I should no longer be, but I remain, perpetually astonished at the way in which demonstrably intelligent people reason.
andrewr: The definition of ‘aeronautical charts’ is: “a game played on infidel flavour psychological submarine”.
I didn’t say the charts “approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h)”. I said the charts published
by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h). It’s the publisher that’s approved, not the charts.
Now it just so happens that, in order to get an approval for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h), the publisher must have systems in place to ensure that what they publish is, in fact, “the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions” to which a pilot must have access in order to comply with CAR 233(1)(h). Otherwise, it’s a bit pointless approving the publisher and buying their product…
I’m very comfortable that if I look at a map or chart published by a publisher approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h), and there is a symbol on that map or chart, and the legend for that map or chart calls that symbol an “aerodrome” of some kind, I can very safely assume that the position of that location in the real world fits the description: “an aerodrome depicted on aeronautical charts” in terms of the rule you quoted.
If you think places depicted as aerodromes on maps and charts published by publishers approved for the purposes of CAR 233(1)(h) are
not “aerodromes depicted on aeronautical charts” in terms of the rule you quoted, I’m afraid my brain isn’t big enough to understand the complexity of that reasoning.
Someone might wave around a paper WAC that’s the latest edition, hot off the press, and say: “Look – Gallargambone isn’t marked!” But has the person incorporated the manuscript amendments in accordance with the current AIP SUP? Have a look at H69/14 and see how many “Add Aerodrome” line items there are. Are AIP SUPs published for funsees?
what is the source where you found the Strips I mentioned
I gave you the answer to that question Ix, but I refrained from mentioning a commercial business. There are two private businesses with approvals, under 233(1)(h), to publish the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and other aeronautical information and instructions to which pilots are obliged to have access. You work out the rest.
How is it BETTER for your Captain Arthur departing Camelot to make the call on Area instead of 126.7?
Because other aircraft with serviceable VHF in the vicinity will
at least be monitoring area, or at least should be, and
may not be monitoring 126.7 because there are no aerodromes depicted on charts in the vicinity of Camelot. Therefore, a broadcast on 126.7 is
more likely to be a complete waste of breath and electromagnetic radiation, whereas a broadcast on area is
more likely to be of benefit to Arthur and pilots in the vicinity of Camelot.
Except that the RPT leaving Mildura didn't hear him because they switched the radios on 30 seconds after the broadcast.
And precisely the same outcome will be achieved if he transmits on 126.7 or 45394.9774. And precisely the same outcome will be acheived with the multicom system.
The aircraft I see when out flying are other aircraft flying from CTAF to CTAF, with no broadcasts on area. Aircraft taking off from unmarked strips are a miniscule risk to aircraft in cruise - far less than other aircraft also in cruise.
This is why all of this is a beat up, to address an industrial relations and political issue rather than a safety issue.
As I keep saying, many of the aircraft operating in and out of these places are not required to have serviceable VHF anyway, so the phony discussion about the safety consequences of these broadcast and frequency rules is almost entirely academic.