Originally Posted by
Flying_higher
I have to say I find some of these posts really quite funny.....
In terms of ‘I’d much rather know they were there’, I find this a ridiculous premise. So are you going to fly over a perfectly good forced landing paddock to glide to a place you know ‘was’ there? Or do you need to divert to a place because you’ve planned poorly? I can guarantee you there are many many unverified locations that are either in the wrong place, have been ploughed or are now housing estates. And if you ‘know it was there’ why do you need a chart when you’re in the sh!t anyway? The only reason these places have remained on the charts is because some RAPAC members were in denial that these places no longer exist and kicked up a stink on the same ridiculous basis as the arguments on here..
There was a push by Airservices to remove any unverified locations from the charts a few years ago for very good reason, the previous examples being two of them. In the world of data, there is no place for poorly managed, unvalidated or duplicate data. We rely on this data way too much now to have it be incorrect. Part 175 or not, we can’t afford bad data. Think of old mate with his Ozrunways and The aerodrome he is going to is in the wrong location on the chart, he hasn’t done any visual navigation and is totally reliant upon that? Poor airmanship yes, but also demonstrating the need for good data. Did you know these single source datasets are also in FMC databases?
I know there are all these conspiracy theories and haters Of government organisations, but the reality is a simple modern problem, not only in aviation either.
Yes, many aerodromes have been demolished and yes it’s a sad state of affairs. But by putting nostalgia on the charts isn’t the solution.
How many decades/hours of outback flying do you have, Flying_higher?
Your post manifests the experience of a child of the magenta line, cocooned in the coastal fringe.