Phil Roberts – CAA, ADAP1 (Chairman)
John Gentleman – CAA, Manager Aeronautical Charts and Data
Rod Dean – CAA, Head of General Aviation Department
Roger Budgen – NATS, Head of Customer Relations
Phil Bate – NATS, Manager UK AIS
Steve Harben – NATS, Head of Data Management UK AIS
Martin Robinson – CEO AOPA UK
Russell Howton – PPL/IR, Pilot Representative
Rod Bailes-Brown – PPL/IMC, Pilot Representative
Mike Cross – PPL, Pilot Representative
Paul Handover, Managing Director, Aviation Briefing Ltd
Andrew Roch, CFI, London Gliding Club
Chris Gould, who represented the CAA On-Track Project at the November 15 2002 meeting, did not attend as the On-Track Project officially ceased at the end of 2002.
· Chairman’s Opening Remarks
· Progress Report on ADIMS current performance
· The proposed area brief
· The Q Line
· Future Consultations Arrangement
· AOB
The following notes have not been officially ratified by the Chairman or agreed by all of those in attendance, however I believe them to be a fair and accurate summary of the proceedings. They have been agreed by those whose names appear at the end of them. The Chairman has seen them and had the opportunity to request corrections.
The Chairman opened the meeting with introductions of all those present and a summary of events leading to the meeting. He then asked Phil Bate to report on progress since the last meeting.
PHIL BATE reported that the servers were now stable and that he was happy that the speed of operation of the system was now in line with their expectations. He reported that there were ongoing issues to be resolved with the suppliers, Thales Information Systems, particularly in regard to the link between the main database servers and the Web interface.
When asked about height filtering he acknowledged that AIS were in ongoing discussions with Thales IS on this matter also.
Duplication of Military and Civil NOTAM were now far less of a problem following extensive negotiations with interested parties.
When asked about two outages over the Christmas/New Year period he replied that they were both caused by the Replica Server, which provides the database information to the Web Server. Maintenance of the hardware had been handed over by the Project Team to NATS staff, who were following documented procedures provided by the Project Team. They had identified changes to those procedures, which should reduce the time taken to get the servers back on line in the future.
When asked about alternative means of delivery in the event of outages PHIL BATE replied that there were ongoing problems with the automated fax delivery system that had been mentioned at the Nov 15 meeting. AIS did not currently have a time-scale for delivery and did not anticipate being able to deliver before April/May. Rod Bailes-Brown said that the system proposed by Thales IS had a number of drawbacks in that it used selective polling, which required users to have a telephone handset and keypad connected to the fax machine. The method used by UK Met Office with separate telephone numbers for each brief would be much better and would allow a far higher proportion of fax users to use the system.
The Chairman pointed out that all pilots had a legal obligation to check NOTAM before flight and that these had always been available from the Duty Officer at AIS Heathrow by telephone. The CAA required an alternative delivery method to be made available and that NATS would be making submissions of alternatives to CAA by the end of February.
Mike Cross asked whether CAA intended to impose any Service Delivery Standards on AIS. The chairman replied that CAA required 100% availability and that the Duty Officer at Heathrow had always been available in the event of an outage.
Mike Cross pointed out that there was only a maximum of two people available to handle calls to the Duty Officer. If they were engaged was this still 100% availability? He pointed out that the FAA in the USA had issued an Advisory Circular requiring that organisations wishing to become Qualified Internet Communications Providers for the delivery of NOTAM and weather information via the Internet would be required to have no more than 30 minutes of downtime in any three month period and no more than 10 minutes of downtime in any one outage. Was the CAA intending to propose a standard by which AIS performance could be measured to determine whether or not it was satisfactory? The Chairman replied that CAA would consider what the FAA were doing to see if it could prove useful to them.
Russell Howton suggested that the quickest way of dealing with the problem while alternatives were made to work would be to make the A1/A8 bulletins available for download from a different server. They were still currently being produced for other distribution methods and it would be a simple and low cost option to re-instate them as an interim measure. Phil Bate said that re-instatement of the bulletins was not one of the options being considered by AIS for presentation to the CAA. The Chairman said that all options would be considered before a decision was arrived at.
Phil Bate advised that an order had been placed with Thales IS in the last week of January for delivery of a “one-button” download of an Area Brief. Delivery time was quoted by Thales IS as 10 weeks from order placement plus one week for in-house testing. The format of the Area Brief had been specified by CAA (DAP and GAD).
John Gentleman stated that the format was based on the suggestions put forward by Mike Cross/Russell Howton. There would be four briefs available, an Aerodrome Briefing and an En-Route Briefing for each of the two UK FIR’s. NOTAM would be sorted geographically by Northings and Eastings and subdivided into those which had a radius of influence of more than 30 nm and which would be considered as general FIR information, and those with a radius of 30nm or less, which would be considered as local information.
The Aerodrome Brief would be sorted in alphabetic order of Aerodrome Name, rather than ICAO code.
Users would still need to log on to the AIS Website but once logged in no parameters would be required. Download would require a single click on the appropriate button.
In response to questions from Mike Cross, Steve Harben stated that the briefs would be updated at four hourly intervals each day, starting from 06:00. Phil Bate confirmed that it was intended that these briefs would be supplied by any eventual fax download system.
Correction:- The above has since been corrected. The
brief will be auto-generated by the user clicking the button and will therefore
always be up to date. The four hourly update refers to briefs available for fax
download when that system is brought into operation.
Martin Robinson asked the Chairman if he was satisfied that AIS were being given sufficient resource by NATS to do the job and he replied that he was. Roger Budgen gave an indication that the capital expenditure that had been signed off for alterations to the system approached £100,000. In response to questions from Russell Howton he confirmed that this figure included NATS own internal charging as well as the charges from Thales IS for the software modifications.
(The Q Line is a line of codes in the ICAO Notam Format that is designed to facilitate electronic processing of the data. The original proposals from Mike Cross and Russell Howton, discussed at the 15 November meeting, had suggested that a download of raw NOTAM data (including the Q line) should be provided so that third-party software such as NotamPlot or NotamPro could be used by pilots to filter and sort the data and present it in a graphical format. NATS had opposed release of the Q line at the November 15 meeting citing possible liability issues.)
Roger Budgen stated that following consultations with their legal representatives NATS were satisfied that a disclaimer could be devised that would protect NATS from potential liability claims arising from misuse of the data by third parties.
The Chairman stated that CAA wished to consider the potential issues that might arise from releasing the Q Line before making a decision. They were considering this as part of an overall review of the need if any to regulate third party suppliers of aeronautical data. Release of the Q Line had not been discounted as an option and the CAA agreed to work to a resolution of this issue as quickly as possible. No definitive date was available at the moment as to when this decision would be reached.
Mike Cross pointed out that the pilot processing the data for his own use was not a third party. It was his responsibility to ensure that he had the information he needed. How he chose to plan his flight was his own decision that he would have to answer for in the event of prosecution. AIS had a duty to provide the data and the pilot had a duty to obtain it. Whether he processed it in his head or used software was his decision in the same way that he could choose to plan his flight using software such as Navbox Pro or traditionally using a pencil and a mechanical flight computer.
Subscribers to the AFTN got the Q line, as did foreign NOTAM offices and people with a direct link into the NATS ADIMS system. The only people who did not have the information available were UK GA pilots.
Russell Howton pointed out that software writers had already written programs that could put back the data that AIS had removed. Rod Bailes-Brown pointed out that from an IT perspective this was a potentially hazardous thing to do and could not be prevented. Given that pilots wanted the information it would be better to give them it rather than for them to attempt to re-create it.
Rod Bailes-Brown produced some comments written by John Thorpe on an AAIB bulletin regarding a fatal accident in 1990 to a Piper Warrior. He wrote “Thorough preparation before such a flight was vital and this should have included the NOTAM information about the St Abbs VOR/DME. Clearly his route in that area relied on this and having to use the NDB for which he was almost certainly not prepared, resulted in a comparatively minor, but in this case fatal navigation error. Even if he had looked through the NOTAMs it would be easy to miss the vital gem that this pilot really needed, as it would have been hidden in the mass of mainly irrelevant information. It was a pity that the information was not presented in visual form so that it could have been more readily noted.”
Mike Cross said that John Thorpe was very well qualified in the field of GA safety. Accurate graphical presentation relied on what was in the Q Line.
Russell Howton suggested that if there were to be a delay, his previous suggestion of making the A1/A8 bulletins available on an interim basis would serve several useful purposes:-
· It would be quick and easy to do.
· It would provide a backup delivery method in the event of an outage on the main AIS web delivery system.
· It would enable the graphical presentation previously provided by NotamPlot and NotamPro to work once more.
· It would allow pilots to regain confidence in the new system by comparing the results agains the A1/A8 bulletins
John Gentleman asked if the reason NotamPlot and NotamPro no longer worked was because of the requirement to log in to the site and was advised that this was not so, the reason was that positional information, previously included in the A1/A8 bulletins was no longer provided by AIS in the new briefings.
The Chairman said that they wanted to move forward rather than backward and encouraging pilots to use another site was hardly likely to encourage use of the ADIMS web facility or improve confidence in its use..
Russell Howton replied that it would not be a backward move, it would simply be re-instating what should not have been removed. It was normal practice with IT projects to run the new system in parallel with the old until satisfied with the performance of the new system.
Rod Bailes-Brown said that his company had run two systems in parallel for a year. They had started up the new system, advised users that it was available, and when they were satisfied with performance had then advised users of the date on which the old system would be switched off.
The Chairman said that CAA had had discussions with NATS and had concluded that future consultation should be with representative bodies. NATS would set up bi-annual meetings with delegates from representative organisations. The CAA also had regular meetings with such organisations and by staggering these meetings there would be regular opportunities for issues to be raised. He and AIS agreed that the pilot representatives currently involved should be kept updated on progress and developments concerning the current issues. Mike Cross asked for a list of organisations represented at these meetings so that pilots would know who to contact and it was agreed that this would be provided.
Phil Bate said that the ADIMS database was being updated to include unlicensed aerodromes and navaids which had ICAO indicators. Previously only licensed facilities were included. This would enable them to be used in routes. 23 Aerodromes and one NDB would be added, they are Ashcroft, Badminton, Breighton, Brimpton, Bruntingthorpe, Charterhall, Chirk, Davidstow Moor, Dornoch, Eddsfield, Hanley, Huddersfield, Ledbury, Little Staughton, Mullaghmore, North Coates, Oban (North Connel), NDB “CNL”, Plockton, Shuttleworth (Old Warden), Skegness, Strathallan, Wombleton and York (Elvington)
Mike Cross thanked AIS for originally coming forward with the invitation to participate.
Rod Bailes-Brown proposed that once the system was working properly there should be a strong marketing effort to “sell” the system to pilots. Many people had become disillusioned and it was essential that they should be encouraged to use it again. The need for this was acknowledged by the CAA and NATS representatives present.
Comments from Russell Howton, Mike Cross and Rod Bailes-Brown
Overall we feel that this is an excellent outcome so far.
The views of pilots, collated and presented by us, have been listened to and action is under way.
Our paper, discussed at the meeting on 15 November called for three things:-
1. Fix what is there so that it works in the way it was designed to.
2. Provide a standardised downloadable brief with a geographic sort for display at aerodromes.
3. Provide a download of raw data so that third-party software such as NotamPlot and NotamPro could be used by pilots to filter and display information in ways that were relevant to their needs.
Of these:-
1. The site is now faster and more stable. There is less duplication of data and less irrelevant information being presented. There are still irritating aspects of the user interface which AIS have said that they intend to clear up once the major issues have been settled.
2. The standardised brief has been ordered from Thales IS and is expected to be available for live trial from around the third week in April.
3. The raw data download is under serious consideration by the CAA. For our part we cannot see any insurmountable objections to release but appreciate that the CAA need a little time to consult on this issue.
There were serious deficiencies in the way the project was managed and implemented, Many lessons have been learnt and work is ongoing to deal with problems and improve the system. Judgement on the success of this work can only be made once it has been completed. At the moment the pace at which work is progressing is reasonable, however the new standardised brief will not be available at best until several weeks after the start of the new flying season. Every effort needs to be made to maintain the speed of progress and ensure that there is no slippage in delivery.
The continued lack of a backup delivery method is unacceptable. CAA said that NATS were to present them with a list of possible solutions by the end of the month and that all options would be considered. NATS for their part said that they would NOT be putting forward restoration of the A1/A8 bulletins as a possibility, which makes a nonsense of the CAA position. Even if a decision were taken by say 7 March the lead time for implementation would mean that the new flying season would be under way long before any backup was in place and those users who dod not have any Internet access would still have no means of obtaining hard copy. Suggesting that briefings are always available from the Duty Officer at AIS Heathrow is not an answer. AIS do not have, nor do they have any plans to have, sufficient staff available to provide a viable service to telephone callers at busy times or in the event of a failure of the web delivery system.