An interesting NOTAM?

[Air Ace]

AUSTRALIA GEN (YBBB/YMMM)

C14/10

EFFECTIVE 31 MARCH 2010 CASA WILL BEGIN ISSUING
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES TO THE REGISTERED OPERATORS OF
ANY AIRCRAFT EXCEEDING 250 KTS BELOW 10,000 FT WHEN
NOT AUTHORISED BY ATC.

INFRINGEMENTS SERVED UNDER REGULATION 296b
WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED FROM DATA DERIVED
FROM AN AIRCRAFT'S ADS-B SYSTEM WHEN THAT AIRCRAFT
EXCEEDS 250 KTS BELOW 10,000 FT IN ANY CLASS OF
AIRSPACE.

WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURS IN CLASS C, D OR E
AIRSPACE, THE SYSTEM WILL CORRELATE DATS DERIVED FROM
THE AUSTRALIAN ADVANCED AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM TO
DETERMINE IF ATC HAD CANCELLED THE SPEED RESTRICTION.
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AN INFRINGEMENT NOTICE WILL
NOT BE ISSUED.

WITHIN 28 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF AN INFRINGEMENT NOTICE,
THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE AIRCRAFT IS REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE CASA WITH THE NAME AND ARN OF THE PILOT IN
COMMAND OF THE AIRCRAFT AT THE TIME THE OFFENCE WAS
COMMITTED. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
REGULATION 296E, FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT DEALING
WITH THE INFRINGEMENT NOTICE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT
NOTICE.

FROM 03 311300 TO PERM

[Scott Diamond]

Hopefully all the fees can go to buying a keyboard that hasn't got a sticking shift key :mad:

[Captain Nomad]

This is a significant development. CASA is using technology developed for improving the safety and efficiency of air traffic and using it to initiate punitive measures.

Can you imagine the difficulty in combating a bogus fine? What if the 'air traffic system' has a burp and doesn't record the issuing of a speed waver. CASA records it as a breach, sends out a fine and is chasing you and your license. 28 days or so later you find out about it and what have you got recourse to for evidence? CVR tapes long gone, ATC tapes - possibly not available. It's just your voice against theirs saying "but I was issued with a speed waver - I swear...!"

[nig&nog]

Easy fix for this is do not put ADS-B in your aircraft and all is fine, except Australia continues to go backwards in the world of professional aviation.

Nig

[Frank Arouet]

Who called me paranoid about "big brother" watching when the ADSB debate was in full swing. Mark this down as the first of many.:mad:

[Captain Nomad]

Of course 'revenue raising' wouldn't have anything to with this would it...? I should wash my mouth out with soap for even suggesting...! :yuk: :ugh:

[The Chaser]

Dear oh Dear :D

One to you Air Ace .... but you are 4 days early :E

Got ya Frank :D check the date and time of effect :}, assuming of course you can convert UTC to Local ;)

:D:D:D

[Captain Nomad]

Since when was today April fools day...? :confused: :}

Seriously though - would not surprise me at all...

[TBM-Legend]

Australia - The Nanny State...:mad::mad::mad:

[The Chaser]

F.F.S you sooks. :rolleyes: The real C14/10 is as follows:-
C14/10 REVIEW C21/09
TRIGGER NOTAM - AIP SUP H28/05 AUSTRALIAN ORGANISED TRACK STRUCTURE
(AUSOTS) GUIDELINES
AVBL FM AVFAX CODE 81525 AND AIRSERVICES WEBSITE
WWW.AIRSERVICEAUSTRALIA.COM/PUBLICATIONS/AIP.ASP (http://www.AIRSERVICEAUSTRALIA.COM/PUBLICATIONS/AIP.ASP)
FROM 03 100431 TO 06 300300 EST
And when would 03 311300 UTC be ..... think about it :ugh:

[KRviator]

As the teenyboppers and kiddies these days would say...

PWNED!!!!111

Thoug it did have me going for a bit too. Well done...:}

[vme]

Isn't the aircraft speed as reported by ADS-B ground-speed from the GPS?

[Chimbu chuckles]

No ADSB reports IAS as well.

Had me going for a little while too:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

So this thread is about a false and misleading statement in the form of a NOTAM?:rolleyes: Why don't you try this on some of our airport "security" staff. They have a great sense of humour:uhoh:

You had me worried about my local flying. I'll probably get caught one day. But thanks for the "heads up" Chaser, I always thought with your caustic record you wouldn't bother.:hmm:

EDIT to add; Grandkids just told me the penalty for April fools jokes before the day or after 12 noon, (no mention of GMT or whatever), is a Chinese burn "AND" a "corked" shoulder. Someone's in deep trouble!:ooh:

[The Chaser]

Some of us have a sense of humour :) well done Air Ace

[eocvictim]

Considering the gumbiment continuously looks at finding new ways to generate revenue; like trying to fit GPS based speed detection devices to all newly manufactured cars, this would come as no surprise. :ugh: Probably why so many people were quick to believe it.

[Jet_A_Knight]

This has probably just given CASA an idea!

Starts with cheers - ends with tears.:{

[Dick Smith]

I understand they are going to bring in a number of lower speed limits for aircraft in C above "pressure points" such as Hornsby - a bit like the lower speed limits in school zones.

I am told the proposed limit will be 145 knots.

The reason for the other decision is that one particular Airline has been flying below 10,000' at speeds up to 255- 258 knots giving them an unfair advantage over others who comply with the law.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Dick

With respect, but what a load of crap.

5-8 kts indicated from 30 miles is going to give you a whole 10-15 secs advantage by the time you configure.

As for 145 kts at Hornsby - well it wont be in 737's or other jets - might be alright for a slowtation - sorry citation...

[VH-XXX]

You had me worried about my local flying. I'll probably get caught one day. But thanks for the "heads up"

Seriously Frank I don't think the 250 knot limit will ever be a problem for your "local flying."


I can proudly say that I smashed the limit a couple of years ago in a single engine piston. 9,500ft on descent over Tulla into Moorabbin, SR22, 200 indicated, add for TAS and a massive tail wind giving 270 knots. Can't complain.

[AerocatS2A]

Perhaps Dick is just getting into the spirit of the OP.

[eocvictim]

I can proudly say that I smashed the limit a couple of years ago in a single engine piston. 9,500ft on descent over Tulla into Moorabbin, SR22, 200 indicated, add for TAS and a massive tail wind giving 270 knots. Can't complain.

Its IAS anyway, not TAS and certainly not GS. Just as well as the GAM shrikes at AD and EN would have to slow down most nights in winter.

[Frank Arouet]

VH-XXX;

You can't claim a tailwind!

May 1974. FL 240 ISA, night flight Dubbo to Sydney 3 POB V35TC VH-DLO, 200 Kts straight and level before descent, normal predicted TAS.

GPS wasn't invented then. I descended at book figures, but ATC wanted a high speed ability below 10,000 due traffic separation which was accomplished OK.

A good tin aeroplane is probably as good as your modern "plastic fantastics":ok:

[Jabawocky]

And what is the VNE for an SR22 Mr XXX ? := With an estimated TAS of 225 there! :uhoh:

I would not like you doing that in any Cirrus that I owned......not that I would!;)

J:E

[Jabawocky]

And Frank, was the VNE on that model 195kts? What TAS did you achieve n the way down ? :eek:

Them tin bits may have parted company....... then what? :uhoh:

[Frank Arouet]

Just looked at the notes I still have. ISA VNE 195 Kts CAS. Full throttle, 2500 RPM 75% 214 BHP FL 240 is 230 MPH./ 199.64 Kts. Descent as previously stated, at book figures. Strong as a "bone". Max speed below 10,000 in those days was, from memory, 200 Kts.

[Jabawocky]

I assume that the 199knots is TAS not IAS?

The V Tail must have a tolerence beyond 195 for TAS then if they publish that as being acceptable behaviour. Where is the Dr when you need him!:cool:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Where is the Dr when you need him!

Fishing! :E

Dr :8

[VH-XXX]

And what is the VNE for an SR22 Mr XXX

Easy Jaba. 201 KIAS. Only an irresponsible fellow would go over VNE.

Don't try that at home in the RV10 or you'll get that dreaded wing flutter I have been reading about.

[compressor stall]

Flutter? Scary stuff in a PA30...

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/PA-30/640x/EM-0098-01.mov

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Vne in the Bonanza is 196 kts. I believe that they are test flown to 10% above that before delivery.

So what is the "margin for error" ? Dunno, but the ruddervator beef-up AD is some comfort.

I rarely descend above top of the green - but that's just me.

Jaba doesn't seem to have the same reservations on descent in the Retard Vehicle - when trying to stay ahead of the FTDK! :E

Dr :8

[Chimbu chuckles]

I was NOBBLED???:eek:

[Capn Bloggs]

The pansies who programmed my Boeing's FMS put in a limit of 245 BLO 10k, just so we don't get caught for hooning. Wusses. :ugh: :yuk:

[ARFOR]

:E yes, but we know 'the dart' will downhill much better than that :}

As long as it is not Class E :hmm:

C and D in Oz enable fast descents [for sequencing] because VFR hear IFR, and IFR hear VFR, you are known about by ATC, who is not going to let you hit one another ;)

In E, well, even 250kts reducing is gunna be a Mark 1 EB challenge.

At least in the 30nm CTAF/CAGRO IFR can hear VFR broadcasts

[LeadSled]

Chimbu Chuck,

How does this work??

Light aircraft don't (usually) have an ADC, or any other digitized IAS data, the Garmin 330 Mode S transponder plus GDL 90 GPS source has no IAS input of any kind, I was not aware that IAS was a required input into an ADS-B/C message??

Tootle pip??

PS: Re. Class E airspace, can ATC really give an exemption to a statutory speed limit. Last time I read the rules, ATC could only waive a speed limit in A and C??
But maybe I have missed an amendment??

Unfortunately, 250 kt. is often a very inefficient speed for many large aircraft, particularly on climb at heavy weights. Anybody for Flaps 1 to 10,000 on a 744 at max weight. Not any time this pilot is flying one, see the airplane flight manual.

[Capn Bloggs]

In E, well, even 250kts reducing is gunna be a Mark 1 EB challenge.
Yep, 300, 250 or 200 woouldn't make any difference:

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/SAwaytogo2.jpg

[ARFOR]

:E
Class E airspace, can ATC really give an exemption to a statutory speed limit
In class E? I would not think so. Even if ATC technically could, not too many ATC's would accept responsibility for increasing the risk [higher closing speeds] to pilots [the unkown VFR and/or IFR] who are left reliant on seeing [and avoiding] each other.

In terminal area [where climb and descent is part of the conflict exposure] E, nobody knows with any certainty, the track or altitude intentions of a large proportion of the conflict scenarios i.e. the VFR component. In D or higher categories they do.

[LeadSled]

ARFOR,

That's the point, speed limits in A/C (have a think about the new D, maybe another legislative change coming up) can clearly be waived, but it is a statutory limit in E and G.

Therefor, only the pilot in command can, on legitimate safety grounds, can determine that 250 kt below 10,000 can be exceeded.

Unfortunately, our regulations are far from clear, as to the authority of the PIC is concerned, compared to FAR 91.3.

See also Part 91.117(d), whereas in AU, the power of the PIC to do as in (d) must be inferred.

Receiving a bluie (administrative fine) in the mail effectively (if not strictly legally) leaves you "guilty" unless you can prove your innocence, including by virtue of exercising the authority of the PIC.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Extract from FARs.

§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Chimbu Chuck,

How does this work??

Light aircraft don't (usually) have an ADC, or any other digitized IAS data, the Garmin 330 Mode S transponder plus GDL 90 GPS source has no IAS input of any kind, I was not aware that IAS was a required input into an ADS-B/C message??

I was referring to my day job, actually mostly night job, Boeing 767. We have been told that IAS is displayed to ATC - I remember thinking when told "FCK that SUCKS!!":E

[Capn Bloggs]

our regulations are far from clear, as to the authority of the PIC is concerned, compared to FAR 91.3.
Yes they are. The table of airspace services and requirements in AIP is quite clear. The PIC has no authority, except as granted by the CARs, to bust any speed limit in that table.

All that USA "authority" is just extra rules that the yanks have decided to impose. I wonder if they have lodged differences with ICAO? :cool:

[ollie_a]

Depends on where you're flying, in the UK ATC can see your IAS through mode S. In Aus it's on the drawing board but we will have to wait for our radar heads to be upgraded to mode S, and for Eurocat to get an upgrade too. It's in the pipeline though.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ahhh - that makes sense - I will only have to be careful going in and out of LHR/Europe:ok:

We're always back at min clean by the time we are below 10 anyway at LHR - and generally on our way to Lambourne holding pattern.

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
My dear chap, I have no idea what type of aircraft you are flying, or whether it even is something you have come across, but there are a number of aircraft on my license where the minimum clean speeds at hight weights are well above 250 knots, and not by one or 2 knots, either.

Are you really suggesting I should fly with flap out to 10,000'. The list of reasons why you shouldn't start with the fact that the allowable negative G with any flap out is zero, naught, nothing. Can you predict that there will be no turbulence of any kind, that might cause a problem, on every heavy departure??

That is why FAR 91.117(d) is there, to clearly authorize the PIC to operate the aircraft in accord with the AFM and other manufacturer's recommendation.

There is no such clear authorization in the Australian regulation, and there should be -- whether ATC or statutory speed limits are in force.

We did have it clearly laid out in our draft Part 91, it will be interesting to see if it survives, because it is vital to the pilots of every large aircraft.

Do you really want to be subjected to a situation where some chairborn ace can retrospectively question your operational safety decisions, to reinterpret your AFM, for an aircraft that, in all likelihood, they have no knowledge of, let alone experience.

The whole criticism of the Australian regulations is that they are so totally prescriptive and inflexible, and in an example like this, are counterproductive in safety terms.

The only reason Australian regulations do not cause more trouble than they do, is that they are seldom enforced, and only then, very selectively.

Tootle pip!!

PS: What make you think that FAA need to file a difference for Part 91.117(d), or put another way, what make you thing that the ICAO SARPs are so inflexible that a difference even exists.

For example, "FAA D", there is no such thing. FAA D is ICAO, and by notifying a difference for VFR weather minima, FAA remains ICAO compliant.

[LeadSled]

OS,

No, I'm just having a gay old time, being a bit sarcastic with Bloggs, who might or might not actually be a Captain, in the aeronautical sense, as opposed to the Bell Captain ( and I don't mean helicopters).

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

As for 145 kts at Hornsby

DHdriver,
It would be achievable in many aircraft (744/767/777/A380 --- if not the big B737) but, boy will it be noisy, all the low noise continuous descent approaches out the window ---- I can hear the objections now.

Big increases in fuel bills too, but I guess the airlines will be happy, because it will be "so much safer".

Is this another April Fool joke somebody is playing in Dick?

Tootle pip!!

[ARFOR]

Leadsled

A response post to your previous is here http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/408230-nas-rears-its-head-again-13.html#post5602380

It is relevant to the NAS discussion.

Cheers :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Easy Jaba. 201 KIAS. Only an irresponsible fellow would go over VNE.

Don't try that at home in the RV10 or you'll get that dreaded wing flutter I have been reading about.

Ahhhhhhhhh so your TAS exceeded the VNE, :=

So you have been reading about these things, good boy! :D

[Captain Nomad]

And what's the problem with TAS exceeding an IAS Vne? Turboprops do that all the time in cruise let alone descent... I guess you guys don't have a barber pole for your high altitude jaunts!

[Jabawocky]

Flutter.......

Someone who knows more about the transport category aircraft design may have some interesting answers here, but there are quite a few articles around you can read about this topic.

Some gliders for example have a plaque with reduced VNE numbers at higher altitudes for this very reason. Its not about the density of air its all about velocity!

Back to normal viewing!

[Captain Nomad]

I'm a bit concerned about the mix of airspeed terms that people have been using. So with the risk of 'sucking eggs' this might be interesting/informative for some.

Yes, it is about velocity, but air density affects how we interpret our velocity (ie, what readings we are getting - or not getting - on the instruments in front of us).

The key determinator of aircraft performance is IAS. IAS is critical to the flight performance of the aircraft as it is related to dynamic pressure which is related to the amount of lift produced (Lift = CL x half rho V squared x S). Aerodynamically, IAS is what matters. Factors such as altitude other than standard sea level, errors of the instrument, errors of installation, compressibility etc may create great variations between the instrument indications and the actual flight speed.

CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) is the result of correcting IAS for errors of the instrument and position or location of installation (usually small).

EAS (Equivalent Air Speed) is the result of correcting CAS for compressibility effects. At high flight speeds the stagnation of pressure in the pitot tube is not representative of the airstream dynamic pressure.

TAS (True Airspeed) is the actual speed of the aircraft relative to the air. TAS results when EAS is corrected for density altitude. Temperature and altitude are the key players here. For a given IAS the TAS will increase with increasing altitude.

As the primary airspeed indicator in front of us usually displays IAS, limiting and operating airspeeds are usually published as IAS. SOME aircraft may publish a limiting TAS but I wouldn't say that is common.

Higher performance aircraft with large speed and altitude envelopes will publish speeds appropriate to altitude. Some have an air data computer which provides data to a handy little Vmo (barbers pole) needle which will show you the limiting IAS as it reduces with increased altitude. If you don't have that you will need to remember that the Vne on the instrument is that which applies at SEA LEVEL! Consult the manual for limits applicable at higher altitude. The RA-AUS website offers this suggestion if you don't have that data:

If there is insufficient manufacturer's information available for the aircraft you fly — and you are uncertain about the appropriate Vne for an operating altitude — then multiply the density altitude, in thousands of feet, by a factor of 1.5 to get the percentage decrease to apply to the specified Vne to establish a safe Vne appropriate to the altitude. For example if density altitude is 8000 feet and specified Vne is 100 knots then 8[000] × 1.5 = 12%. Corrected Vne = 88% of 100 = 88 knots IAS/CAS.


It is possible for a turboprop aircraft to have a Vne of say 240 KIAS (Sea Level value) and cruise in mid twenties altitude at about 160 KIAS while having a TAS of about say 260 knots (and a Ground Speed of 300 knots)! The barbers pole might be indicating say about 190 KIAS so the aircraft is comfortably cruising below max operating speed and yet above the stall - remember it is the INDICATED airspeed values we are interested in here. The higher you go, the smaller that margin becomes.

Some may have heard of the term 'coffin corner.' As an aircraft flies higher it will reach a point where the maximum operating speed and stall speed close to the point where the pilot may not be able to detect the difference between pre-stall buffet and high Mach number buffet. At the ABSOLUTE AERODYNAMIC CEILING of the aircraft these two values are coincident (actually the upper value is Vdf/Mdf - maximum demostrated flight diving speed; the highest speed demonstrated during certification - Vmo/Mmo is buffered below that).

Rambling ramble over! :8

[Jabawocky]

Captain Nomad

Yes agree with what you have posted, but its what you have not posted that is of interest. I see the RAAus actually make reference to this also.

In your Boeing/Aibus/DHC etc.... the issues of flutter may be well addressed and the critical speed for flutter will most likely be outside your other oprating limits.

This is not always the case for GA aircraft/Gliders/LSA or ultralights.

now Flutter in control surfaces has far less to do with density as it does velocity, the number of air particles ripping over the wing is not the problem, with flutter its more about the rate at which they rip over the surface and in an upset once bits start flopping around and they don't stop :eek:.

Just trust me, I'm an engineer ;). Problem is my area of expertise is not where this discussion needs it to be.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wAiOcPVXW0c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wAiOcPVXW0c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Jabawocky]

And this one for the Fork Tailed folk

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DU7c0XgfqKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DU7c0XgfqKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[VH-XXX]

That second one looks to be a wee bit close to the ground to be wanting that kind of fluttering happening down the aft!

[Captain Nomad]

One can't help but wonder if it has something to do with not operating the aircraft appropriately. Vne is not the only consideration. Not knowing or operating the aircraft appropriately with regard to the correct Va speed for the aircraft weight and altitude for example. That kind of flutter would not be considered normal for normal operation and certification purposes. Of course another consideration with an ageing aircraft is also slop in linkages/unbalanced control surfaces etc which would induce flutter at much lower speeds than normal. That second vid looks like someone wanted to start playing test pilot - good luck to him...! :suspect:

[Led Zep]

Am I the only one who thinks that V tail flutter is footage from a model?

[rutan around]

I liked flying much better when I didn't know about these things. I think I'll have another drink.
C-C-Cheers RA

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I think history will record the first instance of flutter in the stab of a Twin Comanche was during the UK ARB flight tests for a UK C. of A. Date about 1962 or 63. All this happened withing the aeroplane's normal operating envelope --- ie: Not beyond Vne.

I saw the aircraft after the incident, that the aircraft got back on the ground was a testament to the skill of the pilot, the CP of Air Couriers, the then Piper agents in UK.

As a result of the flutter, one side of the stab, from about the outer end of the servo tab, at an angle inboard to the leading edge at about a third semi-span had almost sheared off, and on the ground, part was folded back over the stab. After that, all Twin Comanches had an AD to strengthen the area, later incorporated in production.

The same pilot also survived a crash in a Apache, going around on one with gear and some flap out. You could see the aircraft shape where it went through the roof of an old barn on the extended centreline of RW 11 at Biggin Hill, coming to rest in the paddock just beyond the barn. Just as well all the roof timbers were about 300 years old. Both pilot and student only had cuts and scratches and bruises, not enough to avoid having to shout the bar that evening.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Loved the video, who did the animation. In the real case detailed above, the frequency of the flutter was estimated (from memory) to be 200-400cps.--- a "real buzz".

[Mainframe]

Point taken on the date of the Notam, yes it’s AM on 1st April, so it can qualify as an April Fool’s joke.

Notwithstanding that, there are many of the cosseted inept drawing significant government salaries who are quite capable of generating such a Notam.

Research the “Below 10,000 ft in controlled airspace” rules in Australia and many other countries.
In all cases the 250 kts is 250 KIAS, i.e. indicated airspeed.

The intent of the 250 KIAS is similar to the use of QNH below 10,000 ft, it establishes a common point of reference or datum to all aircraft below 10,000 ft.

250 kts IAS at sea level is near enough to 250 kts True Air Speed (and 250 kts Ground Speed with Nil wind).

Now look at 250 KIAS at 10,000 ft with, for our Northern region, a typical temperature of +10 degrees C.

A quick play with the whiz wheel will convert this to 287 kts TAS. Busted ?

Now add a 30 kt tailwind, and now would paint as 317 Kts Ground Speed !

Busted again ?

Radar, ADS B and other surveillance methods see ground speed, or rate of closure, not indicated or true air speed.

If this was an April Fool’s joke, lets laugh about it.

If not, what can be done about steering some common sense toward the authors?

Its their trainset.