Temora at Easter - RAA + RV homecoming

[VH-XXX]

Gents and ladies, just putting out the feelers to hear who is going to be in attendance at this years event...... :):D

Will have to organise a get-together if the numbers are there.

[metalman2]

Yep , I'll be there, will be in a eurofox taildragger 24-7772 and camping under wing , looking forward to catching up with everyone/ anyone
Mat

[baswell]

There will be a tent in front of the museum, with a big banner saying "OzRunways" on it. Do drop in and say hi. :)

Will also be doing some talks, of course.

[KRviator]

I'll be there on the Saturday too. Sans the RV though.:{

[Aussie Bob]

There is a chance I will pass by in my Scout on Saturday ...

[VH-XXX]

Sounds interested, wind in the face. Have you got a radio in that thing? I recally reading about a rendezvous point for non-radio aircraft which looked to be a little bit of a pain to arrange.

[Ultralights]

Savannah 4854 will be there. camping under wing as usual:ok:

[KRviator]

Any word on the ultralight crash at Coota? 2 fatalities reported by the media, but no word on identity, what it was,or what they were doing in the air 20 mins after last light?

[VH-XXX]

A trike (powered hanglider XT912 model) hangared at Cootamundra.

Joining the dots, departure was simply far too late irrespective of the cause, be it CFIT or mechanical failure.

[Ndegi]

As I passed Benalla, I heard Jabiru 4457 report an engine failure to MLB centre, advising trying for a paddock. anyone hear the outcome of that? This would have been around 0830

[Capn Bloggs]

Quote from Star Wars 4: "STAY ON THREAD!" :{

[VH-XXX]

A good long weekend, a little down on numbers, CASA hanging around like a bad smell (didn't see them actioning the aerobatic aircraft that flew over the crowd as part of a designated display!), an unfortunate fatality, lots of new aircraft, great weather and a good time had by all.

[baswell]

I liked the Pioneer 400. 4 seats, CSU, retract, 125 kt on Rotax 912S, same range and payload as a 172, under $200K. Too bad the roof is too low for me!

Good to put some faces to names, but not enough time to catch up. Even skipped the sold-out awards dinner; I had a complimentary ticket, but the rest of my crew didn't and as we were all shattered anyway we phoned some pizza and beers to be delivered to our house. Conversation ranged from the DC-3 war stories by "Uncle Pete" to Japanese toilets. ("They are really warm, so you know it isn't just residual ass heat") Early night, then early morning to fly the Sporty home in a 10-15 kt head wind.

Didn't see too much of the show for obvious reasons!

[Jabawocky]

Great to meet you too:ok:

[girl with a stick]

I was there too...having flown in in an Archer. After getting drunk with the Ed and calling him 'an old hack'; having a morning ride in a powered parachute and dancing with an eagle; putting heaps of faces with their aircraft; seeing a trike overhead the town at 18.10 and hearing of its sad demise; skipping the dinner because of exhaustion; and reaching Aviation Saturation Point, I got weathered in and had to make an unscheduled landing in Mittagong, spending Easter Sunday having an RSL roast dinner.

All in all, a splendid time.

And, gentleman with the Jaguar and an RV7, who rescued me at Mittagong with a lift into town, if you're reading: thank you kindly, sir!

GWAS

[VH-XXX]

I'm reliably informed that the local Police were called due to a confrontation between CASA and a pilot of an aircraft.

Way to go CASA, no wonder people stayed at home :ok:

What has happened to aviation of late :mad:

[Jabawocky]

CASA openly declared they would be there and it was about education not about criminalisation.

From what I understand they did exactly that, after all Lee Ungermann and co are ex RAAus, and have its best interests at heart.

Problem is the ferral or underground rogues just do not like to play by the rules, and unless there was severe blatant rule and common sense breaking involved there should not have been a dummy spit. So one wonders what might have happened.

RAAus board member openly said to me that he believed those rogues were not welcome anyway. They should shape up or ship out. Can't argue with his logic.

Anyway, I share the desire of those on the RAAus board to make for better standards not lower them.....but others on here will want to start bashing me for being Anti-RAAus, so it is not hard to see where the attitude comes from.

[VH-XXX]

I do applaud the Rotec Radial guys for their stand and demo's at Natfly Temora. Their little Fly-Baby with Rotec Radial was buzzing away all weekend. Great to see an Australian company doing great things in Aviation world-wide.

[Frank Arouet]

The fools, yes, ex RA-Aus, with CASA hats were ramp checking for out of date WAC's. Good one, considering most probably navigate by NRMA or RVAC road maps.

Perhaps they should have been distributing End of Daylight Graphs which used to be a freeby in the VFG.

Idiots!

[VH-XXX]

If it was the Department of Transport or the BIA at a gathering of Boats or Yachties, they would be giving out safety grab bags, complete with torch, safety V sheet, information on safe boating, a whistle etc.

Chalk and cheese!

How about a CASA showbag with VFG (as Frank says), hat, pen, posters, safety information, a WAC chart, safety blanket, fire lighter, torch, reflective emergency mirror, or something other than just attitude!

It's supposed to be a fun event. Those that need ramp-checking the most aren't going to pull into Temora for the Natfly event, that's for sure!

[Arnold E]

ex RA-Aus, with CASA hats were ramp checking for out of date WAC's.

Not many geological features move around all that much to create a worry that I've heard of. :rolleyes:

[Frank Arouet]

I'm glad someone asked that question:

In the old days we got our maps, charts and NOTAMS for free except the WAC's.

What happened was they issued WAC chart amendments for the times somebody put up a Telecom tower etc. Now no amendments, but you have to have to purchase the updated charts at whatever costs.

Fkuc me! Why don't they just put out a NOTAM advising a new tower being somewhere so you can note it on your WAC?

But we can't interfere with AsA little enterprise can we?

Yes I know, Global Warming has made Mt Conobolas move .0000002 of a mm in the last century.

I'm wrong as usual, and while people without the means of determining end of daylight die, dickheads with CASA hats chase 95:10 aeroplanes and pilots for the wrong dated charts.

The two dickheads, (Mick and Lee), good blokes, who I thought were good blokes, but gone to the dark side, know my address. (If you don't PM me).

Get your act together or be branded as co-conspitators in the charade we call a regulatory body.

Start by a general issue to RA-Aus of an end of daylight graph at your cost.

[djpil]

What happened was they issued WAC chart amendments for the times somebody put up a Telecom tower etc. Now no amendments ....I don't see much has changed with WACs in the last 40 years or so. Some-one will know how often a new edition comes out - seems like about 5 years. Of course they last a lot longer now as we rarely expose them to sunlight. Haven't you noticed the changes that AirServices tells us about once a year or so? You need to get your old Melbourne WAC out - rub out Wallan, get a pencil and draw a neat tower somewhere and label it "BOM Tower" etc.... I'm wrong as usual...

Start by a general issue to RA-Aus of an end of daylight graph at your cost.No reason for them to do that (especially with taxpayers' money).

[Jabawocky]

Frank,

Ask Middo to produce one for you, and besides, who needs a last light chart when you can see the sun going down, and it will go down today about the same time as yesterday.

Fokker me if the reason you think two dead people are the fault of CASA not educating people about last light while at the same time chastising them for checking ERSA and Charts.

Geeezuz Frank, you get pinged by them did ya?

I am happy to be critical of CASA when they deserve it, and often they do, but really, if the average pilot in RAAus can't work out last light, even from memory of when it was getting dark the night before, then CASA really needs to be checking everything from licences to WAC charts.:ugh:

I actually believe the average pilot standard is higher than that, but if you are suggesting otherwise, maybe it is so? :confused:

[Andy_RR]

Sadly I don't think checking WACs and licences will fix stupid, Jaba. The small mindedness of it will tend to wind some people up though and have them thinking more about how to avoid prosecution and less about how to avoid danger.

That's the problem with a prescriptive, strict-liability approach to safety. It isn't about safety in the end...

[VH-XXX]

Those that have something to hide are those that are the "stupid" ones and they wouldn't have attended Natfly anyway... so all you're gonna do is make those that are doing the right thing, feel uncomfortable.

Approximately 20 aircraft (both RA and GA) of circa ~350 in attendance were ramp checked during the weekend. Supposedly no infringements were issued which begs the question of why the police were called to settle a dispute.

[Wallsofchina]

You were not RAA bashing Jabba, I couldn't see anyone having a reason to disagree with you on this sad state of affairs.

[Stikybeke]

Well at Safe Skies this year CASA had a little stand and were handing out "showbags" .

I scored one and it had lots of good stuff in it, a couple of pens that worked, a couple of very handy flight planning aide memoire pads which was like a scaled down version of the flight plans that were around years ago, a weather decoder and some other stuff that I can't remember because it was more than two days ago....all handed out by a good looking girl with lots of smiles from CASA.

One standout product was the CASA Chamois that I've used an couple of time on the car that actually works quite well.

I thought it was a great idea and I saw alot of people walking around Safe Skies with their CASA "showbags"..(you know who you are). I don't know what the cost of the bag and contents was but there'd be $10 + worth in there all up I guess.

Maybe that might be an idea for them next time to think about. I'm sure there'd be enough room in the bag (which was of quite sturdy construction for brown paper and string) for some other pilot type aides. It'd be money well spent by the regulator not to mention the associated positive marketing strategy application.

Worked for me anyway (probably because it was a freeby..).
Stiky
:ok:

[baswell]

I think there about 2 or 3 pilots left in Australia without my product. Once we add those and no paper charts are being sold anymore, we'll ask Airservices to provide us electronic updates as they happen and we'll draw them on! ;-)

In all seriousness, that's where the industry is headed. It will only take some firm policy clarification and a bit more critical mass before electronic is the standard and we can do updates much more easily and frequently, with a version history so you can be warned when things have changed recently.

[Jabawocky]

Bas

Two devices, iPad and iPhone, along with power source to keep charged.

Acceptable means of compliance.

They can't argue with that:ok:


PS: I know modesty will hold you back, but seriously, your product has not only been one of the most useful tools to GA in this country in a long time, but also a massive safety aid as well.

I know people in CASA that speak volumes for what you guys have done. Keep up the good work:ok:

[Stikybeke]

I really hope this happens. Aside from all the other obvious benefits, I'd really like to have an electronic Chamois....

Stiky
:ok:

[Homesick-Angel]

The thing about so many of casa's freebies are that they are so impractical for actual use in the air..

The flight planning sheet for example..

I have researched and ordered as many freebies as I can from the casa website, and it seems to me our money would be better spent on giving all pilots with PPL and above free maps and ERSA, then using the huge amount of money saved on online education programs.

Also with the advance of technology , allow the use of tablets for law docs. I have, along with my physical copies( that I never look at) every current casa doc on my iPad, and my back thanks me for it everyday.

All the nice shiny packaging in the world won't polish a turd..

[Triple Captain]

I think the program was a bit misleading.. "Maintaining your lycoming" should have been titled "jabba's church of preaching to the confused" :)

Anyhow, was an 'interesting' experience seeing this side of aviation operate. Clearly I must have left to early and missed out on the above mentioned Casa clash.

[baswell]

Jabba, thanks for the kind words. :)

A couple of FOIs told me for the first time in years VCAs are on the way down. Now I am a big believer in the scientific process and that correlation does not equal causation, but what changed about 9 months ago? :)

Mind you, I was also told they do find more people just skimming the edges of CTA. Supposedly we need to keep two miles clear. Will need to look that one up as during training, I assumed the 2 miles was for dead reckoning errors, and not a requirement - otherwise they could just extent the airspace by two miles!

The funniest thing about that one was that in an internal FOI briefing, a radio call I made recently was played to demonstrate this! (Lee U. recognised me in the call) The controlled called me up on my YKSC DCT YADG track and warned I was about to enter. I was staying as high as I could as long as I could, so my response was along the lines of: "I am aware, which is why I am descending. I have 1000 feet and 1 mile to go". The controller's main concern was warning me about an aircraft in opposite direction also at 4500.

Small world....

[Creampuff]

AIP Book ENR 1.1 4019.12 Avoiding Controlled Airspace

The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace, or to the VFR in Class E airspace, must apply appropriate tolerance to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or restricted areas, are not infringed.

In calculating whether an intended flight path may infringe controlled airspace, the following navigational tolerances must be applied to the intended flight path depending on the method of navigation used. ….

…

VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT)

0 - 2000 AGL +/- 1NM (+/-2NM by night)
2001 - 5000 AGL +/- 2NM (+/-3NM by night)
5001 – 10,000 AGL +/- 4NM (+/-5NM by night)

….Bolding added

Perhaps you could add some tinting to the outside edges of the depictions of controlled and restricted airspace boundaries, that automatically applies the tolerance by reference to the aircraft’s height (not altitude).

[baswell]

Thanks for that reference. At the moment, we don't display CTA yet (you can view it on the various charts, of course), but it is something we're working on. So when we have that, we'll take these tolerances into account and find a good way to display them.

[Frank Arouet]

Has anybody tried to do a 1:60 calculation in a 95:10 aircraft?

People know they need a respectable reserve of fuel, but why do people not know they need a reserve of daylight if operating Day VFR.

Is the VFG ever going to be printed again with a distribution to all VFR pilots?

[Jabawocky]

but why do people not know they need a reserve of daylight if operating Day VFR.

I think they do. I am not inclined to say what I really think, but lets just say you are alluding to the fatal accident, and a complete lack of planning before and during the flight is the problem.

If that is systemic and widespread, well lord help us. I don't think so.

That prang makes me so mad I best leave it here, because it reflects bad on all sectors of aviation. refer my posts on the dam buster!

Glad to see you are alive and well Frank....been quiet around here without you :ok:

[baswell]

Being at the end of 18, I was unfortunate enough to be one of the last people to see them alive.

They had a pretty big landing light on their little trike. A landing light. On a trike.

I don't think this was an isolated case of them bending the rules.

[Ultralights]

A landing light wouldnt indicate regularly breaking the rules, i have a Landing light on my aircraft, and thinking about installing another HID one, Landing light = Visibility. something that helps, a lot, in areas around sydney, and immensly on overcast days.

Apart from that, spotted a Nice RV-10 parked across the end of a long taxiway, sadly couldnt find the owner to say hi.

though on the subject of RV,s the Numbers are starting to add up on a RV7A Kit with a 0 timed IO360 powerplant. but just how good are they at Aeros in comparison to the Alpha/Robin aircraft im training in at the moment?

[baswell]

I have a landing light too. In this case its the landing PLUS their apperant eagerness to use it at night and so blatantly in front of a bunch of CASA and RA-Aus people that has me worried this wasn't the first time. As if it was somehow normal to them.

[VH-XXX]

Apart from that, spotted a Nice RV-10 parked across the end of a long taxiway, sadly couldnt find the owner to say hi.

That would be the one and only Mr. Jabawocky's aircraft :ok:

Of course everyone knows that a big landing light makes your aircraft NVFR capable, or at least some people think that is all that is required :ugh:

I once saw a trike depart, land somewhere, take-off and return at night, some one hour after last light. He had two halogen downlights from his house fitted in the front. One facing forward, once facing slightly down so people could see him from all directions he said. For those that suggested I should have taken action; I did, but it didn't matter, he stopped flying shortly after completely un-related reasons.

[Rollingthunder]

I once fitted a B737 landing light on my Honda Civic's front grill. Sure lit up the landscape 10,000 miles from there. Needed light living on a houseboat on the Fraser. Too many peeps at party one night - we almost sank. Keep the revs up 'tho. Know DepEd of RA. She's cute and dangerous, but I digress...

[LeadSled]

I assumed the 2 miles was for dead reckoning errors, and not a requirement - otherwise they could just extent the airspace by two miles!

and:

AIP Book ENR 1.1 40 Quote:
19.12 Avoiding Controlled Airspace

The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace, or to the VFR in Class E airspace, must apply appropriate tolerance to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or restricted areas, are not infringed.

In calculating whether an intended flight path may infringe controlled airspace, the following navigational tolerances must be applied to the intended flight path depending on the method of navigation used. ….




Folks,
With all due respect to Creamie, Bas is right, and, as I am certain Creamie knows, entering controlled airspace without a clearance is the offense, not entering an "x" mile buffer around a control boundary.

However, a word of practical caution, AsA radar images are not all that precise, but are, nevertheless used as evidence for a penetration of controlled airspace allegation and aircraft targets on the radar screen are not "scale", it is hard, but not impossible, to prove that you did not infringe controlled airspace, when the radar say otherwise.

Also consider various "lanes" around the country, such as north of Sydney ---- staying two miles (@ c2500') from the boundary puts the north and south bound traffic rather close together.

Tootle pip!!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

it is hard, but not impossible, to prove that you did not infringe controlled airspace, when the radar say otherwise.That may have been the case pre-GPS but no longer. The GPS log will soon reveal whether or not you stuffed up and I doubt you would have any trouble getting it to stand up in court.

The biggest problem with CASA is that they hide behind the "administrative" fine caper.

"Sir, you can be gaoled for 8 years and fined $40k for your crimes - but if you pay an administrative fine of $500 we will call it all square"!

Dr :8

[Sunfish]

I'm fitting LED landing lights - because I can use then in wig wag mode as an anti collision device, not for anything else.

[Creampuff]

Leaddie: I’d be a touch more careful if I were you.

The failure to comply with the quoted requirement in AIP is an offence against CAR 99AA(5) – failure to comply with a direction about the use of Class G airspace.

Entry to controlled airspace without a clearance is a different offence (against CAR 100.)

And in which lane ‘north of Sydney’ can someone fly in Class G airspace at 2,500 AGL, Old Bean?

[thorn bird]

Forky they dont even bother with that these days it would seem.
Regardless of radar, GPS etc, it will still come down to a CASA opinion.
Once they decide you "did it" all the evidence to the contrary will
be ignored and they will gnaw on you like a dog with a bone.
Who has the money to fight them in the AAT or in a "Proper" court?,
Even if you win they can always get an FOI to say you were drunk six months ago at a meeting and pull your medical, or because you got a tad angry when the "perfectly reasonable" FOI called you a liar to your face insist you undergo psychological evaluation, of course with a shrink of their choice.
You simply cannot beat them, better to just pay the fine, let the FOI get a notch on his gun to add to his promotion tally and go on flying.

[VH-XXX]

Also consider various "lanes" around the country, such as north of Sydney ---- staying two miles (@ c2500') from the boundary puts the north and south bound traffic rather close together.

Even worse when you're NVFR !!!

0 - 2000 AGL +/- 1NM (+/-2NM by night)
2001 - 5000 AGL +/- 2NM (+/-3NM by night)
5001 – 10,000 AGL +/- 4NM (+/-5NM by night)

[Jabawocky]

Even worse when you're NVFR !!!

Even better.........prolly in CTA/R due Lowest safe :ok:

Not sure what the LSALT is there but around here, no VFR lanes at night :uhoh:

[T28D]

Rolling Thunder Just out of interest, how do you power a 24 volt landing light off a Honda Civic ?????

[Jabawocky]

Just one other little catch for the unwary.

The DME arcs around major airports will be from the VOR/DME and not the ARP (aerodrome ref point), so when you are want to skirt around an arc of 25nm and you hit NRST on your Garmin, make sure you select the VOR as your nearest, not the Airport (ARP) ;)

Practise your DME arc skills!:ok:

[SW3]

Add to that DME distance is slightly different to GPS distance as DME measures slant, GPS is straight horizontal.

[baswell]

Add to that DME distance is slightly different to GPS distance as DME measures slant, GPS is straight horizontal.
I thought about that, so I calculated it.

Of course the closer your arc, and the higher the altitude, the more it is a problem. But for a lighty trying to stay 12 DME at 6,000 feet, it makes no difference.

Does raise an interesting question for the bus drivers: If you are flying towards a VOR/DME at FL360, does your equipment correct this for you, or will it just read 6 DME right over the top of the thing?

[Jabawocky]

or will it just read 6 DME right over the top of the thing?

Yep and a very handy trick indeed! And well thought out BAS :D:D

If you had a unreliable static system, and are unsure of how much by etc, by ensuring you climb to sufficient height above LSALT, track overhead a VOR/DME......Compare the results ;)

Distance is Distance.

Of course some folk here are going to say......well try doing that with ya GPS......but hey, it gives a pretty rough enough altitude as it is :ok:

[Shagpile]

Of course some folk here are going to say......well try doing that with ya GPS

Try that with your gps!

...by reading out your gps alt ;)

[VH-XXX]

Off topic, but I recently found the pressure altitude on the Garmin transponder to me most handy too when I lost my altimiter and every other instrument. It was like I was the guy in the Sapphire on Lake Hume and lost my whole panel ;) It was most upsetting, I can understand his frustration! Difference was that I was in the air at the time :ok:

[SW3]

Certainly does read out a constant DME distance over the top, something you learn at bus driving school. Just as the distance countdown speeds up with station passage.
Indeed it does depend on height but this is why ATC will often need to know if it is "xxx miles DME" or "xxx miles GPS" for the reason of a disparity. May sound knit picky but comes to play with your 2nm buffer discussed earlier.

[baswell]

Off topic, but I recently found the pressure altitude on the Garmin transponder to me most handy too when I lost my altimiter and every other instrument.
Also a reason why encoding altimeters in an IFR or NVFR aircraft are a bad idea. At least with a blind encoder ATC will see something other than you if either fails. Between the both of you, you can then work out which one to trust.

(From a recent edition of EAA Sport Aviation, where they described an actual crash that probably would not have happened with a blind encoder.)

[Arnold E]

Blind encoders are usually connected to the same static system as the altimeter, so blind or encoding altimeter makes no difference, or am I missing something that you are trying to say?

[baswell]

Blind encoders are usually connected to the same static system as the altimeter, so blind or encoding altimeter makes no difference, or am I missing something that you are trying to say?
No, it won't help you with a blocked static, but if either fails for some other reason...

(Like X-Boy's shiny glass panel turning into nothing but a make up mirror for his missus.)

[VH-XXX]

Like X-Boy's shiny glass panel turning into nothing but a make up mirror for his missus

Yep! What good are these glass panels when the lights go out. Whoever would design and certify an aircraft with only a glass panel and no backup instruments of any kind is beyond me. (Not Cessna obviously - as in, they have done it probably against better judgement, in order to reduce weight)

[Jack Ranga]

Damn :ugh: I was having a serious think about the G3X set up for the 10. 2 x G3X, 430, GARMIN intercom, txpndr, sl30.

Back to skyview setup :}

[Jabawocky]

Jack........you need therapy.

Make an appointment ;)

Planning by Jaba....execution by Jake!

[Jack Ranga]

I didn't know how I was gunna break it too ya :E. Nah, it was just a thought!

I'm gunna make an appointment :} look forward to it :ok: we'll donate your commission to the 'Oshkosh Blind Society'

[Jabawocky]

I reckon a day in a few of the halls at OSH we will have you all sorted.

And a party or two at our residence!:ok: :uhoh:

[Jack Ranga]

And a party or two at our residence


Yep, the 'Oshkosh Blind Society'

[Arnold E]

Yep! What good are these glass panels when the lights go out. Whoever would design and certify an aircraft with only a glass panel and no backup instruments of any kind is beyond me. (Not Cessna obviously - as in, they have done it probably against better judgement, in order to reduce weight)

Duel AHARS will fix the problem of blank screens. ( duel avionics bus as well, ofcourse). That's how I have done it on the 7.:)

[jas24zzk]

it is hard, but not impossible, to prove that you did not infringe controlled airspace, when the radar say otherwise.

Response....

That may have been the case pre-GPS but no longer. The GPS log will soon reveal whether or not you stuffed up and I doubt you would have any trouble getting it to stand up in court

Hold a sec...reading back on this, the discussion was centred on the regulated tolerances for airspace avoidance.

Do we need to fly as close to CTA as we can, simply because our gps permits us 10 metre accuracy, or do we need to think about the poor bloke thats now on limited panel flying an archaic approach on the ndb, and give him that extra regulated room to safely manouver, being tracked by the old rotater?

IIRC, the regs/tolerances are written around the worst piece of equipment. Developed in prices that include blood.
Simple crap to make that space, or if you feel the need to cut it fine, get on the mumble box and tell the ATC what you are up to...at least then they don't have to give a call to 'the unidentified at X position' hoping you will answer.

GPS is cool as, but it has to bow down to the lessor accurate equipment.

[Creampuff]

The tolerances aren’t just about the accuracy of electronic equipment. It’s also about the accuracy of the means of navigation that people operating under the VFR are qualified and required to use.

If people are going to continue to insist on using uncertified, unapproved GPS and map software as their sole means of navigation when purporting to operate against the VFR, I’d strongly suggest that failure to apply the VFR tolerances to controlled and restricted airspace boundaries will increase the probabilities of being caught and pinged.

The FOIs referred to by Baswell didn’t raise the issue for sh*ts and giggles.

The avoidance rules are separate from the entry to controlled and restricted airspace rules. Both have been around for decades. It’s not hard.

The airspace boundaries cannot simply be extended to include the tolerances, because the tolerances differ by reference to AGL and day/night. The only other alternative would be to extend the boundaries to cover the greatest potential tolerance – NVFR for the steps below 10,001’ and the highest potential AGL of adjacent aircraft - capturing more airspace than is necessary for many other operations.

[Rollingthunder]

how do you power a 24 volt landing light off a Honda Civic

Dunno, had mech do it. It started melting the grill, so I had it removed.

[thorn bird]

So having now established that the buffer zone now marks the control zone boundary, does that mean you need a clearance to enter Sy CTA for take off VFR on runway 11 at BK?

[LeadSled]

Leaddie: I’d be a touch more careful if I were you.

The failure to comply with the quoted requirement in AIP is an offence against CAR 99AA(5) – failure to comply with a direction about the use of Class G airspace.

Entry to controlled airspace without a clearance is a different offence (against CAR 100.)

And in which lane ‘north of Sydney’ can someone fly in Class G airspace at 2,500 AGL, Old Bean?
Creamie,
I don't agree that infringing the buffer in the AIP constitutes an offense under CAR 99AA(5). I am firmly of the view that the navigation tolerances quoted do NOT constitute a direction as to the final track of an aircraft flying in G, in an area close to a CTA boundary.

Are you aware of any cases where a pilot has been penalized for infringing the "navigational tolerance zone/buffer"? I am certainly aware of two cases (both involving Brisbane area) where the matter was raised and dismissed --- sorry, I can't quote references, it was too long ago.

As to the base of YSSY CTA in the area of the light aircraft lane, a small section immediately out of YSBK is 2000'. but the rest of the northbound track, after Pennant Hills, and all of the southbound track come under the 2500' step.

Folks,
Re. using your GPS records as evidence in a matter of infringing a CTL boundary, if it's not a TSOd unit, don't even bother to think about it, unless you have very deep pockets.
Even if it is TSOd, you will still need deep pockets.
In the two cases( not the same two as YBBN) in which I have arranged the expert witnesses for the pilot, in each case, the success was based on showing that the radar plot record, that was the evidence for the alleged offense, was not sufficiently accurate to establish the offense to a criminal standard of proof.

Not commonly known is that the radar derived plan position on an ATC screen, and the actual geographic position of targets can vary, this is not necessarily constant, and has been measured with suitably equipped aircraft. This is not a serious problem re. aircraft separation in controlled airspace, because the relative positions of targets of interest to ATC remain accurate.

Tootle pip !!

[Creampuff]

Leaddie

Ostensibly small words can often have substantially big differences in reality. The word “final” in the next sentence is an example:I am firmly of the view that the navigation tolerances quoted do NOT constitute a direction as to the final track of an aircraft flying in G, in an area close to a CTA boundary.I am firmly of that view, too.

So what? Infringing the buffer isn’t the offence.

The direction requires a tolerance to be applied to the “intended” flight path.

In order to comply with the direction, people must first know the direction exists and what it means.

It means, for example, that if someone intends to go from A to B, VFR by day, at an altitude that will result in the aircraft being at around 4,000’ AGL, the person must check that no point on the line A to B is closer than 2NM from the boundary of controlled or restricted airspace. If the line is at any point closer than 2NM to the boundary, the intended flight path must be changed from, for example, A to C or B to D.

When someone flies a perfect track 0.5NM parallel to the boundary of controlled airspace, the very strong inference is that the person:

- doesn’t know about or hasn’t complied with the direction to apply the required tolerance to the intended flight path; and

- isn’t navigating by visual reference to the ground or water.

In contrast, when someone plans to fly a leg A to B that is 2NM parallel to a boundary, takes off, gets to the leg A to B, gets a visual fix on A, takes up the planned heading to get to B, drifts to a point 1NM from the boundary, takes a visual fix and alters heading to restore the intended track (and therefore required tolerance), the very strong inference is that the person:

- does know about and has complied with the direction to apply the required tolerance to the intended flight path; and

- is navigating by visual reference to the ground or water.

If you want to implicitly assure people that they’ll always be OK provided they’re always just outside controlled or restricted airspace, that’s your risk. But I’d also be urging them to be prepared to:

- show an FOI a flight plan with the intended flight paths that comply with the required tolerances; and

- have a credible explanation as to why the actual tracks were so different.

[rjtjrt]

It would seem to me to be illogical to have a buffer (to allow for navigation tolerances), and then make the buffer edge the boundary.
Surely then you would need a buffer for the buffer (to allow for navigation tolerances)!

John

[Creampuff]

If someone plans properly and applies the tolerances to the intended flight path, and navigates competently and in accordance with the rules, the person won’t chew into the tolerance that much or very often, and will have more time to avoid inadvertent entry.

On the other hand, lots of things can go wrong, quickly, for the bloke with his head glued to the tablet computer and map software, keeping the wing of the nifty aircraft symbol just next to the boundary of the controlled or restricted airspace.

I’m guessing that that’s why the FOIs to whom Baswell referred raised the issue in the first place.

[Sunfish]

I think some people are both right but there is need to understand what the word "Tolerance" actually means in engineering terms because it would shine a light on what the regs say.

A tolerance is actually defined as a range of values around a mean.

A tolerance of 10mm plus or minus one mm means that the intended value is in the range 9mm to 11 mm.

Ideally, the average value is 10 mm.

If CASA directs that a tolerance of Two miles be applied, without specifying any limits, then one could be forgiven for assuming that if your average track misses the control boundary by Two miles, then you are complying.

If you wander all over the sky like me, then you are still complying as long as the closest approach of your average course does not take you closer than Two miles. In other words, your closest approach might be one mile or less provided your course also deviates two miles in the other direction at times.

If CASA or ASA wants to specify that no VFR pilot is permitted to approach within Two miles of the boundary of a control zone then they should effing well say so. As in 2 miles minus zero miles plus whatever miles.

In that case you would plan for a course: Two miles plus another mile or Two (your own expected variance) away from the zone.

To put that another way, the regulations and the courts need to understand what the word "tolerance" actually means otherwise they should be written using the word "limit".

The issue of GPS usage raises another issue - risk shifting. this is planning to use tighter tolerances because you think your GPS is more accurate than Mk1 eyeball. The end result of that is what is called "GPS assisted collision" (eg Brazil).

For example I have had another aircraft flying exactly overhead on a reciprocal course in the Melbourne VFR corridor (sugarloaf to kilmore gap waypoints) - which is one reason I always offset my tracks and "fly all over the sky".

[VH-XXX]

I've been flying within .1 nautical miles of control zones for quite a number of years, coincidentally since GPS was invented and nobody has ever said anything to me. Doesn't mean that what I've been doing wasn't wrong, but shows there are some tolerances there, perhaps tolerances within the CTA that we as pilots don't know about.

[Frank Arouet]

It would seem to me to be illogical to have a buffer (to allow for navigation tolerances), and then make the buffer edge the boundary.
Surely then you would need a buffer for the buffer (to allow for navigation tolerances)!

And that just about sums up the mental fix of the regulator. Any buffer legal boundary should be the minimum, not the maximum.

[baswell]

If people are going to continue to insist on using uncertified, unapproved GPS and map software as their sole means of navigation when purporting to operate against the VFR
This is true for most traditional aviation GPSs, which only have a limited, schematic "map" (if any) that you can't use to accurately identify ground references. People put in a "direct to" and have no idea what to expect to see beneath them.

Products like OzRunways are different; they show you where you are on the actual official VFR map, which you can then use to compare against what you are seeing out the window to make sure you are where you are supposed to be.

It is the most accurate, reliable and easy to use method of VFR navigation ever, bar none. The only way it could be made better is having the same VFR map display capability on a TSO c145/146 GPS unit.

[Jabawocky]

And the Jepp map rings are not that accurate at times.


Apply a few miles, all is good:ok:

Simple.

[Shagpile]

Concur. Also be aware that even though a gps is accurate to a couple of metres, the georeferencing of the maps can be out by up to a couple of miles in parts.

Airservices have done a very good job in fixing the maps so they are quite accurate now, but it's not perfect and land marks dont always line up 100%. Most are good to probably 100m or so.

Plan a 2nm buffer and you can't go wrong.

[SW3]

The 2nm (Not 0.1nm VH-XXX!!!) applies for the same reason as the requirement to be 500ft above the step whilst in CTA, it's a safeguard buffer. Most regs are conservative on the side of safety, and for a reason, so why deliberately stretch right to the edge?

[VH-XXX]

What's this 500 ft above the step?

You are under it if at the lower limit, but in it at the altitude given to you by ATC, so is what you are saying, that to be in airspace where the LL is 7500ft you would be at a minimum of 8,000ft IFR? That makes sense if this is what you mean. Have never thought about it being an actual requirement however I guess it's a given.

(the first sentence above sounds aggressive, but it isn't meant to be)



.1 nm is a little bit tongue in cheek, but point being, have never ever been questioned on it. Particularly when getting a clearance, many of us come super close to CTA if not in it by the time the clearance arrives.

[Creampuff]

Well that puts a very different spin on your earlier post.

If you’ve contacted and have been identified by ATC in the course of requesting an airways clearance, miles before reaching the boundary, that’s a very different situation. (Although I would urge caution about entering controlled airspace before the clearance is issued.)

Try tracking along a line 0.1 nm outside the boundary of controlled airspace without contacting ATC, and let us know how you go. :ok:

[SW3]

It's in the Jepps/AIP undee the requirements for a visual approach in CTA. So published "LL" should really be treated as the LL +500 if in CTA. It's still possible to bust a step under vectors, they'll often clear a lower level before reaching the next DME step.

[andrewr]

The 2nm (Not 0.1nm VH-XXX!!!) applies for the same reason as the requirement to be 500ft above the step whilst in CTA, it's a safeguard buffer.

No, it's a buffer to take into account the potential inaccuracy of the method of navigation. That's why the buffer is different depending on the method of navigation: visually depending on day or night and height AGL, and a number of degrees for NDB, VOR and DR (and, interestingly, 7NM for GPSRNAV - I'm not sure if GPSRNAV is different to regular GPS?)

I think that Creampuff has it 100% correct in post #74. The tolerances are applied to the INTENDED flight path. It is OK to fly closer to the boundary unintentionally - that is what the tolerances are for. It is not OK to plan closer, or deliberately follow the boundary on the GPS.

I assume ATC also apply a buffer inside the CTA similar to the 500 feet from the vertical limits.

[SW3]

One in the same, true the buffer is for navigational error which ultimately is there to protect controlled airspace and in turn a safeguard. ATC can and will vector right up to the boundary and this could be with the aircraft visual or in IMC.

[LeadSled]

What's this 500 ft above the step?

XXX,

Actually, yet another example of the rest of the world (including ICAO) being out of step with Australia.

A close perusal of the ICAO source docs., and of the AIPs of many other countries, including US, show that the whole volume of controlled airspace is available for aircraft operating in that volume.

In this case, aircraft operating in G (or F) are required to create the vertical buffer, and interestingly, it is not 500', but 700' (expressed in meters in the source docs.)

Thus, in US, UK etc, the lowest base of CTL will frequently be local ground level plus 1200', so that an aircraft complying with the vertical buffer of 700' will still be 500' AGL.

But, Australia has to be different!!

Tootle pip!!

PS: It seem like many of you need to re-read the criteria for VFR navigation ---- and I believe we are seeing incidents and accident starting to show up as being a result of blind reliance on GPS of doubtful standards (even some older TSOd equipment) and a far from complete understanding, on the part of many pilots, of the limitations of their equipment.

[Frank Arouet]

I have an endorsement to use the ADF and VFR. Without it, I could only use those instruments as an aid to The Visual Flight Rules.

I can't see how any piece of equipment, TSO'd or not, can be used in any other way.

I could be wrong again, but I have always planned to fly below the steps if not in CTR.

[Creampuff]

I always admire your chutzpah, Leaddie. :D

Never a ‘Jeez, I see what you mean about the tolerance rules. I’ll stop telling people that they’ll always be OK if they remain just a little bit outside controlled or restricted airspace.’

Never a ‘Jeez, you’re right: aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown aren’t 2,500’ AGL.’

No: just change the topic and bluff and bluster on.

By the way, what are the VFR navigation tolerance rules in the USA, me ol’ cumquat? And I’d be very careful with my answer, if I were you… :ok:

[Kharon]

Parrot – Just had a yarn wiv a Gallah from Temora, wanna hear about it ?.

Me – (fzzt – bottle opening); 'K, but make it short.

Aside - It just so happen that I share some parts of my life with a particularly attractive talking Parrot; now, during periods of absence, this foul, fell fowl converses with same same. The stories I hear at midnight quite oft' send me to my little wooden bed, breathless with laughter. For example (and verbatim do I quote it).

Parrot – Well, the story goes – the Fuzz turned up, unexpected like, to see some fellah laying about in the BBQ area. The “lads” just thought he was pissed again; and, didn't worry too much – anyway.

Plod – Well then - what 'appened to his nose then??.

The lads – **** mate, beats us; WE have no idea, been stood here having a few beers mate.

Plod – Well, he's bleeding a bit, sure none of you saw anything??.

The lads – Nah mate, he must have tripped on a tinny or sumpthin': we saw nuttin.

Fuzz – Well if your sure.

The lads – Yeah mate – never seen the blighter before, NFI about his snoz.

Case (slab) closed. Bloody bird, one day; I swear. :D

[T28D]

?????????????????? too much rum methinks

[LeadSled]

Never a ‘Jeez, you’re right: aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown aren’t 2,500’AGL.’
Creamie,
So, what are you trying to say ? That I can't fly in G (in Australia) up to the base of a step ---- which in most of the light aircraft lane north of Sydney is 2500' AMSL---- you added AGL, not me.

I’ll stop telling people that they’ll always be OK if they remain just a little bit outside controlled or restricted airspace.’

I didn't say that, either, in fact I specifically wrote words to the effect that you should leave a buffer, because, amongst other things, ATC radar is not pinpoint accuracy, but it is the usual "evidence" for an airspace violations.

What are VFR navigation tolerances here?? ---- Which is not the same thing as the buffer/tolerances for pre-flight planning in the AIP --- and the way I read your reply on the subject, you agreed that the published tolerances in the AIP did not constitute a direction as to the final flight path of the aircraft.

What are VFR navigation tolerances in the US?? I have no idea, without looking them up, if, in fact, they exist. Given that almost all flying by light aircraft in the US will be in E, D or C, and rarely B, (ie; virtually all flying in the US is in controlled airspace) and only fleetingly in what G there is, are we talking about the same thing??

In practical terms, I have never had the issue of VFR tracking tolerances arise in US ---- or anywhere else, for that matter.

I stand by what I said about the ICAO requirements for vertical separation for aircraft in G below a CTA/CTR base.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Late addition, in case Creamie wants to pick me up --- the one place in US where there is lots of G is Alaska.

[Creampuff]

Now I understand where the most of the chutzpah comes from. You must just post stuff then pretend to yourself that it never happened.So, what are you trying to say ? That I can't fly in G (in Australia) up to the base of a step ---- which in most of the light aircraft lane north of Sydney is 2500' AMSL---- you added AGL, not me.I didn’t ‘add’ AGL: AGL an element of avoidance rule that we (or at least those of us who were concentrating) were discussing.

In post #35 I quoted the tolerances that must be applied to the intended flight path of powered aircraft operating against the VFR, below 10,001’.

In post #44, you said, among other things:Also consider various "lanes" around the country, such as north of Sydney ---- staying two miles (@ c2500') from the boundary puts the north and south bound traffic rather close togetherThe clear implication if not express effect of that assertion is that the applicable tolerance is 2 miles because the aircraft in the lane north of Sydney are at 2,500’. That’s just plain wrong.

The avoidance tolerances are calculated by reference to AGL. Aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown at an altitude of 2,500’ are not at 2,500 AGL. You know that spot called Pennant Hills? There’s a reason the word ‘Hills’ is in the name. Most of the terrain under the lane is around 1,000' high. Get it? Or are you now going to tell me that you were obviously referring to night VFR operations, in a thread about RAA aircraft?

In post#44 you also said:[E]ntering controlled airspace without a clearance is the offense, not entering an "x" mile buffer around a control boundary.

However, a word of practical caution, AsA radar images are not all that precise, but are, nevertheless used as evidence for a penetration of controlled airspace allegation and aircraft targets on the radar screen are not "scale", it is hard, but not impossible, to prove that you did not infringe controlled airspace, when the radar say otherwise.The clear implication if not express effect of that assertion is that the only potential offence (note the spelling of ‘offence’, me ol’ pomegranate) in the circumstances is entering controlled airspace without a clearance, and that the only risk of entering the buffer is that, due to the inaccuracies of radar, the aircraft can appear to be within controlled airspace. That’s just plain wrong.

Entering the ‘buffer’ is also evidence that the rule requiring the tolerance to be applied to the intended flight path may have been breached.

I’ll say it for the third and last time, because almost everyone else seems to be getting it: The FOIs to whom Baswell referred raised the issue of aircraft ‘skimming the edges of CTA’ and the avoidance rules, for a reason.

[LeadSled]

Entering the ‘buffer’ is also evidence that the rule requiring the tolerance to be applied to the intended flight path may have been breached.

Creamie,

I am just going to have to disagree with your chosen interpretation of my previous posts.

It's a bit pointless "convicting" me on "implications", what I see here is an argument coming back to whether the "buffer zone" around a control boundary can be "breached" ---- or is it an offense ( or offence --- chose your dictionary) to fly within that buffer zone.

So, please advise what the ( in your opinion) VFR tracking tolerances are, en-route ---- as opposed to the pre-flight planning of tracks with a tolerance, as already done to death.

Are you backtracking on your previous post that the AIP tolerances for pre-flight planning do not constitute a CAR 99AA(5) direction as to the final flight path of the aircraft.

And I am well aware of the elevations in the lane under discussion, I live in the middle of it, at 430 ft elevation --- reread my original post again --- I (also) referred to the 2500' step ---- the "implication" being AMSL ---- but not all of the lane has a local ground level of around 1000', far from it. Have a look at the elevations along the Richmond edge of the lane --- I hope you are not "implying" my "regulated" buffer expands and/or contracts as local ground level varies, as I fly south in the "lane".

As to opinions of individual FOIs, the big problem is "individual" interpretations of "the law", and have I seen some doozies with the latest crop of recruits.

Re. Offense v. offence, I note the Macquarie Dictionary gives offense, the US spelling, as an alternative. Maybe it's the spell checkers, but I have (NSW system) legal documents in front of me that use offense, and I have CASA documents that use both spellings. I also get documents from Russell Hill with, variously, defence and defense.

--- and that the only risk of entering the buffer is that, due to the inaccuracies of radar, the aircraft can appear to be within controlled airspace. That’s just plain wrong.
Just what is "plain wrong" ----- that there are no other risks of entering the buffer zone, or that the radar can be "wrong".

The intent of my comment didn't (at least to my mind) "imply" that the only reason to leave a margin was the risk of being accused of an actual infringement of the controlled airspace due limitations of radar, but was a risk ---- base on cases, in which I have been involved.

Or, are you saying the (surveillance/SSR --- not to be confused with precision radars, like PAR or SMC) radar, or the interpretation of the radar records can't be wrong. If it's the latter, you're the one who is plain wrong.

Calibration flights have mapped errors (of which I am aware, there may be greater) in indicated versus geographical position of over 5km, with common ones between 2 and 3 km. The various technical reasons for these results are no state secret, but probably not common knowledge outside the group who deal with this as a job. As already mentioned, it is not a separation issue, within the standards, the relative positions of targets come up to an acceptable level of accuracy.

A good friend of mine has been one of those people ( a manufacturer of precision GPS tracking equipment, and involved in radar calibration) who has been used as an expert witness, to illustrate the various ways the surveillance radar system does not give pinpoint geographical accuracy.

Tootle pip!!

As a final thought, where do we measure the ground level, for the purposes of the buffer ---- directly under the flight path of the aircraft, in some other fashion akin to the minimum height for flight over obstructions, or from the tints on a WAC etc??

[Creampuff]

I am just going to have to disagree with your chosen interpretation of my previous posts.Others will judge whether my ‘chosen’ interpretation is the correct one.It's a bit pointless "convicting" me on "implications", what I see here is an argument coming back to whether the "buffer zone" around a control boundary can be "breached" ---- or is it an offense ( or offence --- chose your dictionary) to fly within that buffer zone.

So, please advise what the ( in your opinion) VFR tracking tolerances are, en-route ---- as opposed to the pre-flight planning of tracks with a tolerance, as already done to death.

Are you backtracking on your previous post that the AIP tolerances for pre-flight planning do not constitute a CAR 99AA(5) direction as to the final flight path of the aircraft.You keep putting words in other’s mouths, to suit your argument.

You always make the mistake of introducing a false dichotomy.

The rule doesn’t have to apply, and isn’t expressed to apply, to only pre-flight planning or the final flight path. It’s about every decision the pilot in command makes about the intended flight path of the aircraft. The avoidance rule applies to:The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace etc..Operating.

A present tense verb.

If the pilot plans to fly a route in G without applying the tolerances to the intended flight path, then flies that route, that’s a breach of the direction under 99AA(5).

If the pilot, in flight in G, plans a diversion in G without applying the tolerances to the intended diversion track, that’s a breach of the direction under 99AA(5).

If the pilot just takes off and takes up an intended track in G without applying the tolerances to the track, that’s a breach of the direction under 99AA(5).And I am well aware of the elevations in the lane under discussion, I live in the middle of it, at 430 ft elevation --- reread my original post again --- I (also) referred to the 2500' step ---- the "implication" being AMSL ---- but not all of the lane has a local ground level of around 1000', far from it.You evidently don’t live at Carlingford Shopping Centre, Pennant Hills or Castle Hill Shopping Centre, all of which are landmarks along the routes marked in the lane, and all of which are over 500’ elevation.

But, as usual, you just can’t bring yourself to concede the actual tolerance required of day VFR aircraft following the actual recommended tracks marked on the VTC.Have a look at the elevations along the Richmond edge of the lane --- I hope you are not "implying" my "regulated" buffer expands and/or contracts as local ground level varies, as I fly south in the "lane".Of course it expands and contracts, depending on the ground level. That’s what the rule says. It’s not hard to understand.

If someone’s that far away from the route marked in the lane and that close to the Richmond boundary, they’d better make sure their intended flight path has the required tolerance applied to it. And I thought you were worried about opposite direction traffic being too close. Have you not measured how far apart those routes marked on the VTC are?As to opinions of individual FOIs, the big problem is "individual" interpretations of "the law", and have I seen some doozies with the latest crop of recruits.That’s all well and good, me ol’ banana, but the reason I get so energetic about this stuff is because of the number of poor naïve b*st*rds I’m aware of who’ve dug themselves into really deep, smelly, expensive holes on the basis of some of the rubbish that is sprouted by people who claim expertise in matters legal and regulatory – always on a ‘all care but no responsibility’ basis, of course. Re. Offense v. offence, I note the Macquarie Dictionary gives offense, the US spelling, as an alternative. Maybe it's the spell checkers, but I have (NSW system) legal documents in front of me that use offense, and I have CASA documents that use both spellings. I also get documents from Russell Hill with, variously, defence and defense.Just goes to show how ubiquitous the decline in literacy is. Next you’ll be telling me that licence and license mean the same thing.As a final thought, where do we measure the ground level, for the purposes of the buffer ---- directly under the flight path of the aircraft, in some other fashion akin to the minimum height for flight over obstructions, or from the tints on a WAC etc??There’s a regulation that answers that question. In another thread you saidJack,
I'll back my knowledge of the AU Act, Regulations, Orders, AIP etc against you or anybody else, any day.What’s the answer to your question?

[Jack Ranga]

Jack,
I'll back my knowledge of the AU Act, Regulations, Orders, AIP etc against you or anybody else, any day.


Hold on old mate, not challenging you :ok: In reply to your post in the thread that was shut down. I have a common sense attitude to my flying and my day job :D I posted slack-arse like that so that this prudish, American website wouldn't bleep out arse, turns out it doesn't bleep out arse :ok:

Now, what is your attitude to pilots who make up their own RT and still don't deliver the required information?

Example:

'ABC taxies Birdsville for Innaminca, request traffic and code'

Required:

'ABC Aerostar, (my new favourite aeroplane) 6 POB, IFR, taxing Birdsville for Innaminca, Runway 32'

Now, in my humble opinion this: 'ABC taxies Birdsville for Innaminca, request traffic and code' is lazy, slack garbage. Who started this tripe? Some lazy bastard who couldn't be bothered looking it up in AIP. It took me 3 minutes to find it in AIP.

Why is it lazy, slack garbage? Because: The correct call is important for everybody's situational awareness. It's also important for SAR action (POB) if the unthinkable happens. If I have to request that information, it is two extra calls that are time consuming and unnecessary.

If you think this is anal and over the top, I would love for you to have been plugged in with me this morning when accurate radio calls were a must :E

Your opinion old fruit, you're entitled to it. And so am I. In my 26 years in aviation I think I've probably made 5 times the radio calls you have, happy days fellow aviation professional :ok:

[SW3]

Nice one Jack, couldn't agree more. Standard calls are there for the same reason as regs, just follow them! No point re-inventing the wheel.

[Jack Ranga]

SW3, the scary (well, not scary but I can't think of the appropriate word) part is that an Air Force in Australia, it's Royal (?) started transmitting this sh!t, why? because they were hearing all the other sheep transmitting it.......

lazy, slack sh!t legitimised by clowns who say standard phraseology is anal. I do have a chuckle when yanks 'check in' but I always get the correct readback because I'm farked if I'm going down because there was any confusion about what was 'meant' or 'implied' or 'assumed'

[SW3]

"FedEx XXX out of 3,000 for 5" sound familiar?! Know exactly what you mean. I think meticulous professional compliance is being perceived as anal instead of taking pride in your profession. None of us do it perfectly every time but doesn't mean one can't strive to.
After all, assume makes an ass out of you and me.

[Creampuff]

So everyone, in summary, please try your best to:

- use standard phraseology on the radio, and

- when operating in G, apply the required tolerances to your intended flight path.

:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Amen! :ok:

[Arnold E]

- use standard phraseology on the radio,

What happens if you dont know or cant remember the standard phraseology? will plain English do??

[Kharon]

Jaba - Amen. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Too soon, betcha a Coops on a return bout. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif.

[Jack Ranga]

Arnold, AIP GEN 3.4 Page 26 is the start of phraseologies. If there is a situation there is no phraseology for, ad-lib it :ok:

AIP is online, you don't have to buy it to read it.