anything different would therefore need to be additional to, rather than instead of the current setup and would have to be paid for by users. Given the choice of being taxed to provide the funding for something new or learning how to use what's there I prefer the latter.
The alternative is to use a different presentation provided by someone other than the State. I'm fully supportive of those who want to do that and arranged a meeting last year between them, CAA, NATS, and AIS. Changes to the AIS site to facilitate proper data filtering by third party programs were introduced at my request and improvements to the old site to improve usability were also introduced at my request. Many of the improvements to the new site, such as the drop-down date entry system designed to prevent inadvertant wrong entries have come about as a result of concerns highlighted by me.
I have absolutely no problem with the accuracy of the data produced from the AIS site. I may have issues with some of the content and I certainly have issues with the accuracy and reliability of graphical plots derived from data not designed for the purpose but none of that has any bearing on the accuracy or functionality of the AIS site.
Comparison has been drawn with the Met Office site. Sorry but I don't really see any huge difference. Both require you to log in to use them and both produce data that is not intuitive to a lay person. You need a level of knowledge and skill in order to interpret what you're being told.
The 0500 number will give you all of the MANDATORY info you need. If you take heed of what's on it you won't be done for busting airspace or RA's (T). You won't however get advisory stuff like airfields not having fuel available, navaids out of service, or requests to avoid areas where events are taking place.
Brian, if you'd like to meet up with some of the people concerned, perhaps with a view to producing something for the magazine, I'll be happy to arrange it, the same goes for anyone else interested. About six people is a good manageable number. AIS have literally just moved from the Control Tower building at LHR to new offices on the Bath Road so it may take a few weeks to set up but I'll be happy to arrange it.
Implies that it is getting harder and that fewer people are using the "official" method. Not borne out by the facts. The number of briefings served per day continually increases and has been doing so for a number of years.The harder it is to get the Notams, the more pilots will be tempted to take short cuts with it.
Edit
For info, here are the stats for this month (June) up until 25 June:-
There are 26,923 registered users (people who don't use the site for 6 months are automatically de-registered so these are active users)
There have been 27,304 logins for the month (you only have to log in for NOTAM data, not necessary to access other content such as the AIP)
29,570 NOTAM briefs have been served, of which 15,145 were Narrow Route Briefs and 3,030 were the new Point Brief.
I'll get some month on month stats and post them when I have them.
030881
-
rogerburge
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:31 am
- Location: Devon
Mikes stats are correct but there is a wrinkle. Some of the “third party unofficial s/w writers” have done a slightly bad thing. To ensure they have up to date data they automatically log on, get the data and log off, at very regular intervals. This has boosted the number of logins significantly!
Mike and I pushed very hard to get the Q code included, but the system is very poor from an average LAA member’s point of view.
The number of logins is also misleading as people forget login details and get new ones, and may have 3 or 4 over a six month window.
I am not saying that the system is not being used by more people, just that the level of improvement is not as high. The fact that the majority of pilots do not get the information relevant to there flight and never realise this is also an issue.
When the number of infringements around London got so high it could not be blamed on the “stupid pilots” and the authorities responded to the lack of service by adding a LARS, at significant cost. One day a savvy pilot who has been caught out by the system will prove it fails the “duty of care test” and more will be done.
Rod1
Mike and I pushed very hard to get the Q code included, but the system is very poor from an average LAA member’s point of view.
The number of logins is also misleading as people forget login details and get new ones, and may have 3 or 4 over a six month window.
I am not saying that the system is not being used by more people, just that the level of improvement is not as high. The fact that the majority of pilots do not get the information relevant to there flight and never realise this is also an issue.
When the number of infringements around London got so high it could not be blamed on the “stupid pilots” and the authorities responded to the lack of service by adding a LARS, at significant cost. One day a savvy pilot who has been caught out by the system will prove it fails the “duty of care test” and more will be done.
Rod1
021864
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
I totally agree that the raw stats don't provide a true picture. What's needed is historical data to show the trend. I should have that tomorrow and will post it when I have it. It's also necessary to take changes into account. Yes the auto logins by people like fly.dsc.net will bump up the stats when they start operating but they will not affect the trend view because a log-in every 30 minutes to get the data is a static figure added into the equation. A trend view covering a period during which this level of accesses have been made will continue to show whether there is an increase or decrease in accesses made by other users.
If usage of alternative sources in preference to the AIS site was increasing then we'd expect the number of briefs served from the AIS site to decrease (all other things being equal). We'll see what the stats show when I get them.
As to whether or not users are better informed, I'd suggest that will also reflect in the stats. If people find it impossible to cope with they'll stop using it and the usage stats will go down. I fully agree that the ICAO NOTAM system does not produce an ideal way to communicate information to users but until xNOTAM is adopted by ICAO I don't see an improvement coming along. Changes to ICAO Standards & Recommended Practices are something outwith the present discussion. While AOPA UK does have representation at ICAO through IAOPA other representative organisations such as the LAA do not. By all means push CAA and Eurocontrol to get xNOTAM moving sooner rather than later but the major driver is commercial because of the huge cost savings to airlines and ANSP's involved in moving to an xml schema in preference to the current system. LAA's voice in ICAO is to all intents and purposes totally inaudible.
Enough of the waffle. Given the limitations of the ICAO system the need for the AIS site to comply with ICAO SARPs (Standards & Recommended Practices) and Eurocontrol's OPADD (Operating Procedures for AIS Dynamic Data) and the fact that the underlying data is inherently unsuitable for graphic display does anyone have suggestions for improvements to the AIS site? Please don't include gripes about the data itself, content is in the main nothing to do with AIS.
If usage of alternative sources in preference to the AIS site was increasing then we'd expect the number of briefs served from the AIS site to decrease (all other things being equal). We'll see what the stats show when I get them.
As to whether or not users are better informed, I'd suggest that will also reflect in the stats. If people find it impossible to cope with they'll stop using it and the usage stats will go down. I fully agree that the ICAO NOTAM system does not produce an ideal way to communicate information to users but until xNOTAM is adopted by ICAO I don't see an improvement coming along. Changes to ICAO Standards & Recommended Practices are something outwith the present discussion. While AOPA UK does have representation at ICAO through IAOPA other representative organisations such as the LAA do not. By all means push CAA and Eurocontrol to get xNOTAM moving sooner rather than later but the major driver is commercial because of the huge cost savings to airlines and ANSP's involved in moving to an xml schema in preference to the current system. LAA's voice in ICAO is to all intents and purposes totally inaudible.
Enough of the waffle. Given the limitations of the ICAO system the need for the AIS site to comply with ICAO SARPs (Standards & Recommended Practices) and Eurocontrol's OPADD (Operating Procedures for AIS Dynamic Data) and the fact that the underlying data is inherently unsuitable for graphic display does anyone have suggestions for improvements to the AIS site? Please don't include gripes about the data itself, content is in the main nothing to do with AIS.
030881
“As to whether or not users are better informed, I'd suggest that will also reflect in the stats. If people find it impossible to cope with they'll stop using it and the usage stats will go down.”
Again I would have to disagree. The current Notam system lends itself to the “Talisman” approach. The Pilot gets his bit of paper out of the sausage machine, he glances at it, understands 20% if he is lucky. He files it in his flight bag and carries the talisman around to prove he checked, in the hope it will fend off the evil CAA. After a while he prints off the paper, having got fed up with feeling stupid, he just files it! As you know this is a problem the CAA are well aware of.
Rod1
Again I would have to disagree. The current Notam system lends itself to the “Talisman” approach. The Pilot gets his bit of paper out of the sausage machine, he glances at it, understands 20% if he is lucky. He files it in his flight bag and carries the talisman around to prove he checked, in the hope it will fend off the evil CAA. After a while he prints off the paper, having got fed up with feeling stupid, he just files it! As you know this is a problem the CAA are well aware of.
Rod1
021864
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
Rod
Feel free to disagree, you'll have to forgive me for suggesting your "Talisman" suggestion doesn't hold water. It could equally apply to the person who prints out and carries the Metform 215, TAF or METAR on the grounds that when when they pull his body from the wreckage he had done what he was supposed to even though he didn't understand it or the person who writes down a W&B calculation that is utter bo££ox because he didn't know how to do it but feels that the piece of paper makes him safer.
WRT to Nigels's original complaint
Chart amendments are
here.
They contain
I'm getting ever so slightly peeved with investigating complaints from people who can't be @rsed to work it out for themselves.
Feel free to disagree, you'll have to forgive me for suggesting your "Talisman" suggestion doesn't hold water. It could equally apply to the person who prints out and carries the Metform 215, TAF or METAR on the grounds that when when they pull his body from the wreckage he had done what he was supposed to even though he didn't understand it or the person who writes down a W&B calculation that is utter bo££ox because he didn't know how to do it but feels that the piece of paper makes him safer.
WRT to Nigels's original complaint
Chart amendments are
here.
They contain
If you choose to fly with out of date data it's no-one's fault but your own.11119 09/02/2008 ISLE OF WIGHT/Bembridge NDB - delete all at 504049N 0010616W - including text box NDB IW426
I'm getting ever so slightly peeved with investigating complaints from people who can't be @rsed to work it out for themselves.
030881
Mike,
I know you are very keen to lump the Notam system in with the other online systems we use. The fact is the Notam system is a 100 times harder to use and understand than the met system. It is this level of difficulty which is causing the “talisman” issues, and the CAA is well aware that it is a problem!
Rod1
I know you are very keen to lump the Notam system in with the other online systems we use. The fact is the Notam system is a 100 times harder to use and understand than the met system. It is this level of difficulty which is causing the “talisman” issues, and the CAA is well aware that it is a problem!
Rod1
021864
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
OK Chaps here's the stats as promised.
As you can see the numbers of PIB served each day from the AIS site is broadly following the trend of last year, which was well up on the year before. Given the weather we've been getting (I've certainly flown less than last year so far) and the economic downturn I don't think they can be construed as showing a drift of users away from the site.
The general opinion seems to be that the new site is better than the old, it's too soon to see any trends resulting from the change.
Rod
We're each entitled to our opinions, would you care to outline the improvements you would like to see?
Following your non-attendance at the last consultation meeting I trust you'll be attending the next.
As you can see the numbers of PIB served each day from the AIS site is broadly following the trend of last year, which was well up on the year before. Given the weather we've been getting (I've certainly flown less than last year so far) and the economic downturn I don't think they can be construed as showing a drift of users away from the site.
The general opinion seems to be that the new site is better than the old, it's too soon to see any trends resulting from the change.
Rod
We're each entitled to our opinions, would you care to outline the improvements you would like to see?
Following your non-attendance at the last consultation meeting I trust you'll be attending the next.
030881
“Following your non-attendance at the last consultation meeting I trust you'll be attending the next.”
My mandate to represent the LAA on Notams came form Graham Newby. I was out of the country for the last meeting. It remains to be seen if the new boss wants me to carry on and attend the next one. Personally, I have been doing this for 8 years, I have to take annual leave to attend the meetings and there may be a number of people just waiting to take over…
In terms of further “official” improvements, I think the new “X” system is the only hope of big improvements. The only other way is as the result of a major “incident”, which could happen at any time, as the system is just too hard for ordinary LAA members to understand.
Rod1
My mandate to represent the LAA on Notams came form Graham Newby. I was out of the country for the last meeting. It remains to be seen if the new boss wants me to carry on and attend the next one. Personally, I have been doing this for 8 years, I have to take annual leave to attend the meetings and there may be a number of people just waiting to take over…
In terms of further “official” improvements, I think the new “X” system is the only hope of big improvements. The only other way is as the result of a major “incident”, which could happen at any time, as the system is just too hard for ordinary LAA members to understand.
Rod1
021864
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
Thanks Rod
I'll take that as an acceptance that no substantial improvement in the situation can be achieved until ICAO adopt xNOTAM or something similar.
NOTAM are now more accessible than they ever have been in the UK, as is the AIP and all of the aerodrome and approach plates. Anything that can be done to further pilots' understanding of the system is welcome.
I'll take that as an acceptance that no substantial improvement in the situation can be achieved until ICAO adopt xNOTAM or something similar.
NOTAM are now more accessible than they ever have been in the UK, as is the AIP and all of the aerodrome and approach plates. Anything that can be done to further pilots' understanding of the system is welcome.
030881
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
First I have heard of the xNOTAM project.
A quick google shows it is a Eurocontrol initiative but FAA seem to getting into it too.
Looks like a way to drag the system into the 20th century
http://www.faa.gov/aixm/media/xNotam%20 ... erview.pdf
A quick google shows it is a Eurocontrol initiative but FAA seem to getting into it too.
Looks like a way to drag the system into the 20th century
http://www.faa.gov/aixm/media/xNotam%20 ... erview.pdf
“NOTAM are now more accessible than they ever have been in the UK”
If we go back 10 years, every licensed airfield and most strips had Notams pined to the notice board. Now some airfields have Internet access and some do not, and some pilots can drive the system, and most cannot. I would say that at the flying sites frequented by LAA type aviation Notam info is less accessible then 10 years ago. I accept that, as you are the AOPA rep, this may not be true for the AOPA membership who tends to have very hi-tec phones clever laptops and high computer literacy. It is certainly true that the new system costs NATS much less to operate than the old system did, so there is real financial benefit in it for them.
Any court case against an LAA member, who had done his best, would be very difficult; given the amount of trouble the ordinary pilot has driving the system. Small beer if someone has died getting hit by a rocket, but I guess we just have to hope that the big sky theory keeps the odds in our favor.
Rod1
If we go back 10 years, every licensed airfield and most strips had Notams pined to the notice board. Now some airfields have Internet access and some do not, and some pilots can drive the system, and most cannot. I would say that at the flying sites frequented by LAA type aviation Notam info is less accessible then 10 years ago. I accept that, as you are the AOPA rep, this may not be true for the AOPA membership who tends to have very hi-tec phones clever laptops and high computer literacy. It is certainly true that the new system costs NATS much less to operate than the old system did, so there is real financial benefit in it for them.
Any court case against an LAA member, who had done his best, would be very difficult; given the amount of trouble the ordinary pilot has driving the system. Small beer if someone has died getting hit by a rocket, but I guess we just have to hope that the big sky theory keeps the odds in our favor.
Rod1
021864
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
Rod you really are determined to be a curmudgeonly luddite who's glass is permanently half empty aren't you? You have a plastic fantastic starship and constantly regale us with the virtues of the electronic gizmos in it. You do so from your computer that is connected to t'Internet and from which you can get NOTAM 24 hrs a day 365 days a year and your latest gripe is that you don't have a sheaf of several days old NOTAM nailed to the fence post at your farm strip?
Enough of this banter, I'm off to sort out the tent and the sleeping bag and work out whether I can get in and out of a 430 metre strip in a crosswind.
Enough of this banter, I'm off to sort out the tent and the sleeping bag and work out whether I can get in and out of a 430 metre strip in a crosswind.
030881
You are right, I am under 50, I am a graduate in computing, and I have a state of the art (self built) aircraft. However, the people I represent, mostly, have none of the above and hate the Notam system, do not trust it, and cannot use it. This is entirely consistent with the position I have taken at the meetings and we have had some success in improving it. It is however, completely flawed to quote international responsibilities above the basic premise that the system baffles most pilots.
Again, I completely understand that the younger, well off AOPA member with a 100k factory built aircraft and a state of the art mobile paid for by his company probably loves the on line system and would hate to have to look on a flying club notice board. You do a very good job representing them. BMAA/LAA do however represent about 8500 people, against the 4000 or so represented by AOPA, so forgive me if I resist the problem being swept under the carpet.
I started this thread to help gather some more info on just how bad the problem is. If you have not looked at the first post please do so and fill in the questionnaire. It will help keep the pressure up to improve things.
Good luck with the tent!
Rod1
Again, I completely understand that the younger, well off AOPA member with a 100k factory built aircraft and a state of the art mobile paid for by his company probably loves the on line system and would hate to have to look on a flying club notice board. You do a very good job representing them. BMAA/LAA do however represent about 8500 people, against the 4000 or so represented by AOPA, so forgive me if I resist the problem being swept under the carpet.
I started this thread to help gather some more info on just how bad the problem is. If you have not looked at the first post please do so and fill in the questionnaire. It will help keep the pressure up to improve things.
Good luck with the tent!
Rod1
021864