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'...:ok::ok:

But CTA..??:ugh:

Cheers.

Sorry Mr 'H';...don't get yr point re 'identity speculation'...

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.

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.:ugh:

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. :cool:

Only if today is 500/08/08.

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.

You are kidding me???:uhoh:

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.

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???:E

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??:ugh:

As follows from the Sup:

I remain confused.

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!

.........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 :confused:

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.

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. There was also an AIC (H02/10) published back in mid-April that mentioned the change.

Contact Jepp and see what they say -

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.

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 :ok:

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.

Coral,
3 June, by my lookings. :ok:

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.

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 :hmm: