NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if the a/c are radio equipped.
[URL="http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1995/a95h0008/a95h0008.asp"[/URL]
I especially like the very good information about the limitations of see and avoid (alerted and unalerted).
And you want to design in the requirement for see and avoid involving RPT a/c (which is what class E does)?
Keep polishing that turd.
[URL="http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1995/a95h0008/a95h0008.asp"[/URL]
I especially like the very good information about the limitations of see and avoid (alerted and unalerted).
And you want to design in the requirement for see and avoid involving RPT a/c (which is what class E does)?
Keep polishing that turd.
Ledsled,
Talk to the people who wrote AIP, not me. Quite frankly, I don't give a rats about reduced VMC.
I want safe skies for me and my pax, which means C or D over D.
Answer?
If anything is wrong, it is to use an undefined description "reduced VMC", when there is, legally, no such thing as "reduced VMC". But that is far from the only ill-defined stuff around.
I want safe skies for me and my pax, which means C or D over D.
You didn't even know the statement in the airspace table existed, did you?
All
As an aside (for anyone who may be interested) there`s another pretty little table on p.28 in the Jan 2010 Aeronautical Study of Alice Springs .pdf by OAR, fairly certain it`s a standard addendum/appendix to all their studies. The E airspace section seems to be quite specific about radio and transponder carriage requirements for all aircraft.
But what would the parent regulatory document be where they have sourced this from? Hidden away in the bowels of a CAO somewhere I suppose...?
Anyways, moving right along, etc...
As an aside (for anyone who may be interested) there`s another pretty little table on p.28 in the Jan 2010 Aeronautical Study of Alice Springs .pdf by OAR, fairly certain it`s a standard addendum/appendix to all their studies. The E airspace section seems to be quite specific about radio and transponder carriage requirements for all aircraft.
But what would the parent regulatory document be where they have sourced this from? Hidden away in the bowels of a CAO somewhere I suppose...?
Anyways, moving right along, etc...
You didn't even know the statement in the airspace table existed, did you?
Any attempt at subtlety is entirely lost on you, isn't it! Go re-read my original post.
I love it, you criticize me, because I didn't bring your lack of knowledge of radio requirements in E, to your attention sooner. Priceless.
I have long since lost count of the hours and days at such as the CASA Operations Procedures Sub-Committee, Airspace 2000, NAS and similar bodies over the last almost 20 years, many years on union tec. committees before that. You should read some of my public papers on the carriage and use of radio. I am happy to say that most of my views are reflected in the 3 June amendments. It didn't just "happen".
But we have never had any positive contribution from you, have we?
Lots of demands, lots of negatives, generally along the lines of your last post here, in my opinion all of which can be summarized as: "Everybody else can get stuffed, I get my way, and nobody gets in my way"
Remember a letter about the problems of seeing other aircraft when "somebody" (you, by any chance?) was doing 250kt in the circuit, therefor everybody else had to clear off, because to slow up and fit in was going to cost 2 minutes, and time was money.
Proposals for something called "commercial airspace" in G, with all but "RPT" to be excluded, remember that one?
Actually, there is a rather good book by a long time MacRobertson-Miller Captain, you might even have known him, who deals rather well with the kinds of attitudes that, in my opinion, you and all too many other present generation Australian domestic pilots display, to those they regard as their inferiors.
Maybe that's why I enjoy flying in US, CA, NZ or UK so much, I never hear on the radio what I hear in Australia, including the consequences, all to often. And by the way, it's not just me, have a good look at the PCH and Ambidjii raw data on radio usage and problems.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Maybe that's why I enjoy flying in US, CA, NZ or UK so much, I never hear on the radio what I hear in Australia, including the consequences, all to often. And by the way, it's not just me, have a good look at the PCH and Ambidjii raw data on radio usage and problems.
Pilots Pull Rank, Declare Emergency At JFK (With Audio)
Jabawoky,
No, hasn't changed my opinion, but I must admit that operating in that area does present some challenges, some of the demands of ATC in the New York area certainly sort out the men from the boys. Over LaGuardia @FL210, then down to 2500' heading for a Carnasi VOR can be "really interesting".
What I was really referring to was the behavior of all too many Regional and similar pilots, and their assumption of:
(1) Anybody who is not IFR is a "blundering big smasher/Terry Toweling hatted low time and/or incompetent PPL"
(2) RPT has some form of absolute priority, and the demands to other traffic to accept the "rpt directions" to get out of the way --- aircraft to aircraft "ATC".
Have a close look at the CAAPs for 3 June changes, it's all there, in a very muted fashion, but nonetheless spelled out.
Some of the incidents on file, that I have, are really quite funny, in a macabre sort of way, from the offenders point of view, they never (very obviously) ever gave a moments thought to who might have been on the other end of the conversation.
The other end(s) has variously been: A very senior flying CASA executive, a very senior officer of (then) DoTARS, handling aviation policy, the crew's boss, their airline DFO, a very senior Treasury official, a very senior executive of Environment, handling aviation matters, a string of cases of pilots for the same airline on a day off ----- and so it goes on.
One that just about takes the biscuit was an "RPT" landing straight in downwind, contrary to much existing traffic, it was an airshow, with a suitable AIC & NOTAM. When questioned as to his blatant disregard for CAR 166 and the AIC/NOTAM, his reply was "but I'm RPT". That all in front of a very very senior CASA executive.
Always be very polite on the radio, you never know who is on the frequency.
As to the legislative power behind the enforceable bits of the AIP, various CARs or CASRs will state, re. a particular matter, such as VMC criteria, that CASA publishing the criteria in AIP establishes the legal basis of the criteria.
This was not always the case. For many years the status of much of the AIP was in legal limbo. The changes so far have helped a little, but (other than for a lawyer, and even for many of them) the regulations in their present state are a serious challenge to pilots and engineers --- and their continued careers.
The number of cases of becoming "an inadvertent criminal" (first mentioned in the "Lane" report of the mid 1980s) are all to many.
And, since 9/11, any such inadvertent "crime" will seriously limit your international travel, as one LAME found out when he wanted to take his children to Disneyland, and too many pilots have found out, when they thought they were going to US for training - and were denied a visa.
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of my favorites is a crew from a well known east coast regional, advising me that my estimates for Willy were all wrong, a PA 28 couldn't go that fast, and why was I flying at all, if I couldn't get something so simple correct.
Actually I had a GS of about 200kt at 2000, this mob didn't know the difference between a PA 28 and what I was flying, even the special callsign didn't trigger anything in their tiny minds.
No, hasn't changed my opinion, but I must admit that operating in that area does present some challenges, some of the demands of ATC in the New York area certainly sort out the men from the boys. Over LaGuardia @FL210, then down to 2500' heading for a Carnasi VOR can be "really interesting".
What I was really referring to was the behavior of all too many Regional and similar pilots, and their assumption of:
(1) Anybody who is not IFR is a "blundering big smasher/Terry Toweling hatted low time and/or incompetent PPL"
(2) RPT has some form of absolute priority, and the demands to other traffic to accept the "rpt directions" to get out of the way --- aircraft to aircraft "ATC".
Have a close look at the CAAPs for 3 June changes, it's all there, in a very muted fashion, but nonetheless spelled out.
Some of the incidents on file, that I have, are really quite funny, in a macabre sort of way, from the offenders point of view, they never (very obviously) ever gave a moments thought to who might have been on the other end of the conversation.
The other end(s) has variously been: A very senior flying CASA executive, a very senior officer of (then) DoTARS, handling aviation policy, the crew's boss, their airline DFO, a very senior Treasury official, a very senior executive of Environment, handling aviation matters, a string of cases of pilots for the same airline on a day off ----- and so it goes on.
One that just about takes the biscuit was an "RPT" landing straight in downwind, contrary to much existing traffic, it was an airshow, with a suitable AIC & NOTAM. When questioned as to his blatant disregard for CAR 166 and the AIC/NOTAM, his reply was "but I'm RPT". That all in front of a very very senior CASA executive.
Always be very polite on the radio, you never know who is on the frequency.
As to the legislative power behind the enforceable bits of the AIP, various CARs or CASRs will state, re. a particular matter, such as VMC criteria, that CASA publishing the criteria in AIP establishes the legal basis of the criteria.
This was not always the case. For many years the status of much of the AIP was in legal limbo. The changes so far have helped a little, but (other than for a lawyer, and even for many of them) the regulations in their present state are a serious challenge to pilots and engineers --- and their continued careers.
The number of cases of becoming "an inadvertent criminal" (first mentioned in the "Lane" report of the mid 1980s) are all to many.
And, since 9/11, any such inadvertent "crime" will seriously limit your international travel, as one LAME found out when he wanted to take his children to Disneyland, and too many pilots have found out, when they thought they were going to US for training - and were denied a visa.
Tootle pip!!
PS: One of my favorites is a crew from a well known east coast regional, advising me that my estimates for Willy were all wrong, a PA 28 couldn't go that fast, and why was I flying at all, if I couldn't get something so simple correct.
Actually I had a GS of about 200kt at 2000, this mob didn't know the difference between a PA 28 and what I was flying, even the special callsign didn't trigger anything in their tiny minds.
Last edited by LeadSled; 12th May 2010 at 01:29.
Leadsled,
Very facinating ... but, your point?
Yes, in general, RPT jokeys believe they have a priority over bugsmashers. I don't really see any problem with that. A multi-tonned aluminium tube carrying 120 fare paying passengers, versus a bugsmasher that can turn on a dime ... logic says ...all other things having being considered, let the RPT through.
Do we give way to buses as they leave the curb?
Do you move your ski boat out of the way of the Queen Mary?
And, as you are so keen on the books, does the Australian Airspace Policy Statement state: "The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration..."
Very facinating ... but, your point?
Yes, in general, RPT jokeys believe they have a priority over bugsmashers. I don't really see any problem with that. A multi-tonned aluminium tube carrying 120 fare paying passengers, versus a bugsmasher that can turn on a dime ... logic says ...all other things having being considered, let the RPT through.
Do we give way to buses as they leave the curb?
Do you move your ski boat out of the way of the Queen Mary?
And, as you are so keen on the books, does the Australian Airspace Policy Statement state: "The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration..."
More warries form Ledsled about those dastardly RPT pilots who think they own the skies. Keep it up, son. I find it entertaining.
So now we have yet another deviation from ICAO AND the US NAS; mandatory radio for VFR in E. Ledsled and Dick et al must be seething with rage. Or is this simply another example of not "complying" with anything in particular, but creating rules as we need them to suit our situation? What?! Commonsense? Wash your mouth out, Bloggs!
Ledsled,
And I am happy to say that the rubbish from a previous couple of NAStronauts (one a very, very senior CASA executive) that compulsory radio actually detracted from safety because naughty/slack/incompetent/lazy pilots were lulled into a false sense of security and therefore were not looking out was comprehensively dismissed by CASA in the upcoming 3 June changes. 
Further, if you had any hand in what has been in the AIP for the last 10 years regarding carriage and use of radio you should be ashamed of yourself. When people like Frank (and yourself) have to ask about radio requirements or what they mean (eg Reduced VMC), it plainly indicates that the text is inadequate.
Well, for a start, I don't consider you any policymaker, just another person on Prune stating his position, which I have countered with reasons. If you don't consider that "positive" then that's your problem, not mine. I have generally refrained from personal abuse and telling warries, which is more than I can say about most of your posts. Besides, as Dick continually says, nobody would ever pay any attention to what anybody says here because they are anonymous, including you. 
Actually, I (and others) have been waiting for just one positive contribution from you: the CBA and Risk assessment from VFR in E verses C. I guess we still have 7 months until Christmas...
I and the organisations I have been involved with have made significant inputs to the airspace debate and I am quite proud of what has been achieved so far in the face of blantant self-interest and politicking. I will say that in general, the NAStronauts have failed in their mission to turn our efficient airspace system on it's head to suit the selfish Free in GE brigade, only because commonsense has prevailed over that self-interest.
Maybe you think differently to me. I would have pointed out your lack of knowledge as soon as it became apparent. Oh well.
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?
So now we have yet another deviation from ICAO AND the US NAS; mandatory radio for VFR in E. Ledsled and Dick et al must be seething with rage. Or is this simply another example of not "complying" with anything in particular, but creating rules as we need them to suit our situation? What?! Commonsense? Wash your mouth out, Bloggs!
Ledsled,
I have long since lost count of the hours and days at such as the CASA Operations Procedures Sub-Committee, Airspace 2000, NAS and similar bodies over the last almost 20 years, many years on union tec. committees before that. You should read some of my public papers on the carriage and use of radio. I am happy to say that most of my views are reflected in the 3 June amendments. It didn't just "happen".
Further, if you had any hand in what has been in the AIP for the last 10 years regarding carriage and use of radio you should be ashamed of yourself. When people like Frank (and yourself) have to ask about radio requirements or what they mean (eg Reduced VMC), it plainly indicates that the text is inadequate.
But we have never had any positive contribution from you, have we?
Actually, I (and others) have been waiting for just one positive contribution from you: the CBA and Risk assessment from VFR in E verses C. I guess we still have 7 months until Christmas...
I and the organisations I have been involved with have made significant inputs to the airspace debate and I am quite proud of what has been achieved so far in the face of blantant self-interest and politicking. I will say that in general, the NAStronauts have failed in their mission to turn our efficient airspace system on it's head to suit the selfish Free in GE brigade, only because commonsense has prevailed over that self-interest.
I love it, you criticize me, because I didn't bring your lack of knowledge of radio requirements in E, to your attention sooner. Priceless.
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?
Yes, in general, RPT jokeys believe they have a priority over bugsmashers.
But it is not a legal right. I am all in favor of co-operative arrangements, but what I hear, all too often, is what amounts to verbal abuse over the radio, when the RPT's idea of what any other aircraft in the area (which might be quite a large aircraft, it's not confined to light aircraft) decline to "accept orders" from the RPT, or the "larger" aircraft.
Bloggs,
The incidents I allude to were not "warries", they were all incidents that were subject to some form of subsequent action. Sadly, I could add many more. Been to Olympic Dam recently?
As to your comments about radio procedures, most of the problems of recent years, and some of the confusion in many minds, has come about almost entirely from the recalcitrant and change averse of just one small group of domestic pilots, who want to cling onto the past, and can't get their minds around the fact that the magic word "mandatory" does not, in fact, increase compliance.
Who prefer "do it yourself ATC", rather than proper alerted see and avoid.
Would you be one of these, by any chance??
As to my views on the use of radio communication, I invited you to read some of my public submissions on the subject, but you obviously prefer to treat your rather off-beam assumptions as an established fact.
Do you even understand what the slogan "free in G" actually meant?? By the sound of it, and the GE reference, it would seem the answer is no.
Tootle pip!!
Ledsled,
Answer? Or don't you know?
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A multi-tonned aluminium tube carrying 120 fare paying passengers, versus a bugsmasher that can turn on a dime
bugsmasher that can turn on a dime
Owen Stanley,
Ah yep, fraid some of em are.
Does "some" mean a "few" or the "majority"?
EDIT to congratulate you on your EDIT. Well done and and in the nick of time. But I captured the "guts" of your first.
KONSTANTIN
Although in parts AIP may say to the contrary, radio and/or transponder is not mandatory in Class E for all aircraft. Some sports aviation types including gliders have been exempt for many years, and operate in Class E.
Some references (my bolding & italics, and some paras not relevant have been deleted):
AIP GEN 6.1.2
All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.
AIP ENR 20.1.11
Gliders are encouraged, but not required, to monitor the Area VHF when operating above 5,000FT in Classes E and G airspace.
Civil Aviation Order 95.8 (as amended)
Section 95.8 (Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — hang gliders)
3 Exemptions
3.1 A person is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of the Regulations while he or she is associated with the flying of a hang glider if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsection 4:
(b) subregulation 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; [use and operation of aeronautical VHF radio]
4 Conditions
4.7 Except with the written permission of CASA, and in accordance with any conditions set out in the permission to minimise hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground or water, a person must not fly a hang glider:
(e) except in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.;
CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS PART 95
SECTION 95.4
EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 —
GLIDERS, POWERED SAILPLANES AND POWER-ASSISTED SAILPLANES
3 EXEMPTIONS
Under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 CASA exempts aircraft to which this section applies from compliance with the following provisions:
(d) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; [use and operation of aeronautical VHF radio]
Talk to any glider pilot and they will tell you they use aero VHF to talk to each other and their base, but not normally ATC even in Class E. And you'd be lucky to find a hang glider pilot who has aero VHF. At best it's UHF CB, and of course none are transponder equipped.
And these and other sports types operate up to 10,000 or so in G & E. That is well known by CASA, and they have got around the issue in some cases (e.g. Avalon) by declaring a Broadcast Area or temporary restricted area and specifying the conditions of access e.g. that aircraft intending to fly in the area must have a working transponder and communicate with ATC.
As Leady said, most should & shall type things in AIP have a head of power somewhere in CAR/CAO etc. CASA have the power to grant exemptions and also specify additional requirements. I haven't located the HoP behind AIP GEN 6.1.2 but there's one somewhere. That particular one applies to many light sport aviation types.
No opinions, no hearsay, no end-state policy preferred positions - doc reference(s) thanks.
Some references (my bolding & italics, and some paras not relevant have been deleted):
AIP GEN 6.1.2
All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.
AIP ENR 20.1.11
Gliders are encouraged, but not required, to monitor the Area VHF when operating above 5,000FT in Classes E and G airspace.
Civil Aviation Order 95.8 (as amended)
Section 95.8 (Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — hang gliders)
3 Exemptions
3.1 A person is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of the Regulations while he or she is associated with the flying of a hang glider if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsection 4:
(b) subregulation 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; [use and operation of aeronautical VHF radio]
4 Conditions
4.7 Except with the written permission of CASA, and in accordance with any conditions set out in the permission to minimise hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground or water, a person must not fly a hang glider:
(e) except in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.;
CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS PART 95
SECTION 95.4
EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 —
GLIDERS, POWERED SAILPLANES AND POWER-ASSISTED SAILPLANES
3 EXEMPTIONS
Under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 CASA exempts aircraft to which this section applies from compliance with the following provisions:
(d) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; [use and operation of aeronautical VHF radio]
Talk to any glider pilot and they will tell you they use aero VHF to talk to each other and their base, but not normally ATC even in Class E. And you'd be lucky to find a hang glider pilot who has aero VHF. At best it's UHF CB, and of course none are transponder equipped.
And these and other sports types operate up to 10,000 or so in G & E. That is well known by CASA, and they have got around the issue in some cases (e.g. Avalon) by declaring a Broadcast Area or temporary restricted area and specifying the conditions of access e.g. that aircraft intending to fly in the area must have a working transponder and communicate with ATC.
As Leady said, most should & shall type things in AIP have a head of power somewhere in CAR/CAO etc. CASA have the power to grant exemptions and also specify additional requirements. I haven't located the HoP behind AIP GEN 6.1.2 but there's one somewhere. That particular one applies to many light sport aviation types.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For fear of sounding like Im sitting on the fence,
I believe there is plenty of space in this world for both RPT & GA.
I can see where the RPT are coming from, they are running fare paying passengers and as such are responsible for getting them there safely & timely.
GA also provide a valuable asset to the aviation industry. You need GA to do flight training, for example.
All it needs is better understanding from both sides and better co-operation. If your on a training flight it doesnt hurt to hold off for 20secs while an RPT comes by, RPTs you dont rule the sky (ATC do
) if you want a sequencing service fly into controlled aerodromes only.
On this carriage of radio in E. If you are flying and listening watch and your hear traffic being passed on you to an IFR, it would be nice to announce yourselves. We (ATC) can then verify mode C if need to and better assess confliction. You may see the IFR but the IFR may not have seen you.
I had an interesting one today with an airbus descending through E to WLM and an unknown VFR climbing towards him (6000descending vs 4600climbing), I dont know whether either got visual in the end but they missed, thankfully as I was on line-check!
Having said that hats off to the westpac helicopter who announced himself on the area frequency (whilst in G) when i gave traffic on him (unknown VFR)to an IFR OCTA.
There are now a lot of high-performance GA aircraft out there. ranging from the Lancairs (cessnas now) & Cirrus' (whats the plural of Cirrus is it Cirruses or Cirii?) to L-39s & JetProvosts mixing it with RPTs, be wary of whats around, especially as ATC cant always see whats low(er) level you maybe flying into conflict with.
I believe there is plenty of space in this world for both RPT & GA.
I can see where the RPT are coming from, they are running fare paying passengers and as such are responsible for getting them there safely & timely.
GA also provide a valuable asset to the aviation industry. You need GA to do flight training, for example.
All it needs is better understanding from both sides and better co-operation. If your on a training flight it doesnt hurt to hold off for 20secs while an RPT comes by, RPTs you dont rule the sky (ATC do
) if you want a sequencing service fly into controlled aerodromes only. On this carriage of radio in E. If you are flying and listening watch and your hear traffic being passed on you to an IFR, it would be nice to announce yourselves. We (ATC) can then verify mode C if need to and better assess confliction. You may see the IFR but the IFR may not have seen you.
I had an interesting one today with an airbus descending through E to WLM and an unknown VFR climbing towards him (6000descending vs 4600climbing), I dont know whether either got visual in the end but they missed, thankfully as I was on line-check!
Having said that hats off to the westpac helicopter who announced himself on the area frequency (whilst in G) when i gave traffic on him (unknown VFR)to an IFR OCTA.
There are now a lot of high-performance GA aircraft out there. ranging from the Lancairs (cessnas now) & Cirrus' (whats the plural of Cirrus is it Cirruses or Cirii?) to L-39s & JetProvosts mixing it with RPTs, be wary of whats around, especially as ATC cant always see whats low(er) level you maybe flying into conflict with.
Some more observations:
No. 1:
Are they required to have it ON ?
And, out of interest, here's a direct question to Frank Arouet .... if it wasn't compulsory, would you turn yours on?
No 2:
ROTORBLADES ... in the proposed Class E in the NW, it's no use asking VFRs to speak up, if given as traffic ... because you will never see them on your scope.... so you will never be passing them as traffic.
No. 1:
....must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.
And, out of interest, here's a direct question to Frank Arouet .... if it wasn't compulsory, would you turn yours on?
No 2:
ROTORBLADES ... in the proposed Class E in the NW, it's no use asking VFRs to speak up, if given as traffic ... because you will never see them on your scope.... so you will never be passing them as traffic.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if it wasn't compulsory, would you turn yours on?
I am at a loss however with the ADSB requirement for a capability to turn that gadget off. Why have a switch? Why don't we all get a microchip implant in our heads to prevent the "rouge" VFR- PPL "idiots" from being let loose amongst us?
Come to think of it, why do transponders have a switch?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
NEWS FLASH
My inbox tonight contains the biggest heap of codswallop in a long while.
OAR...what have you been smoking?
And Dick and Leady wanted the US NAS.....well they will be upset then, coz it sure ain't that either.
Well this oughta confuse the
outa the locals.
Bloggs take all you leave until they get radar or wamlat in mate.....its going to be fun
Anyone else get the email?
J
My inbox tonight contains the biggest heap of codswallop in a long while.
OAR...what have you been smoking?
And Dick and Leady wanted the US NAS.....well they will be upset then, coz it sure ain't that either.
Well this oughta confuse the
outa the locals.Bloggs take all you leave until they get radar or wamlat in mate.....its going to be fun
Anyone else get the email?
J
Captain Midnight
Thank you (on behalf of all/most here!?) for the detail and effort, the AIP stuff re gliders etc I`d seen before but the fine print of the CAOs re exemptions should be good background info for all. Can`t do anything about the adhoc SPA but as you say TRAs do come in handy otherwise.
A slightly different local option, AS C-over-D is reclassified to G when the gliding areas are active, a few ways to skin a cat for advance notice ops.
Rotorblades and Peuce
Arising from your remarks rather than responding to them, the proposed E-over-D in the NW (non-radar of course) is exactly why so many people feel there should be compulsory radio for all in non-radar E. The only way a VFR will know they should self-announce is if they hear the TWR or IFR talking to each other...which leads me to...
Jabawocky
I have been out of the "hands on" loop for just over a year now, a link or directions if possible please, sounds like it should make interesting reading? Is the drug-taking session you alluded to anything related to the matter at hand and the NW of Oz by the way?
Thank you (on behalf of all/most here!?) for the detail and effort, the AIP stuff re gliders etc I`d seen before but the fine print of the CAOs re exemptions should be good background info for all. Can`t do anything about the adhoc SPA but as you say TRAs do come in handy otherwise.
A slightly different local option, AS C-over-D is reclassified to G when the gliding areas are active, a few ways to skin a cat for advance notice ops.
Rotorblades and Peuce
Arising from your remarks rather than responding to them, the proposed E-over-D in the NW (non-radar of course) is exactly why so many people feel there should be compulsory radio for all in non-radar E. The only way a VFR will know they should self-announce is if they hear the TWR or IFR talking to each other...which leads me to...
Jabawocky
I have been out of the "hands on" loop for just over a year now, a link or directions if possible please, sounds like it should make interesting reading? Is the drug-taking session you alluded to anything related to the matter at hand and the NW of Oz by the way?
Ledsled,
Answer? Or don't you know?
Quote:
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?
Dick, you can pipe up here too. What is your take on continuous two-way comms for VFR in E? You have made much of your personal creation of the mandatory transponder rule in E. Why did you not mention that radio carriage and use in E was also mandatory?