NOTES OF NATS AIS CUSTOMER CONSULTATION MEETING
HEATHROW CTB, CONFERENCE ROOM 2
20TH APRIL 2004
WELCOME & OBJECTIVES:
Manager AIS welcomed all and pointed out that this was the first of this type of meeting and not sure how it would progress and it may well be that future meetings will be re-shaped to adapt to emerging requirements. He explained that AIS was run by NATS under a licence from the DTLR with CAA as regulator. The meeting is a licence requirement and was NATS run with the CAA as observer. AIS would report back to CAA on content and were in continuous dialogue.
There followed a round the table introduction.
AIS REPORT:
Manager AIS discussed:
- Where AIS ‘sat’ within the NATS business structure to give an overview of whom responsible for what and explained that AIS was a NERL service under NERL budget but managed by NSL (Airports) due to location. A good example of the complexity was that engineering expertise for AIS support and development was ‘bought-in’ from NSL and NERL.
- The move to Northolt and the intention of creating a ‘centre of excellence’.
- AIS staffing levels now correct apart from one Library position which we hope to fill soon (no impact upon service).
- Due to the fact that the delivery of the briefing is the responsibility of the airport operator, AIS in fact only produce the information ‘product’. Apart from individual requests by telephone or appointment, AIS do not deliver a personal type briefing service except via the Web site. This set the UK aside from the majority of Europe who generally provide the entire service.
- European AIS Database (EAD) – at present UK not part of this but will eventually join when content with the business case (Possibly 2008). EAD is a database, not a briefing service.
- The core ADIMS remains successful and the Web site is improving with regular changes applied.
- Areas for change have been identified and prioritised over a long term, with specific ‘problems’ being of a higher priority. THALES are working steadily through the list and identifying warranty and development items. The system warranty is due to expire soon and a new service support contract is being negotiated.
- NATS AIS presently have no intention to charge for the core service, except where AIS provides value-added products.
Head of Data Management:
Steve Harben discussed Single European Skies (SES), the Electronic AIP (e-AIP), European AIS Database (EAD), Common AIS Staff Profiling (CASP), and the AIP Audit Assistant. Manager AIS added that SES and other topics related to it are now an EC initiative and as such are ‘political’ and backed up by EC Mandate (Law).
Training Officer:
Lesley Clayton explained the role of the Training Officer in continuation training and customer awareness through liaison visits and ongoing internal updates.
QAR:
The QAR briefly described the high level quality processes in place. Comments and specific praise to AIS, from the most recent DNV audit were presented.
MAISO:
WO Carwithen explained that he was responsible for liasing with the Military. He co-ordinates the AFTN/ALFENS requirements and investigates NOTAM for the AIRPROX board. He has educated the military on the use of the AIS Web site.
AOPA enquired about the use of NDS and WO Carwithen explained that the future of NDS depends largely on the introduction and role of MFMIS. Also it was highlighted that NDS is currently only supported during normal office working hours and therefore may not display all current NOTAM information.
It was explained that whatever system the military use AIS will support this function H24 on the move to Northolt.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Accessibility of data:
This was raised by AOPA as a major concern. They pointed out that PIB are not available at all Aerodromes and as AIS no longer provide a Briefing Service apart from PIB they felt this could lead to more infringements taking place.
AOPA are also concerned at restrictions on the availability of data. CAA have prevented end users from gaining access to the full text of NOTAM messages. AOPA are concerned that in the light of Eurocontrol’s Copyright and Charging Policy for the European AIS Database (EAD) and the pending court case between AirService Australia and Jeppesen Inc regarding charges being made for AIS data the CAA’s restriction is based on monetary considerations. AOPA’s view is that safety information should not be paid for at the point of delivery as this will be detrimental to safety. AOPA feels that the costs of collating the information should be recovered centrally and not by charges at the point of delivery. This is in line with the ICAO recommendation contained in Annex 15 that the cost be recovered from Aerodrome and En-Route charges. ICAO provides that the cost of producing media and printed copies can be charged to the user. AOPA supports the ICAO recommendations on this matter.
Manager AIS responded that NATS AIS were part of NERL and as such a non-profit (or limited profit) making company and only value-added products may be charged for in the future. AOPA said they had no problem with this.
Use of the internet has enabled the dissemination of AIS not only to the previously limited customer base, but also to the ‘living room’. Mgr AIS stated that there is no restriction to data and any bona fide third party user or representative GA body can connect to the NATS AIS system.
It was pointed out that any 3rd party company could have the raw data via a data stream. Head of Data Management added out that the Q line ‘could’ be seen as a Value Added Product. AOPA disagreed. The Q Line is part of the raw NOTAM format as laid down by ICAO it is not a value added addition. Lack of access to the whole of the raw text prevented users from deciphering NOTAM when the E line text was inadequate or from working out why the NOTAM was included in their brief.
PFA pointed out that this did remain an issue but the main problem was lack of education and that collectively we should focus on this. AOPA felt that pilots had tried the Web PIB and found it too difficult and were therefore not pre-flight briefing.
Manager AIS at this point suggested an ACTION on AIS that an AIS staff member targets selected aerodromes and ascertains the methods used to obtain a briefing. This could be done by calling selected aerodromes in Pooleys’ to identify those experiencing difficulties. This would be a ‘quick hit’ but should help to widen availability of printed briefs at clubs and aerodromes.
AOPA
AOPA suggested press releases when infringements occurred to highlight the risks and penalties of not briefing. Manager AIS said that these comments would be communicated to the CAA and a new line of action agreed.
NOTAM:
AOPA presented a PIB and discussed the problems within it. Problems were evident in a number of areas:-
 | Annex 15 8.1.3 requires PIB to be in Plain Language, however many items in the brief contained abbreviations which were not included in the list of AIS abbreviations contained within the AIP. |
| Annex 15 5.2.2 requires that each NOTAM shall be "as brief as possible and so compiled that its meaning is clear without reference to another document", however items in PIB frequently refer to other documentation. |
Annex 15 defines NOTAM as being "A notice distributed by means of telecommunication containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations" however NOTAM are being promulgated that do not fall within this definition.
ICAO Document 8126, The Aeronautical Information Services Manual, contains examples of things that should not be the subject of NOTAM. These include items of a parochial nature, which would not affect a decision to divert. However NOTAM are being issued for such items.
NOTAM on SRA non-availability was included in an en-route VFR brief, although this is an IFR facility.
Examples were pointed out where the E Line contained insufficient information to identify the location concerned, AOPA pointed out that accessibility of the Q Line would have enabled the reader to obtain the missing information. The Q Line is available on the EAD site, why not on the UK AIS site?
Examples were pointed out where reporting points were included in NOTAM scoped for VFR when the points themselves did not appear on the ICAO VFR chart.
AOPA pointed out that many of the Military Navigation Warning were of no utility. Military Nav Warnings were frequently issued which covered large areas defined by a series of co-ordinates. An example was cited of a NOTAM advising that a single military aircraft might be dropping radiosondes in one of three different areas of the North Sea at some time during a four hour time frame. There was no practical action that could be taken by a GA pilot other than the normal maintenance of a good look out and the NOTAM was therefore of little utility. AUS responded that the military require these NOTAM. Head of Data Management explained that we couldn’t prepare a bespoke service but we were in negotiation with AUS and other sponsors of NOTAM information in order to address the quality of NOTAM output.
It was suggested that the Military NAV Warnings (NWs) are sent on a separate distribution but again it was explained that the Military use ADIMS PIB and do not want this information filtered out.
AOPA suggested that they should be scoped not for inclusion in PIB, however the current web site software does not provide any capability for filtering on this field. Providing this capability would satisfy the needs of military and civilian users.
QAR stated that random quality checks are in place and these would be increased to ensure the quality of the output. Staff editing errors were notoriously difficult to eradicate but the AIS management team would continue to pursue this with vigour. (Action on AIS)
Q CODES:
PFA queried whether or not there was any feedback from the CAA regarding the release of the Q line. He pointed out that in the past the CAA had said NO but only unofficially. He requested a reason why.
Manager AIS stated that the subject of Q Codes was not a dead issue and could not be part of the debate as the decision lay with the CAA.
AvBrief suggested that the PFA/AOPA could obtain all the information they required via NAVBOX whom many GA pilots already use It was also suggested that the majority of GA pilots would neither be interested or able to interpret the Q line coding.
AOPA commended AvBrief for providing a free data feed for NotamPlot but pointed out that other programs such as NotamPro and NotamCheck were still parsing data from PIB’s rather than using the Q Line which remained unavailable to their users. AOPA pointed out that the Q Line had been designed specifically to aid the selection and sorting of data by computer and witholding it was having a detrimental effect on safety. Mgr AIS restated that he was surprised that other ‘umbrella’ organisations had not taken a direct feed from ADIMS.
SERVICE TO MOD:
 | AIS Web site good. More user friendly than NDS - RAF Leeming (Fast Jet station) |
| We use the web site daily with no problems - UAS Strathclyde (University Air Sqn). & RAF Coltishall ( Fast Jet Station) |
| We are happy with the website - AAC Middle Wallop ( Army Air Corps) |
| Error Codes -E0040 for example received from server ANAIS when requesting a Narrow Route brief using Latitude and Longitude Co-ordinates. |
| Danger Areas to be listed in one table |
| A search facility to be able to find and extract a specific NOTAM |
| An on screen editing facility, perhaps when the PIB has been transferred to the Handbook |
These are the prime responses:
| Service generally good, Staff approach sometimes variable, but usually pretty helpful |
| Service from the NOTAM Office is Good |
| AIS Staff always very helpful |
| 'The service is satisfactory' was the least complimentary comment |
Because this service is provided to the military by AIB at Northolt there was no feedback.
Q.5 Do you have any other comment whatsoever concerning AIS?
| Danger Area NOTAM are flooding the market. The amount generated for the English Channel Ranges in particular. Ideally there should be a central co-ordination facility that produces a Daily Bulletin on all UK Danger Area activity. |
WEBSITE:
AOPA gave feedback obtained from users at the recent London Air Show held at Earls Court.
- When logging in it should be sufficient to hit ENTER rather than having to click on the tick symbol to start the login process, a minor change that would remove an irritation.
- Front Page ‘unfriendly’. It gives no information on the site or what it does and a redesign would be beneficial.
- Could site be set up for ‘cookies’ to enable those who would like it to have an automatic login (as used on the Met Office site)? AIS pointed out that some users disliked cookies. AOPA pointed out that it was a requirement of the site that cookies were enabled in any case.
- AOPA asked if the option to register for British Isles only could be removed. It was of little use as it prevented the use of the "dummy" ICAO codes created by AIS. AIS said that it was their normal policy if required to change a username or password to change the registration to UK and Foreign at the same time. AOPA pointed out that removing the British Isles option would stop them having to do it.
- The "no activity time-out" is currently 10 minutes and frequently results in users being logged out while they are working on the site. It was suggested this should be extended and the general consensus was that increasing it to 20 minutes would be appropriate.
- Could the ‘Route Brief’ option be taken off and only the Narrow Route made available? (MAISO pointed out that the MoD uses this facility very heavily and is therefore against the suggested removal). AOPA accepted this and suggested that the brief should be given a more appropriate name as it was confusing. Users imagined it would provide them with a brief for a route when in fact it provided a brief for the entire FIR.
- Rename briefing Handbook as confusing. Most users thought of a Handbook as an instruction manual. "Saved Briefings" was suggested as a more appropriate name.
- It was suggested that one of the vacant boxes in the NOTAM drop-down menu could be used to link to the UKAIS - Briefing Help document. And labelled "BRIEFING HELP".
- Errors have occurred when users have entered the date in the UK format DDMMYY rather than the ICAO format of YYMMDD. The result is that he user gets a brief for the wrong date but is not aware of the error. Minor software modifications could be used to trap this error. If the date entered is more than 48 hours from the current date a warning could appear on the screen "The date you entered, June 4 2005, is more than 48 hours from now, are you sure this is what you want" The date printed on the header of the PIB could also be expanded to an alphabetic format to make any errors obvious.
- Use if the word ‘Traffic’ needs rethinking. While it is meaningful to AIS it does not have any particular significance to pilots. "Flight Rules" would be a better label.
- Briefing ID – many users are unaware of what this is and see it as useless. It was originally intended to be "Flight Number" and appears as such in the header of the PIB. "Name" or "Briefing Name" would be a better label and the label in the header of the PIB should match that on the entry screen. Also appearing in the header of a PIB is a reference number which uniquely identifies the individual PIB. This is currently unlabeled but should be marked. "Briefing Number" might be appropriate as a label for this field.
Manager AIS thanked the AOPA representative for the comments, which were useful and had been noted. He explained that THALES were constantly updating the system but that it was THALES Website software and although we would like to make changes to it immediately, we had no choice but to go through THALES and this would entail substantial costs. In the future AIS may look to another Web provider, as the current one is a ‘bolt on’ to ADIMS. He added that NATS AIS had learnt many lessons and had come a long way since the last system change and any developments or changes would be with full consultation and trial. AOPA pointed out that many of the suggested changes were minor, did not affect the functionality of the site, and would therefore be simple and cheap to implement.
AOPA asked for clarification on the need to enter additional crossed FIR’s in the Narrow Route Brief. AOPA had an example of a pilot wishing to fly from Elstree to Lisbon. If the route was direct, would the system pick up NOTAM affecting the route which were not within the London or Lisbon FIR’s? Head of Data Management advised that the brief would include NOTAM affecting the route only for the FIR’s in which the departure, arrival and alternate aerodromes fell plus the FIR’s for any ICAO waypoints in the route. AOPA felt that this was dangerous. Having put the route in it was reasonable for the pilot to expect that the PIB would cover it.
Head of Data Management explained that you must enter one waypoint per FIR on the Narrow Route Brief. The FAQ’s will be amended by the next AIRAC date to reflect this. (Action on AIS – Already in train) AOPA pointed out that the pilot’s route should be chosen by him, not dictated by the inadequacies of the briefing system.
AOPA stated that the design of the pdf files on the AIS site prevented ‘Cut and Paste’ This was a useful facility that allowed authoritative text to be used in other documents, manuals and procedures as well as in answering queries. The facility was available in Primary Legislation pdf’s available from the HMSO web site and also in documents available from the CAA web site yet despite previous requests it remained unavailable from the AIS pdf’s and no tenable reason had been given. It was said that costing would be looked into and discussed with CAA. (ACTION on AIS)
PFA stated that they had no issue with the reliability now as this had improved but that the Front End of the Web would be better if it wasn’t in the format of a flight plan.
Manager AIS replied that a lot of future decisions rest on the move to Northolt. It was reiterated that any future developments would entail more in-depth test and development and that the customer would be fully consulted.
PFA stated that AIS were doing a good job with what they had. AOPA added that the feedback regarding AIS has improved.
AOPA suggested that it could be extremely beneficial to provide a secondary interface. There was a standardised format for describing an intended flight in the ICAO Flight Plan. The Narrow Route Brief page had originally been designed to gather and submit Flight Plan information. A number of flight planning programs existed, including Navbox and Jeppesen FliteStar, which would produce flight plans. With a suitable interface it ought to be possible to transmit the flight plan to AIS and to the Met Office and obtain a NOTAM and Met briefing for the flight by return.
AvBrief pointed out that FliteStar already provided this functionality in the USA but not in Europe.
REDUCING INFRINGEMENTS:
AOPA and PFA felt that most of what they wished to say had been covered in earlier discussion. They both felt that there was insufficient effort being put in to educating and informing pilots. Many who had tried to use the site in the early days had found it unusable and had given up. AOPA asked what information had been released by AIS to the aviation press to help and encourage pilots to use the site. Manager AIS stated that no press releases had been issued.
AOB: (None).
Manager AIS thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
Lesley Clayton
AIS Operations Support & Unit Training Officer
Tel: +44(0) 20 8745 3449
(Meeting Secretary)
18 May 2004
SUMMARY of ACTIONS:
- AIS to target aerodromes and offer advise on website usage (AIS).
- AIS to amend FAQ pages to reflect waypoint Error 40 Code (AIS).
- AIS to address Quality of NOTAM output
- Assess CAA position (policy) for provision of ‘Cut & Paste’ facility on PDF (AIS).
- AIS to Address WEBSITE comments submitted by AOPA (Items 1-11).