Spitoon
11th Nov 2008, 21:25
In the thread on Helicopter ops v Vortex Wake (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/350435-helicopter-ops-v-vortex-wake.html) chevvron tells usVortex Wake is about to be withdrawn as it's not ICAO compliant. The next issue of CAP 413 will change it to 'Wake Turbulence'!
The UK has a bit of a reputation for doing things not quite in the ICAO way, particularly perhaps when it comes to phraseology. I guess complying with ICAO SARPs is generally a good thing but maybe, sometimes, different is better.
I can't see that changing from Vortex wake to wake turbulence really makes much difference. But there does seem to be a trend for the UK to align with the SARPs - something to do with next year's audit maybe? Anyway, it got me wondering whether there are there any things that the UK does that are 'not ICAO' but which us Brits really wouldn't want to change just to comply with ICAO. Or even that that we would want to see ICAO adopt.
I'll start with only clearing an aeroplane to land when it's number 1.
Any other thoughts?
Things must have been so much simpler when we had an Empire! :)
The UK has a bit of a reputation for doing things not quite in the ICAO way, particularly perhaps when it comes to phraseology. I guess complying with ICAO SARPs is generally a good thing but maybe, sometimes, different is better.
I can't see that changing from Vortex wake to wake turbulence really makes much difference. But there does seem to be a trend for the UK to align with the SARPs - something to do with next year's audit maybe? Anyway, it got me wondering whether there are there any things that the UK does that are 'not ICAO' but which us Brits really wouldn't want to change just to comply with ICAO. Or even that that we would want to see ICAO adopt.
I'll start with only clearing an aeroplane to land when it's number 1.
Any other thoughts?
Things must have been so much simpler when we had an Empire! :)