Main Article Content

Abstract

In the aviation industry, ensuring the quality and accuracy of aeronautical data is essential for maintaining the safety, efficiency, and reliability of air navigation. One important mechanism for data quality control is User Feedback (UFB), which contains reports from users regarding potential non-conformities in aeronautical chart products. This study aims to evaluate the UFB data processing workflow in the Cartography Unit of the Aeronautical Information Center and to design a priority classification model to address existing operational gaps. The research employs a qualitative case study approach, using data triangulation through interviews, observations, and document analysis. Data from August 2024 to June 2025 show a backlog of 46 unresolved UFB cases, including 7 classified as critical, 18 as major, and 21 as minor. The current first-in, first-out (FIFO) system lacks a formal priority classification, causing delays, with critical issues requiring an average of 21 days to resolve. To address this, the study proposes a risk-based classification model with Critical, Major, and Minor categories, adapted from ICAO Doc. 8126. Implementation is expected to reduce critical-issue resolution time by up to 50% and enhance overall data quality. The study is limited to chart-related UFB, with future work focusing on integrating the model into automated AIS management systems.

Keywords

User Feedback Data Processing Classification User Feedback, Pengolahan Data, Klasifikasi

Article Details

How to Cite
Rahadinan, M. N., Sonhaji, I. ., & Permatasari, N. A. . (2026). An Evaluation of User Feedback Data Management in The Cartography Unit of The Aeronautical Information Center. Jurnal Teknologi Kedirgantaraan, 11(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.35894/jtk.v11i2.343

References

  1. International Civil Aviation Organization, Annex 15 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aeronautical Information Services, 16th ed. Montréal, Canada: ICAO, 2018.
  2. International Civil Aviation Organization, Doc 8126: Aeronautical Information Services Manual, 7th ed. Montréal, Canada: ICAO, 2022.
  3. Government of the Republic of Indonesia, Government Regulation No. 77 of 2012 concerning the Public Corporation (Perum) Indonesian Air Navigation Service Provider (LPPNPI), 2012.
  4. Ministry of Transportation of the Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Transportation Regulation No. PM 9 of 2023 concerning Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 175 on Aeronautical Information Service Providers. Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Transportation, 2023.
  5. R. Santos, E. C. Groen, and K. Villela, “An overview of user feedback classification approaches,” in Proc. REFSQ Workshops, CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 2376, pp. 357–369, 2019.
  6. N. B. Putri and A. W. Wijayanto, “Comparative analysis of data mining classification algorithms for phishing website classification,” Komputika: Jurnal Sistem Komputer, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2022.
  7. Sugiyono, Quantitative, Qualitative, and Research and Development (R&D) Research Methods. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta, 2013.
  8. Sugiyono, Qualitative Research Methods. Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta, 2022.
  9. Sugiyono, Educational Research Methods (Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, R&D, and Educational Research). Bandung, Indonesia: Alfabeta, 2021.
  10. G. Daruhadi and P. Sopiati, “Research data collection,” J-CEKI: Jurnal Cendekia Ilmiah, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 5423–5443, 2024.
  11. A. Ramadhani, A. Syifa, E. Sholehah, N. Z. Amellia, S. A. Kamila, and T. P. Agustina, “Unlock your time: Training to improve time management,” E-Coops-Day, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 167–178, 2025.
  12. F. R. Suprapto, G. I. Marthasari, and I. Nuryasin, “A web-based sales and auction information system at Ricardo Corner MLG using the Personal eXtreme Programming (PXP) method,” Jurnal Repositor, vol. 2, no. 11, 2020.
  13. N. R. Wiwesa, “User interface and user experience for managing customer satisfaction,” Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Terapan, vol. 3, no. 2, 2021.