PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Some truth about the ML incident
View Single Post
Old 17th Dec 2003, 08:18
  #92 (permalink)  
snarek
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kremlin.

IP tracking is quite legal, look at the bottom RH corner of each post

Now, HTH, Plazbot et al.

Where we agree (that is ME, not AOPA position).

1. In E above (say) 8500' an aircraft needs to be monitoring the same freq as inbound IFR a/c.

2. The congestion argument, as applied in US NAS does not apply in Australia and should not be used to reduce safety margins on a frivilous cost cutting exercise.

3. We need a system of transponder checking, bit like asking for QNH.

4. More education!!!!

Where we disagree.

1. Pop-up requests are lazy. They are legal and I get quite grouchy and feel very 'Ministerial' when I feel I am denied one on union grounds. (see above post from 3rd Officer Kremlin).

2. Somehow 'commercial aviation' has a priority anywhere any time.

3. VFR don't belong in E at mid levels. See point 2.

4. The ML incident was a failure of NAS. (I am still looking at the supposed Darwin incident).

AK
snarek is offline