NAS rears its head again
My point was that this is NOT the first time AGL has been used in airspace definitions.
Yes, I agree, circuit heights are always just that.
But the CTAF / MBZ defn's were straight out of the 'VFR Flight Guide' - pages 204, 205.
For illustrative purposes only - I don't have the full AIP to hand - but the point I was making is that vert. references AGL have been used before.
And, in this case was probably the better way to do it.......
Thanks Mr 'P'...
But CTA..??
Cheers.
Sorry Mr 'H';...don't get yr point re 'identity speculation'...
Yes, I agree, circuit heights are always just that.
But the CTAF / MBZ defn's were straight out of the 'VFR Flight Guide' - pages 204, 205.
For illustrative purposes only - I don't have the full AIP to hand - but the point I was making is that vert. references AGL have been used before.
And, in this case was probably the better way to do it.......
Thanks Mr 'P'...
But CTA..??
Cheers.
Sorry Mr 'H';...don't get yr point re 'identity speculation'...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
If the class C lower limit is 3500 then as an OCTA aircraft I can go up to 3500 right? (Assuming there is no E below it) I am just checking as I havent flown a Cessna for a while and about to! Thanks!
Correct. Correct.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 31st May 2010 at 01:42. Reason: Just in case you lot think I'm repeating myself, I am: coz Prune won't let me post only one "correct". Correct? Correct! :)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bullies are back in the school yard.
Let's stay on topic and keep personal abuse OUT of it, kiddies.
Either that, or this thread will be deleted.
Your choice!
Either that, or this thread will be deleted.
Your choice!
Ledsled,
Given that TCAS was only mandated in the USA in 1993 and the rest of the world in 2000, justify your claim that you haven't flown that presentation "for in more than 20 years".
Secondly, what exactly was wrong with my post about TCAS?
The fact of the matter is that a significant amount of stuff you post, which I assume you believe to be correct, is actually rubbish. The concerning part is that, given your manner, naive policy-makers might believe you.
I noticed on another thread your post about how to comply with a ACAS/TCAS RA, what are you flying? Is it National Trust classified as historic. I haven't flown that presentation for more than 20 years.
Secondly, what exactly was wrong with my post about TCAS?
The fact of the matter is that a significant amount of stuff you post, which I assume you believe to be correct, is actually rubbish. The concerning part is that, given your manner, naive policy-makers might believe you.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC are fully staffed. This has been so since August 2008.
TIBAs just not very much used anymore, they prefer a shortbreak proc, whereby a non-rated person (not a controller, 99% of the time) sits at the console whilst the controller has a 15min break. (sometimes just 1 or 2 15mins break in a 9 hour shift). But they dont tell you (pilots) this, no broadcasts or anything just a strange unearthly quietness on the RT.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No unfortunately no kidding. That is why so many Australian controllers work OS.
The respect for the workface controller has disappeared with the current managerial regime, none of whom have any real experience in the field of aviation. Much the same as the people who are designing the airspace.
The respect for the workface controller has disappeared with the current managerial regime, none of whom have any real experience in the field of aviation. Much the same as the people who are designing the airspace.
I like the wording on the AF4 SID...
"Aircraft are not to get airborne until a departure instruction is issued" ????
Whattha???? So...you can start your takeoff run up to the RTO point???
"Aircraft are not to get airborne until a departure instruction is issued" ????
Whattha???? So...you can start your takeoff run up to the RTO point???
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what Coral has to say is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it - sounds better informed that me - what's the odds of a zero hour, minus 1 minute, NOTAM deferring implementation to sometime in the future?
I had a look at the AIP Supp for YMAV and it seems that 'Class E+' is pseudo C regarding the requirement for VFR to obey control instructions.
So, my simple question is: Why change it from C to E+ in the first place??
As follows from the Sup:
I remain confused.
I had a look at the AIP Supp for YMAV and it seems that 'Class E+' is pseudo C regarding the requirement for VFR to obey control instructions.
So, my simple question is: Why change it from C to E+ in the first place??
As follows from the Sup:
Pilots of VFR aircraft intending to enter the Avalon Class E CTA
Broadcast Area:
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions; and
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.
Broadcast Area:
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions; and
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.
Howabout...item c. bugs me the way it is written. You contact AV TWR and "Broadcast" your intentions and then comply with instructions given? Do you need a clearance to continue...if you continued and then found yourself in conflict after receiving no instructions...is ATC responsible?...It is a minefield!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
.........and updating my Jepps on Saturday afternoon like a good little Jaba, I noted the YMAV airspace was still C over D.
Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it
Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZ, my problem is similar and I think we are pretty close in our mutual confusion.
Mine goes to the following:
Is the controller responsible for separation in Class E+? - it's not clear. What happens if the controller just decides it's Class E and gives traffic and there's a prang?
Can he/she decide just to let it run? Or is there an absolute responsibility to issue 'ATC instructions?'
I just don't know.
Mine goes to the following:
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.
if such instructions are issued.
Can he/she decide just to let it run? Or is there an absolute responsibility to issue 'ATC instructions?'
I just don't know.
and updating my Jepps on Saturday afternoon like a good little Jaba, I noted the YMAV airspace was still C over D.
Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it
Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it
3.4 Avalon Airspace changes
AVALON Class C CTR is reclassified to Class D with surrounding Class
E airspace during hours of tower operation, and Class E airspace
replacing the CTR outside of tower hours. Refer to CTA/R airspace
amendments.
AVALON Class C CTR is reclassified to Class D with surrounding Class
E airspace during hours of tower operation, and Class E airspace
replacing the CTR outside of tower hours. Refer to CTA/R airspace
amendments.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain,
I get the drift, but it's hardly an acceptable outcome if Jepps haven't been updated so close to zero hour in order to get the right information out..
Are you telling us that because Jepps hasn't had the lead time to update their pubs then it's their fault?
That's just my interpretation of what you've said in your post. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
I get the drift, but it's hardly an acceptable outcome if Jepps haven't been updated so close to zero hour in order to get the right information out..
Are you telling us that because Jepps hasn't had the lead time to update their pubs then it's their fault?
That's just my interpretation of what you've said in your post. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Howabout
No, I'm not defending or blaming anyone, just stating the situation re the timing of normal data releases as I understand it. Why Jepp hasn't reflected it in their data is something for them to answer
No, I'm not defending or blaming anyone, just stating the situation re the timing of normal data releases as I understand it. Why Jepp hasn't reflected it in their data is something for them to answer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Captain, and I am not trying for a stoush.
But, surely, if a reputable supplier of aeronautical information has been caught on the hop, then there's something wrong.
World-wide, commercial, passenger carrying ops rely on Jepps. And it seems, in this case, that they've got it wrong.
I just ask why.
But, surely, if a reputable supplier of aeronautical information has been caught on the hop, then there's something wrong.
World-wide, commercial, passenger carrying ops rely on Jepps. And it seems, in this case, that they've got it wrong.
I just ask why.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Captain 1400 
Yes thats exactly my point.....and I think you have hit the nail on the head.
My point was.....
Ratsh!t.............
Now there is a ppruner we have not seen in a while, and I bet if he lurks out of his hole he would have a scathing comment as well.
I think the way it works is that for June maps etc. ASA release the data to Jepp and others sometime in Feb/March I think.
My point was.....
Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it 
Now there is a ppruner we have not seen in a while, and I bet if he lurks out of his hole he would have a scathing comment as well.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
In a 'lateral' boundary sense, inside CTA/R it is generally half the applicable standard i.e. 2.5nm if the standard applicable is 5nm [surveillance based] from the lateral boundary. Australia have a filed difference allowing half of the 3nm standard [where applicable] i.e 1.5nm from the lateral boundary.
Aircraft in G [and former GAAP, soon to be ICAO D in VMC] can operate up to the boundary of the laterally adjoining CTA/R airspace.
As for the rest [SID's and Mapping] No further comment is necessary
Re. the 1200 AGL, in general terms, ICAO wise, the whole of the volume of any class of controlled airspace is available for aircraft operating in that airspace.
It is aircraft in Class G that are required to maintain a buffer (in this case below) controlled airspace
It is aircraft in Class G that are required to maintain a buffer (in this case below) controlled airspace
As I said, the ICAO SARP is that the whole of the volume of "controlled airspace", right to the boundary, is available to aircraft in that airspace.
Annex 11 - Chapter 2
2.6 Classification of airspaces
2.6.3 The requirements for flights within each class of airspace shall be as shown in the table in Appendix 4.
Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc.
2.6 Classification of airspaces
2.6.3 The requirements for flights within each class of airspace shall be as shown in the table in Appendix 4.
Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc.
Aircraft in G [and former GAAP, soon to be ICAO D in VMC] can operate up to the boundary of the laterally adjoining CTA/R airspace.
As for the rest [SID's and Mapping] No further comment is necessary
Last edited by ARFOR; 31st May 2010 at 12:31.