Appendix 7 – Response to Additional Industry Comment

Upgrade of LATSA Page 96 of 148

9.7 Appendix 7 – Response to Additional Industry Comment

Comments regarding the Aerospace Development’s review as listed below. It is important to note that Aerospace Developments have reviewed the participant interface based on their own scope. The specification followed by the program developers involved in version 2.0 of LATSA did not incorporate some functionality due to scope limitations. Each of the points raised by Aerospace Developments have been responded to below: 1. The encryption of usernames and passwords was not deemed necessary during development as version 2.0 of LATSA was not considered a security sensitive application e.g. the personally identifiable information stored is very minimal and the site has no ecommerce function at this point. Encrypting usernames and passwords may be considered in version 3.0 of LATSA. 2. Earlier requests by systems testers were incorporated in searchable fields for Embarkation and Destination. Additional filtering to the Carrier and Operator fields could be considered in version 3 of LATSA. 3. Each participant will have a different management system for ECL or consignment numbers and Consignees. It was not considered prudent to add further limitations to the system to force Participants into new data record systems. In addition, fixing the Flight No field to the Carrier would mean significant administrative maintenance to ensure future changes to flight numbers were updated in a currently non-existent and linked table. Any change to the current system would require broad comment from industry due to the cost of ongoing data maintenance. 4. Flight Duration is currently calculated in the following manner: Local Arrival DateTime + GMT difference – Local Departure DateTime + GMT difference As the GMT difference for all airports are included in the Airport Table this would generally provide an effective flight duration result. Validation would require significant maintenance of an inter-port flight duration table linked to the aircraft table. This is an onerous maintenance task and is not considered necessary when the Participant would be expected to be aware of the flight duration without use of the software and can readily check the outcome. We are unaware of the dates and times used by Aerospace Developments to achieve a 9 hours flight duration to Amsterdam. We suspect that the Participant may not have used local time in the Arrival Time Field or applied a time which was not correct as per the flight schedule. 5. The Next buttons were introduced to assist in streamlining the process for new Participants. The “loading” message implicitly requests the Participant to wait while the current command is completed. If the Participant clicks on any buttons during this time the current process may appear locked and be aborted leaving the Participant to re-enter the information. The provision of button lock-outs or additional messaging may assist and could be considered in version 3.0 of LATSA 6. We have not been able to duplicate the error and have successfully “overloaded” the main hold of a Boeing 747-400BFC. Due to the nature of the error message presentation Upgrade of LATSA Page 97 of 148 we assume this error is related to server function and not to operation of the program. 7. We must advise that a decision was made by industry representatives to remove any weight loading restrictions. This decision was based on the variability of load and fuel factors and was not considered to be within the scope of this project. In addition to these comments, the Participant has no way of knowing the gross weight of other cargo when shipping less than a full plane load of livestock so weight limitations become meaningless as they are controlled by the carrier’s loadmaster. 8. There were some passenger aircraft loaded into the administrative database with data for unavailable decks or with recirculation active in the ventilation table. It is possible that these aircraft were used and created this error. This data has since been removed. While there is a compliant field listed in the aircraft model and aircraft hold tables they are yet to be implemented as lockouts. It was expected to instigate further lockouts in version 3.0 of LATSA once AQIS has made comment on the current version of the program. We expect this will minimise or eliminate this potential error. 9. Attachment 4 can be caused by a timeout. Steps can be taken to prevent this in version 3.0 of LATSA. 10. Printing of Documents is achieved through the standard Brower print function. We recommend that the participant click “view” and then use File Print. If “File” is not an option in your browser try pressing Alt to view the menu. 11. The checklist draw from version 1.0 of LATSA was modified and simplified to its current form by a group of industry Participants. Until a meeting with AQIS is satisfactorily concluded this will remain as the standard reporting system in version 2.0 of LATSA. In summary, we appreciate the comments and have attempted to effectively answer any constructive criticism of the software. We note that this analysis may have been undertaken without the use of a Participants Manual together with a copy of the final project scope and knowledge of subsequent industry decisions. This placed the system tester at some disadvantage. We would however be happy to discuss specific instances of error in order to correct operational issues or identify system constraints not previously noted. The above comments will be presented to the project manager for inclusion in any subsequent revision of the software. Upgrade of LATSA Page 98 of 148

9.8 Appendix 8 – LATSA V2.0 Administrators Manual