G’day
apache,
Fair enough, and how many times would stand for this ?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand. Say again?
I mean, there is such a thing as professional courtesy aka AIRMANSHIP.
Absolutely!
But what is discourteous about manoeuvring to the south of the aerodrome when another aircraft is manoeuvring to the north of the aerodrome?
Here’s the charts :
BTH Aerodrome Chart (Note : chart date after October 2000)
BTH GPS Arrivals (page 1) (Note : chart date after October 2000)
BTH GPS Arrivals (page 2)
BTH RWY 17 NDB
BTH RWY 17 GPS
....my real point is that that F*****t in the learjet SHOULD have waited his turn, like everybody else.
I disagree.
Let’s consider a road transport analogy.
There are two toll gates on a two-lane motorway. One is a traditional toll gate that is staffed by a person collecting cash. The other toll gate is a more modern automatic drive-thru type that uses a transponder in each vehicle for electronic billing. Only vehicles fitted with a suitable transponder can use the automatic toll gate.
I arrive at the toll complex in my transponder equipped vehicle. There is a slow moving queue of about 30 cars at the manned toll gate, but traffic is driving through the automatic toll gate at about 80 km/h. I have to decide which lane to use.
Does
“professional courtesy” dictate that I should line up behind the 30 cars at the manned toll gate, even though my vehicle is suitably equipped to use the more expeditious automatic toll gate? I think not.
I’m going to drive through the automatic toll gate at 80 km/h.
Those that don’t have a vehicle transponder (and perhaps those with an over-riding sense of
“professional courtesy”) can continue to wait in the slow lane.
In a similar way, I suspect that the vast majority of aircraft that were
“stacked up to FL150 doing holding patterns” found themselves in that situation because the aircraft owners were too tight-fisted to fit an IFR GPS. As you said earlier, for these aircraft the
“NDB was the only option”.
But why should the crew of an aircraft that is able to carry out a GPS arrival from the south feel obligated to suffer the same delays as those with outdated avionics?
If there was only one instrument procedure at Bathurst then it would be like a one-lane motorway and arriving aircraft would be obliged to join the end of the queue.
But since there are multiple instrument procedures at Bathurst it’s more like a multi-lane motorway – one where not all vehicles are suitably equipped to use all lanes.
I can understand the frustration that pilots going round and round in the holding pattern that day must have felt, but one must be careful not to misdirect that frustration towards the pilots of aircraft with more capable avionics. It’s not the fault of the Lear crew that the aircraft in the hold were not fitted with an IFR GPS.
This is the only place I have heard of, OCTA, where one doesn't hold for another a/c doing an approach!
Then you need to get out more.
I’m not aware of any regulation that would dictate that kind of constraint.
Using your argument, “person with the most expensive equipment has right of way”....
I’ve never made that argument.
I don’t believe that this was a question of
“right of way”.
But in any case, to an extent, it’s each aircraft owner’s right to choose to fit whatever level of avionics they wish to pay for. But such decisions must be taken in the knowledge that there will be times when aircraft with limited navigation equipment will experience operational constraints that will not be experienced by aircraft with more capable equipment. Those operational constraints may include delays and even diversions.
Such is life.
Let us change the scenario... SAY the learjet had just pushed into the NDB approach... would THAT make it ok ? Say he cut in front of you on base.. would THAT make it ok ? Imagine you were rolling from full length, and this clown decides to line up from the intersection.. would THAT be ok ?
Those are hypotheticals. I’ll leave those for someone else.
well... if this it what it takes to drag operators into the 21st century, then so be it!
I suspect that we are on the same wavelength on this particular point.
piniped,
I’ve never been a big advocate of
“see and avoid”.
megle2,
Mind you if the Lear crew negotiated the approach with the lowest stacked aircraft then it could work out as BIK says.
I fail to understand how the
“lowest stacked aircraft” owned the airspace any more (or any less) than the Lear pilots owned the airspace. I suggest that it’s best to announce your intentions and let others make their own decisions. You can only fly one aircraft at a time – usually it’s the one that you are sitting in.