tred
Palmerston North particularly from the south on a visual approach IFR's will most often descend below 4000ft taking them into airspace where VFR uncontrolled can be operating up to 3500ft. This can be as close as 9nm from the airport before the controlled airspace lowers.
They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted, which I would assume that it wouldn't be if there was any traffic in the way. Are you suggesting that ATC would clear me for a visual approach into Palmy if there was anything - even a primary return with no altitude information - in the way? Or are you saying that such traffic is invisible to radar around Palmy? Notwithstanding the warning on the plate... and in any case I can see no earthly reason why anyone would need to descend below controlled airspace on a visual. If they are, their company should be told.
The boundary my be 9nm from the runway, but the actual track miles to the threshold will be more like 15nm minimum for a stable approach, which would put any aircraft on something remotely resembling an appropriate profile, above 3500'.
Why do you think the airspace dimensions are the way they are?
slackie
you are IFR on a Visual Approach
Yes, my bad, I was thinking Euro rules (which are somewhat less anal than NZ ones). I only flew there for 20 years so sometimes I revert...
conflict alert
Your slowly getting shot down on this one!!!!
Yeah you are enjoying the thought of that, aren't you?
What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by.
Yeah you need to read more carefully. I have never actually said anything remotely resembling that. What I have said is that airlines operate to much higher standards, have much better resources and are far more disciplined. Your point is somewhat disingenuous, one airliner crash can kill more people than 100 light aircraft crashes... and yet, when was the last fatal airline accident in NZ? And how many fatal GA accidents have their been already this year?
so why do you think that something like that has to be re-iterated to the airline fraternity
You have completely missed the point. You don't know whether the warning is there as a result of airline misdemeanours, or problems with training traffic or Part 125/135 operators. I would suggest the latter - I assume that Air NZ has rules about flying outside controlled airspace.
Or is it because they have come to rely on TCAS
No... it is just something we have in our toolbox, that most GA aircraft don't.