Erasing Safety?

[Sunfish]

Unless I am mistaken, which is always possible, the latest charts I’ve seen have some airstrips marked with a big fat “U” - which I take to mean uncertified. Other strips or ALA, for example the dig tree strip, have been completely removed. What is going on?

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Is there a 'birdy'-looking symbol near the 'U' ?
If so, then according to the legend it means ultralight aircraft nearby.

[CaptainMidnight]

The charts have a legend that explains the symbology ......

Also this details changes:

CHANGES TO AIP AERONAUTICAL CHARTS EFFECTIVE 21 MAY 2020 (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a20-h29.pdf)

[Lookleft]

So how is any of this "erasing safety"?

[Super Cecil]

Disappointed there was only 31 pages, surely they could have padded it out with a few More "This page is intentionally blank". There could have also been another 20 or so pages of disclaimers plus another 20 or so of credits and references.

[Styx75]

Disappointed there was only 31 pages, surely they could have padded it out with a few More "This page is intentionally blank". There could have also been another 20 or so pages of disclaimers plus another 20 or so of credits and references.

There isn't a single "This page is intentionally left blank" page in there, nor any disclaimers, references or credits. So how do you figure 'More'?

Is this the only thing you have to whine about today? Its a list of changes, it takes as many pages as is needed.

[wishiwasupthere]

I can just imagine Sunfish sitting at the dining room table, frothing at the mouth looking incredulously at the big fat U while he was looking at his chart (without checking the chart legend first!), already working out in his head what he was going to say in his Pprune post and how he could blame CASA for this disgraceful change and the amount of danger it will put us all in. :}

[Styx75]

Think Biggles might be on the score about the 'U'. Looking forward to getting a blasting endorsement from RaAus...

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/604x253/legend_f2a87d8b9dde906527b471176b777fb89a05d6c8.png

[Checklist Charlie]

"1.4 While every effort is made by Airservices to ensure the accuracy of international data contained in Airservices’ charts and publications, international data is based on, or contains, information provided from regional governments or third party sources over which Airservices has no control, and which may not always be completely up to date."

Silly me, I thought the AirServices produced AIP et al was supposed to be reliable operationally valid information.

CC

[Styx75]

Silly me, I thought the AirServices produced AIP et al was supposed to be reliable operationally valid information.

It would be quite an ask to have Air Services go survey the height of every mountain, and measure the length of every runway so they can take full accountability for their documents. I think the cost tradeoff for having 3rd parties provide their own information to Air Services is sound.

[ozbiggles]

I’m offended by the term ‘manned ballon’, I think there should be a royal commission into the use of this terminology. It should be chaired by Dick Smith and we should look to America for the way they do it. We can then agree at a federal level what the term should be and the states can lock their borders if it is close to election time.

[Squawk7700]

There’s your safety risk right there in the legend. Model rockets and Plumes! Imagine
if one of those hit an aircraft, oh
the humanity!

[TBM-Legend]

I can just imagine Sunfish sitting at the dining room table, frothing at the mouth looking incredulously at the big fat U while he was looking at his chart (without checking the chart legend first!), already working out in his head what he was going to say in his Pprune post and how he could blame CASA for this disgraceful change and the amount of danger it will put us all in. :}

When the 'Mola Tecta' speaks it must be gospel......

[Sunfish]

A circle with a “u” in the middle of it. The actual paper chart may have a description in the legend, the Ozrunways charts legends don’t show it and the strips marked “u” no longer appear in Ersa as far as I can tell. The AIP says nowt.

Deliberately removing information from pilots is not too bright from a safety point of view.

[De_flieger]

I don't know which version of OzRunways you use, but when I go to select a different map on OzRunways, above the list of selectable maps (VFR, ERC, TAC etc) there is the option to select "Legend".

Despite what many may believe, this is not in fact a compliment regarding the user's piloting skills, but brings up an image of a legend that explains the symbols present on the map...scroll down a bit and theres a U and Biggles's angular birdy symbol with the explanation that it refers to locations where ultralights are present.

I don't believe this is a deliberate removal of information at all, it's been there for ages - that symbol has had that meaning for at least 15-20 years that I know of.

[Middle.Marker]

I can’t find an example in any of my charts can you post a screenshot?

[Capn Bloggs]

Sunfish, what chart has this U in a circle? And what airport is it?

[alphacentauri]

It means that the airfield is 'Unverified'. It gets this status whilst Airservices tries to establish reliable contact with the owner in order to keep the data maintained. If no contact is established or the owner is unwilling to maintain the data, the information is removed from the charts.

Thats what the U is for.
Thats why some ALA's have been removed.

Establishment of a data originator is a CASR 175 requirement. No data should be published without a recorded data originator.

Alpha

[Lead Balloon]

In monochrome so it was small enough to download. Lots of them. You’re ‘safer’ Sunfish, if you don’t know about these places rather than use an ‘unverified’ ALA in an pinch.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/22b559b8_4cf4_4a99_a42f_602445b2217a_44194fb20eaaabe457e83c7 c1df50e1e03867032.jpeg

[De_flieger]

alphacentauri, looking at the legend on my OzRunways chart, the relevant section of which looks like a scan of the WAC chart legend, there are a few different airfield symbols, including the following:

-A circle with a thin inner concentric circle, which represents "Aerodrome - licenced",
-A circle without that thinner concentric circle, representing "Aerodrome/ALA - verified Airservices has a responsible person registered for the location and associated information confirmed"
-A broken circle with 5 breaks in the outline, representing "Aerodrome/ALA - Unverified Airservices has not been advised of a responsible person for this location. Status and serviceability are unknown."

I can't see a reference to the U indicating "unverified" on any chart legends, instead the broken circle is used to indicate an unverified ALA. The same chart legends do use a U to indicate ultralight aircraft activity.

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/44ec24a2_9a97_486c_8a9c_c948e71f7b69_366728445783a0f83954f9a 5895c5e47b2238f93.jpeg
Another one that’s presumably going to disappear from the charts.

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/5f22d41b_a331_413c_bcc1_076c5cb1f84c_b420a397f0baba914a5b106 fad785cd0181a44f2.jpeg
And another.

[Lead Balloon]

Sunfish: On your favourite EFB, you should be able to tick an ‘ALA’ box that will add them to the map overlay, notwithstanding that the safety bureaucracy has airbrushed them out of history. Whether they are in any fit state to use is, as always, at the users’ risk.

[Lead Balloon]

alphacentauri, looking at the legend on my OzRunways chart, the relevant section of which looks like a scan of the WAC chart legend, there are a few different airfield symbols, including the following:

-A circle with a thin inner concentric circle, which represents "Aerodrome - licenced",
-A circle without that thinner concentric circle, representing "Aerodrome/ALA - verified Airservices has a responsible person registered for the location and associated information confirmed"
-A broken circle with 5 breaks in the outline, representing "Aerodrome/ALA - Unverified Airservices has not been advised of a responsible person for this location. Status and serviceability are unknown."

I can't see a reference to the U indicating "unverified" on any chart legends, instead the broken circle is used to indicate an unverified ALA. The same chart legends do use a U to indicate ultralight aircraft activity.
That’s ‘cause the left hand doesn’t know what the right’s doing.

[Capn Bloggs]

Lead Balloon that's ridiculous. You'd have a symbol on a chart that for 20 years hasn't been verified as even being an airport any more. Assuming you're a lawyer, based on your liberal use of legalistic codswallop, you'd have a field day if a pilot pranged an aeroplane and worse hurt someone if they landed in a ditch across a airstrip and flipped it while said airstrip was in ERSA but not under continual review.

[Lead Balloon]

You’re not paying attention, Cap’n (as usual).

The current charts published by Airservices have a symbol on them that is not described in the legend: An unbroken circle with a “U” in the middle. According to alphacenturi, that means the place is “unverified”. And the place is, apparently, going to be removed entirely from the chart.

The current charts published by Airservices have a symbol in the legend for an “Aerodrome/ALA unverified”: A broken circle.

Why are the charts not marked in accordance with the legend? Because the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

There are unverified ALAs everywhere. That’s why there’s a symbol for them in the legend on the current charts published by Airservices. The reason they are marked as “unverified” is to make clear that their use is at the users’ risk. I don’t know who you reckon is going to have a ‘field day’ when someone has a prang using an unverified ALA, but I can rarely fathom what’s going on in your head.

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't care about that minor anomaly. Do keep up. I was referring to your statement:

notwithstanding that the safety bureaucracy has airbrushed them out of history.

If it's not current and updated regularly by a person who is held responsible for said info, get it off the charts.

[Lead Balloon]

“Get it off the charts”? Spoken like a person who’s not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft.

Confusing aerodrome symbology on current charts a “minor anomaly”? Spoken like a person who’s not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft.

I’d make an educated guess that you’ve not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft, Cap’n. Must be distressing sharing a country with pilots that have.

Better that a pilot in the middle of nowhere never knows that there’s an unverified ALA within gliding range, because the unverified ALA might not be suitable. Best to do a forced landing somewhere else. It’s all about safety, doncha know!

[Sunfish]

Does anyone not see the Kafkaesque absurdity in this action? The airfield is marked with a U for unverified. Well and good. However the absence of an ERSA entry leaves me with no contact information if I want to find out more. Furthermore, I would have thought the basic information of lat and lon, plus elevation, plus a few other details is/was/ accurate unless an earthquake has intervened. Even an entry explaining what WAS there would be useful.

Its bizzare, “there is an airstrip here, but we won’t tell you anything about it, nor how to find out more”. This is a safety hazard. In the absence of data pilots might not use them when they should. Furthermore, gossip and second hand information will replace ERSA an ERSA entry. This is a hazard.

[Lead Balloon]

*sigh*.

Sunfish: There is no ERSA information for these places for Airservices to publish because Airservices is unwilling or unable (usually practically unable) to find anyone to provide and take responsibility for the information. That is precisely why Airservices wants to delete any reference to the places from AIP. (I’d pay folding money to watch you and them in a room ‘discussing’ this stuff.)

Here’s what you should be lobbying for, Sunfish: The retention and publication of unverified ALA locations on AIP maps. At least then you’d know where there might be a usable landing area, but you would remain responsible for the consequences of use. That’s PRECISELY WHY THERE’S AN “UNVERIFIED AERODROME/ALA” symbol on the legend for these maps!

[Styx75]

Its bizzare, “there is an airstrip here, but we won’t tell you anything about it, nor how to find out more”. This is a safety hazard. In the absence of data pilots might not use them when they should. Furthermore, gossip and second hand information will replace ERSA an ERSA entry. This is a hazard.

Becuase it goes a little something like this: Due to incomplete, timely or unreliable data, AirServices remove the aerodrome from the maps.

Sunfish makes a pprune post whining about "Erasing Safety".

So AirServices put it on the map, but put a note at the bottom saying data could be unreliable

So Checklist Charlie complains about AirServices not giving reliable data.

So they put an 'Unverified' identifier on the map so everyone will be happy.

Except they arn't cause some people have nothing else in their lives to whine about.

And here we are.

[Capn Bloggs]

I’d make an educated guess that you’ve not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft, Cap’n.
OK, so let's get this straight. You'd like to have information on XXX, unverified, unchecked, not updated for say 20 years. See my answer to Sunfish below.

Have you put in a document change request to correct this shockingly dangerous situation where the WACs have a un-legended symbol, being a circle with a U in it?

Furthermore, gossip and second hand information will replace ERSA an ERSA entry. This is a hazard.
No, said info comes from a person who signs for it's accuracy. Otherwise, keep it out of the official docs. Use the Ozrunways Pilot's Touring Guide.

[Lead Balloon]

So...

What, precisely, is the broken circle symbol for on aeronautical maps and the legends for those maps? Why did anyone go to the trouble of coming up with the symbol in the first place?

[Lead Balloon]

OK, so let's get this straight. You'd like to have information on XXX, unverified, unchecked, not updated for say 20 years.Absolutely I do. It’s better than the alternative. But you wouldn’t know that, Cap’n, ‘cause you’ve never ‘been there’.

Have you put in a document change request to correct this shockingly dangerous situation where the WACs have a un-legended symbol, being a circle with a U in it?You should go for a job in Airservices, Cap’n. It is, of course, the fault of the user (who pays for the privilege) to do the quality control for an ANSP who’s certified on the basis of its supposed quality control on the content of the AIP.

[Vag277]

To clarify: WACs are NOT produced by Airservices and have a much longer update cycle.

[Capn Bloggs]

WACs are NOT produced by Airservices
Ya gotta laugh... LB ans Sun slink away with their tails between their legs... NEXT!

You should go for a job in Airservices, Cap’n. It is, of course, the fault of the user (who pays for the privilege) to do the quality control for an ANSP who’s certified on the basis of its supposed quality control on the content of the AIP.
Nobody's perfect, LB. But instead of whining, whinging and slagging off at all and sundry on Prune, I submit corrections to all sorts of organisations and generally get results. I suggest you do the same. I do note, of course, in true lawyer-ese, that you didn't answer my question. Typical.

[Lead Balloon]

So there you have it: The WAC charts with the Airservices logo and legend, and which must be carried in order to comply with the law, are NOT produced by Airservices and - presumably according to Vag277 and the Cap’n - are not part of the AIP or the responsibility of Airservices. Again, this image is in B/W for size purposes but is the current official AIP WAC content.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/512138ed_5a3c_46a2_bfdd_99625587e6e4_8e36daceacfa66d65f65d98 0dc17595a0404b387.jpeg
Apparently Airservices is not responsible for the content of this document. Go figure!

You see everybody: It’s your job to know the errors in documents which Airservices pastes its logo on, charges you for and must be carried so as to comply with the law.

[Lead Balloon]

Just so I can understand your position, Cap’n and Vag: Are you saying - are you really saying - that the inconsistency between the symbology and legend on WAC charts is the responsibility of the people who purchase them and not the responsibility of the people from whom they are purchased? Really?

[Capn Bloggs]

Just so I can understand your position, Cap’n and Vag: Are you saying - are you really saying - that the inconsistency between the symbology and legend on WAC charts is the responsibility of the people who purchase them and not the responsibility of the people from whom they are purchased? Really?
Go and watch the news, LB. You're hanging on too tight.

[jonkster]

On a more interesting note, I found an old Sydney VTC the other day and apart from the nostalgia of seeing Hoxton Park marked in all its glory and Camden having an NDB I noticed how many of the spot height values have changed. Most were within several feet or so but a few differed by 30-40' (plus and minus). Found that curious. Were the old heights that badly surveyed or has the earth moved over the last 20 years?

[alphacentauri]

who’s certified on the basis of its supposed quality control on the content of the AIP.

No thats not what they’re certified for. They are certified to provide an AIS and certified that the data they receive is published without modification.

They are not responsible for the accuracy of the data they publish. That is the responsibility of the data originator. This is all spelled out in CASR 175

[George Glass]

”Other strips or ALA, for example the dig tree strip, have been completely removed. What is going on?”

Heh heh heh , gotta love this stuff.
Nothing is going on.
Nobody cares.
Check out the dig tree strip on Google Earth.
There is nothing there.
Hasnt had a grader over it since I was first there 40 years ago.
Airservices has not , should not , and will not take responsibility for publishing information on its suitability as an airstrip now or in the future.
Parochial drivel.
The real Mola Tecta spends its life meandering around the ocean minding its own business.
Enviable really.............

[CaptainMidnight]

FWIW ALAs get deleted from the charts for reasons other than no longer existing.

Quite a few have been deleted over the years at the request of the property owners for a variety of reasons such as privacy, potential legal stoush if someone has an incident etc. etc.

[Capt Fathom]

or has the earth moved over the last 20 years?

I believe it has moved quite a bit in that time!

[Styx75]

I believe it has moved quite a bit in that time!
Especially over Badgerys Creek. There's been some huge earth moving work going on there in the past few months

[Sunfish]

Bloggs, Glass, etc. You utterly miss the absurdity of these “U” entries; If there is no information or even contact details for such a place, then why is it even on the chart???


Thie only excuse I can think of is a tidy legal mind arguing “for completeness” - “there was once something there, but now there isn’t, well actually, there is, but we pretend we don’t even know it exists, even though it does”. “Because it officially isn’t there, even though it is, we can’t tell you it’s abandoned or unserviceable”, “we know nothing about it, even though we probably once did”.

Why doesn’t Airservices just write “here there be dragons” on the chart at such locations?

Andamooka - YAMK, elevation 250 ft., a perfect example.

[alphacentauri]

If there is no information or even contact details for such a place, then why is it even on the chart???

Airservices tried that, and removed a bunch all at one go. And you lot bitched your asses off. (Backlash from RAPAC us well documented)

Now you’re all bitching they should be removed.

[Vag277]

Sunfish - Instead of bitching here, why do you not call the AIS section at Airservices and establish the facts?
For info, WAC charts are produced by Geoscience Australia. They are now starting to digitise so we will eventually see more current information on WACs.Australia’s Aeronautical charts go digitalGeoscience Australia is collaborating with Airservices Australia to revise their World Aeronautical Charts (WAC).

World Aeronautical Charts are 1:1 000 000 scale paper maps used by pilots for flight planning and in-flight navigation on extended cross-country flights at low to medium altitudes and medium to high airspeeds. Forty-two WAC sheets provide complete coverage of Australia.

Whereas previous WAC revisions involved traditional manual cartographic techniques on film, the new Tasmania WAC has been produced from Geoscience Australia’s fundamental topographic database, GEODATA TOPO–250K Series 2.

http://www.ga.gov.au/servlet/BigObjFileManager?bigobjid=GA6552This new collaboration involves extracting the 1:250 000 scale topographic data from Geoscience Australia’s seamless geographic database. Using the previous edition maps as a guide, the features are then tagged for future use at 1:1,000,000 scale. The updated aeronautical information from Airservices Australia is then incorporated into the new database. The refreshed data is then symbolised, cartographically offset and annotated to produce a WAC with the same look and feel as previous editions.

New WACs for Albany, Armidale, Cooper Creek and Perth will soon be available as part of an ongoing agreement between the agencies for the production of a national 1:1 million scale seamless database and the complete revision and production of the entire WAC series covering Australia.

Figure 1. Extract of 1:1 million scale World Aeronautical Chart for Hobart, Tasmania



As with the production of Geoscience Australia’s 1:250 000 topographic NATMAP products, four spatial information companies are being contracted to produce the WACs.

Airservices Australia and Geoscience Australia have a long history of working together to produce various scale flight navigation charts like the WACs, 1:500 000 scale Visual Navigation Charts (VNC) and 1:250 000 scale Visual Terminal Charts (VTC).

Working together has many benefits for both agencies. Future revision of the digital data will be more efficient. The same data can be used in the production of other maps like Airservices Australia’s VNCs and Geoscience Australia’s Global Map data. Digital data could also enhance Airservices Australia’s ‘Flying Around’ (a new online delivery of VTCs), or be used in any future online or in-flight navigation.

For more information phone Phil Tickle on +61 2 6249 9353 (email [email protected])

[mcoates]

SOLUTION FOUND - if you land at the same location that you took off from then none of you would have this problem.... :ugh:

[TinKicker]

I think you are all missing the point..............:rolleyes:

Airservices are just taking a section of the Tax Legislation - specifically 'A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 - Section 165.55 which states:

Commissioner may disregard scheme in making declarations.

For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

(i) having happened at a particular time; and

(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and

(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:

(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

...and applying that logic........just substitute "Airservices" for Commissioner and "particular event or entity" for ALA.....

ROFL......

Tinkicka

[Squawk7700]

I don't know why something so basic can go on for 3 pages. Oh wait, yes I can, because Sunfish keeps dragging it out.

If an airport operator is unable to respond, chooses not to respond, doesn't get the email, doesn't respond quickly enough, or if ASA has the incorrect contact information, or if the owner has only updated the Country Airstrips guide, then it is not logical for ASA to remove the airport from the maps, but rather mark it as unverified.

Makes perfect sense to me. In the case that an airfield has been sold and new owners decided to bulldoze it and it's listed with a "U," there is no onus on ASA because the pilot requires "written permission from the owner" / PPR to land anyway, so the onus is on the pilot to make the decision to land there.

Edit: Believe me, CASA take PPR and written permission very seriously, should the airport operator complain to them. I know this from personal experience. Always make sure that you have written permission from the operator and not someone that you believe may represent the operator or speak on behalf of the operator, unless you have something in writing to verify this.

[Lead Balloon]

You appear not to have comprehended the points made in the dragged-out 3 pages.If an airport operator is unable to respond, chooses not to respond, doesn't get the email, doesn't respond quickly enough, or if ASA has the incorrect contact information, or if the owner has only updated the Country Airstrips guide, then it is not logical for ASA to remove the airport from the maps, but rather mark it as unverified.If you read what alpha said, the plan in that event is to remove the airport from the maps! What you call “not logical” is, apparently, what’s going to happen.

Then there’s the question: What does “mark it unverified” mean? The legend suggests that a broken circle = unverified. (Which immediately raises another question: Why have a symbol for “unverified” at all, if the airport should not be on the map?). There is nonetheless aerodrome symbology used on official AIP maps that does not appear in the legend for those maps - namely an unbroken circle with a “U” in the middle.

This is all, apparently, the fault of the people who pay for the maps.

[Cloudee]

”Other strips or ALA, for example the dig tree strip, have been completely removed. What is going on?”

Check out the dig tree strip on Google Earth.
There is nothing there.
Hasnt had a grader over it since I was first there 40 years ago.
..........
Rubbish. I landed there in April 2019. It had just been graded and was in very good condition.

[Lead Balloon]

Ssssshhhhh! The Dig Tree strip’s been verified as unverified.

[Squawk7700]

I was told by an unverified source, that after an airfield appears X number of times on the new map releases with a “U,” it will subsequently be removed.

That is unverified though, so I can’t confirm it.

[thunderbird five]

Reports to hand confirm the fact that no more facts can be confirmed at this time.
However, at a date soon to be announced, more unconfirmed reports will be denied.
This should put an end to all those rumours circulating at present.

[Lead Balloon]

And it’s about time!

[George Glass]

Reports to hand confirm the fact that no more facts can be confirmed at this time.
However, at a date soon to be announced, more unconfirmed reports will be denied.
This should put an end to all those rumours circulating at present.

Nothing is going to happen
Something might happen but we shouldn’t do anything
Maybe we should do something but there is nothing we can do
We should have done something but its too late now............

[wishiwasupthere]

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

[jonkster]

yeah, I knew that.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

One of the few 'truths' to come out of 'that' era...............

Thanks DR

Cheeerrrsss.....

[De_flieger]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/44ec24a2_9a97_486c_8a9c_c948e71f7b69_366728445783a0f83954f9a 5895c5e47b2238f93.jpeg
Another one that’s presumably going to disappear from the charts.
Thanks for finding them LB. Looking at Google Earth at a couple of them, there appears to be some basic form of dirt strip there. Sunfish, I'll admit to not having a clue about what the U means in this context. Regarding removing unverified strips I'd much rather know they were there - I won't be using them either way, but if I hear somebody broadcasting that they are downwind at WoopWoop Station I'll know where they are and can stay out of their way or disregard them as being nowhere near me and not requiring action.

[Stickshift3000]

Regarding removing unverified strips I'd much rather know they were there - I won't be using them either way, but if I hear somebody broadcasting that they are downwind at WoopWoop Station I'll know where they are and can stay out of their way or disregard them as being nowhere near me and not requiring action.

It's also nice to know where it might be possible to land without incident if it's unplanned.

[Lead Balloon]

Plenty more of them on the current maps.

Regarding removing unverified strips I'd much rather know they were there.I’m with you! I won't be using them either way.I‘d much rather know where they are, just in case I find myself in/mismanage myself into a precautionary landing/forced landing situation. It may be that in a particular case the strip is as unusable as the surrounding gaffa, but it could be that it’s not. (PS: What Stickshift said!)

(Coincidentally, the most recent sat photo of Narwietoomah suggests it would be a better option than the surrounding gaffa.)

[Lead Balloon]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/cac1480c_85aa_4f38_bebf_2cb39735234e_1ccf6ed18846e916ac6b0d1 5f372582739075150.jpeg
In an emergency, I’ll opt for the unverified strip instead of the surrounding gaffa.

[Lead Balloon]

This thread and others about Part 175 provides some insight into why this is happening: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/600742-lost-2000-airfields.html

[Checklist Charlie]

I don't suppose this "unknown" known has anything to do with trying to avoid implementing a MULTICOM procedure in Class G, would it?

CC

[601]

has the earth moved over the last 20 years?

Poor fella, has not felt the earth move for 20 years.

After all this, has anyone actually established what a circle with a "U" in the middle actually means and where is it published?

As for Merty Merty, how dare they delete such a fine airstrip. It was fine the last time I landed there in the 70s.
If I remember correctly, it was a multi-directional airfield. Just a big claypan.

[Lead Balloon]

Perhaps the unbroken circle with a “U” is some remnant of a valiant attempt to align with US chart symbology: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/aero_guide/media/editions/cug-complete.pdf

My brief research suggests that the interesting question is: Where did the broken circle symbology on Australian charts come from (apart from the obvious)? My wild guess is that CaptainMidnight, alphacentauri or Vag277 might have some insights.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/a54d6c5d_9938_4362_aed3_19753ce1625b_67670f98442a1badb7d971e 1bd45faa396422d13.png

[PPRuNeUser0201]

I have to say I find some of these posts really quite funny.....

In terms of ‘I’d much rather know they were there’, I find this a ridiculous premise. So are you going to fly over a perfectly good forced landing paddock to glide to a place you know ‘was’ there? Or do you need to divert to a place because you’ve planned poorly? I can guarantee you there are many many unverified locations that are either in the wrong place, have been ploughed or are now housing estates. And if you ‘know it was there’ why do you need a chart when you’re in the sh!t anyway? The only reason these places have remained on the charts is because some RAPAC members were in denial that these places no longer exist and kicked up a stink on the same ridiculous basis as the arguments on here..

There was a push by Airservices to remove any unverified locations from the charts a few years ago for very good reason, the previous examples being two of them. In the world of data, there is no place for poorly managed, unvalidated or duplicate data. We rely on this data way too much now to have it be incorrect. Part 175 or not, we can’t afford bad data. Think of old mate with his Ozrunways and The aerodrome he is going to is in the wrong location on the chart, he hasn’t done any visual navigation and is totally reliant upon that? Poor airmanship yes, but also demonstrating the need for good data. Did you know these single source datasets are also in FMC databases?

I know there are all these conspiracy theories and haters Of government organisations, but the reality is a simple modern problem, not only in aviation either.


Yes, many aerodromes have been demolished and yes it’s a sad state of affairs. But by putting nostalgia on the charts isn’t the solution.

[Sunfish]

Flying Higher, I agree with you, either remove them or improve the data. The issue is indeed quality of data. You want charts, all charts, to inform the user, pilot, hiker, ships captain with the best knowledge available for their intended use. You do not want a chart to be ambiguous or misleading.

The data is not “unverified” call it “unknown” instead. Even mark it as ruins or leave it out (but that is another argument). We have done the same on land and sea charts for decades.

Whatever you do, don’t leave the pilot in doubt as to expectations or provide misleading expectations.

My reason is also that in the absence of “good” data, gossip, mud maps, hearsay and rumor will fill the gaps - and that most definitely will lead people astray. For that same reason I’m pleased that the VFRG and many charts are now available for free download.

[De_flieger]

I have to say I find some of these posts really quite funny.....

In terms of ‘I’d much rather know they were there’, I find this a ridiculous premise. So are you going to fly over a perfectly good forced landing paddock to glide to a place you know ‘was’ there? Or do you need to divert to a place because you’ve planned poorly? I can guarantee you there are many many unverified locations that are either in the wrong place, have been ploughed or are now housing estates. And if you ‘know it was there’ why do you need a chart when you’re in the sh!t anyway?
I'm so glad you're amused. How about none of the above? I fly in a lot of regional/remote areas and I won't be landing or diverting to any of these unverified possible strips either, but I don't want to fly straight through someone else's circuit pattern if they've set up a basic ALA. For clarity, if there's nothing whatsoever present, its been bulldozed or built over, the markings should be removed from the chart, but having had a look on Google Earth at a couple of Lead Balloon's locations, there appears to be some form of airstrips present at those places, so I'd rather not fly through their circuit patterns. Having some form of marking on a chart indicating that "hey, theres an airstrip here called Bloggs Field, nothing more about it is known" seems like a reasonable way to do this.

[Lead Balloon]

I have to say I find some of these posts really quite funny.....

In terms of ‘I’d much rather know they were there’, I find this a ridiculous premise. So are you going to fly over a perfectly good forced landing paddock to glide to a place you know ‘was’ there? Or do you need to divert to a place because you’ve planned poorly? I can guarantee you there are many many unverified locations that are either in the wrong place, have been ploughed or are now housing estates. And if you ‘know it was there’ why do you need a chart when you’re in the sh!t anyway? The only reason these places have remained on the charts is because some RAPAC members were in denial that these places no longer exist and kicked up a stink on the same ridiculous basis as the arguments on here..

There was a push by Airservices to remove any unverified locations from the charts a few years ago for very good reason, the previous examples being two of them. In the world of data, there is no place for poorly managed, unvalidated or duplicate data. We rely on this data way too much now to have it be incorrect. Part 175 or not, we can’t afford bad data. Think of old mate with his Ozrunways and The aerodrome he is going to is in the wrong location on the chart, he hasn’t done any visual navigation and is totally reliant upon that? Poor airmanship yes, but also demonstrating the need for good data. Did you know these single source datasets are also in FMC databases?

I know there are all these conspiracy theories and haters Of government organisations, but the reality is a simple modern problem, not only in aviation either.


Yes, many aerodromes have been demolished and yes it’s a sad state of affairs. But by putting nostalgia on the charts isn’t the solution.
How many decades/hours of outback flying do you have, Flying_higher?

Your post manifests the experience of a child of the magenta line, cocooned in the coastal fringe.

[CaptainMidnight]

I don't know about the history of the introduction of this "U" inside a circle symbol, but I assume that after the fuss in 2015 re deleting ALAs for which data could not be verified, someone in Airservices decided it was a way to placate the industry. What if any consultation was done I don't know, but it seems their charting people may not have been alerted to update the legends. Then of course in 2016 Airservices VRed or IVRed a few hundred of their "back room" people and a lot of knowledge (particularly historical) and expertise went out the door.

FWIW ICAO Annex 4 Aero charts Appendix 2 has basic recommended symbology:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x355/annex4_ad_800_a9a66a0980469ba28dcc73ab7b10354ad0d470ae.jpg
Then para 2.4.1 says:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x180/annex4_ad2_800_9a9b46a3a572bacb7618fa8a920cf7c0edea9393.jpg

So perhaps that's what the FAA and Airservices have hung their hats on to offer additional symbols.

[jonkster]

I'm so glad you're amused. How about none of the above? I fly in a lot of regional/remote areas and I won't be landing or diverting to any of these unverified possible strips either, but I don't want to fly straight through someone else's circuit pattern if they've set up a basic ALA. For clarity, if there's nothing whatsoever present, its been bulldozed or built over, the markings should be removed from the chart, but having had a look on Google Earth at a couple of Lead Balloon's locations, there appears to be some form of airstrips present at those places, so I'd rather not fly through their circuit patterns. Having some form of marking on a chart indicating that "hey, theres an airstrip here called Bloggs Field, nothing more about it is known" seems like a reasonable way to do this.

If you are cruising at circuit altitude in remote areas you better be just as careful you don't blunder through someone's mustering operation.

[Lead Balloon]

I don't know about the history of the introduction of this "U" inside a circle symbol, but I assume that after the fuss in 2015 re deleting ALAs for which data could not be verified, someone in Airservices decided it was a way to placate the industry. What if any consultation was done I don't know, but it seems their charting people may not have been alerted to update the legends. Then of course in 2016 Airservices VRed or IVRed a few hundred of their "back room" people and a lot of knowledge (particularly historical) and expertise went out the door.

FWIW ICAO Annex 4 Aero charts Appendix 2 has basic recommended symbology:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x355/annex4_ad_800_a9a66a0980469ba28dcc73ab7b10354ad0d470ae.jpg
Then para 2.4.1 says:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x180/annex4_ad2_800_9a9b46a3a572bacb7618fa8a920cf7c0edea9393.jpg

So perhaps that's what the FAA and Airservices have hung their hats on to offer additional symbols.
Useful stuff (as usual) CM.

It seems to me that the FAA has stuck with the ICAO symbology of a single unbroken circle, but just added stuff inside (or the curious “Objectionable”).

The provenance of the broken circle on Australia’s charts remains a mystery. And, given that the legend of the Australian chart says a broken circle denotes that the place is unverified, the point of adding the ‘U’ remains a bigger mystery.

[Capn Bloggs]

"Objectionable". If I suggested that that be put on a chart next to an AD I'd be ridiculed out of town, and rightly so. Rediculous. :}

[aroa]

I.m with Stick****y..Better to know if 'something' is there rather than the boondocks.
Did nearly suffer the reverse once,, due wx was considering a diversion to xxxxx as map circle, but having reached the intended destination OK ...was advised that xxxxxx was no longer there but was now a tree plantation.

[Stickshift3000]

The provenance of the broken circle on Australia’s charts remains a mystery. And, given that the legend of the Australian chart says a broken circle denotes that the place is unverified, the point of adding the ‘U’ remains a bigger mystery.

Does the broken circle denote 'unverified' or 'uncertified' aerodrome? I don't have a chart at hand, but it should be the latter.

[certifs]

Guys,
both the broken circle and circled "U" go back a ways. I thought I had seen them on old charts so I dug out a few. Not my very oldest from the 80s, I don't know where they have got to, but...

WAC charts from the 1990s show _both_ symbols with the following descriptions in the legend.
Broken circle: "Unlicensed Aerodromes. Named in purple. Status and Serviceability Unknown"
Circle with U : "Aerodrome Landmark (unusable)"

It also seems that around 2003/4ish the description on the broken circle symbol on VTCs etc went from "Non Licensed Aerodrome (status unknown)" to "Aerodrome (Not Certified or Registered)"

Certifs.

[Lead Balloon]

Does the broken circle denote 'unverified' or 'uncertified' aerodrome? I don't have a chart at hand, but it should be the latter.
Below is a screenshot of the legend from a current WAC.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/c7d6a9c2_7963_46b0_ab0d_b5b72fe13f0d_bc1adfa0ed49cc89ae55963 1ca8a02767789767c.png
Legend from current WAC

[Lead Balloon]

Guys,
both the broken circle and circled "U" go back a ways. I thought I had seen them on old charts so I dug out a few. Not my very oldest from the 80s, I don't know where they have got to, but...

WAC charts from the 1990s show _both_ symbols with the following descriptions in the legend.
Broken circle: "Unlicensed Aerodromes. Named in purple. Status and Serviceability Unknown"
Circle with U : "Aerodrome Landmark (unusable)"

It also seems that around 2003/4ish the description on the broken circle symbol on VTCs etc went from "Non Licensed Aerodrome (status unknown)" to "Aerodrome (Not Certified or Registered)"

Certifs.
Below is a screenshot of part of the legend of a current VTC.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/8476d143_122f_4944_a88e_3bb05b4deca4_d86625bd13af87f16ef4286 16ee9e03f21004804.png