Search

Help

Page 3 of 62. Showing 620 results (0.011 seconds)

  1. Re: [AGS.UNS] Airport Ground Service unserviceable - coding

    In the light of FFS.CHG, shall we also adapt AGS.UNS to CHG?
  2. Re: [FFS.CHG] Rescue and firefighting services change - decoding

    That was the initial idea to equalise downgraded=limited, as 'LIMITED' is characterised in CodeStatusServiceType as "Operating with limited capabilities." If I understand correctly, are you suggesting to expand the AIXM-527 CP also to add "DOWNGRADED" for CodeStatusServiceType and to support that by 'OTHER:DOWNGRADED'
  3. Re: [GNSS.UNS] - GNSS not available - decoding

    This represents the definition of FALSE_POSSIBLE in CodeStatusNavaidBaseType https://aixm.aero/sites/aixm.aero/files/imce/AIXM511HTML/AIXM/DataType_CodeStatusNavaidBaseType.html model. I will make add a note that this may need adapting in accordance with local regulations. Note below the table also calls for the possi
  4. Re: [FFS.CHG] Rescue and firefighting services change - decoding

    The Jira AIXM-527 proposes so far only OTHER:EXTENDED (which stands for UPGRADED). No new value for DOWNGRADED, because in the discussion so far, DOWNGRADED =LIMITED (if I correctly understood, and as implicitely stated in this page). But clearly, for some topics, this discussion may partly fit, in case we want to st
  5. Re: [FFS.CHG] Rescue and firefighting services change - decoding

    What if ... we merge FFS.TD.ServiceOperationalStatus 'OTHER:UPGRADED/DOWNGRADED' with corresponding Q-code QFFCH (CH stands for "changed") ? And FFS.TD.ServiceOperationalStatus 'LIMITED' with corresponding Q-code QFFLT?
  6. Re: [AGS.UNS] Airport Ground Service unserviceable - decoding

    What if TD.ServiceOperationalStatus would be only "NOT AVAILABLE"? Like "Customs and immigration NOT AVBL." or "Hangar SER NOT AVBL." of "Oxygen NOT AVBL" etc. If something is unavailable, you cannot get it or use it.
  7. Re: [SFC.CON] Surface condition report - decoding

    Thank you
  8. Re: [SFC.CON] Surface condition report - decoding

    Here an example from our regulation: (SNOWTAM 0001 LSGG 04071200 04 3/6/1 75/25/50 05/04/NR WET SNOW/SLUSH/ICE 40 RWY 04 LDA REDUCED TO 3000. RWY 04 SNOWBANK LR20 FM CL. TWYS D/E SNOWBANKS. RWY 04 ADJ SNOWBANKS. ALL TWYS POOR. APRON SOUTH POOR.) if both rwy: ...RWY 04 LDA REDUCED TO 3000. RWY 22 LDA REDUCED TO 3500. T
  9. Re: [SFC.CON] Surface condition report - decoding

    Yes, designator(s) are pre-filled. And I agree; RWY is usually completely closed in that case (and then there is no need for issuing SNOWTAM). But the Situational awareness section provides this possibility. Practice Vs. Theory I tried to find an example of a published SNOWTAM with reduced LEN and NOTAM with declared
  10. Re: [SFC.CON] Surface condition report - decoding

    If I got your comment correctly, the designator(s) are pre-filled. I wondered a bit if this makes sense as the reduced LEN is rare due to snow and NOTAM is also required (usually RWY completely closed in case of snow).