CAVOK
6500 wrong. 5500 or 7500 correct for MB/LTV. Sector length 65nm, why chew up 15 minutes and 20nm to get to 7500 and then spend another 10 minutes and 20nm descending to circuit height at LTV. Why fly above BKN060 when it is perfectly safe AND quicker to cruise under the deck and clear of high ground to the north of track.
Flying above more than BKN carries a warning that should be heeded. You must be able to complete your entire trip in VFR conditions. Positive fix at least every 30 minutes and must be able to descend to your destination whilst maintaining VFR (Fly above BKN060 on this sector and you MUST take into consideration Mt Baw Baw at 5160 to give you a LSALT of 6000). Your example has ARFOR BKN060 and TAF YLTV as CAVOK. So, it would suggest that you would be able to find a hole to descend through near(Are you 100% sure you are where you are with regard to high ground to north of track?) or OVER your destination. Which begs the question, why bother over such a small sector? I am only PPL but no way known would I fly that sector above BKN060.Maybe you need to use a different sector as an example.
TAF and ARFOR work for me. The definitions mean exactly what they intend.
Flying above more than BKN carries a warning that should be heeded. You must be able to complete your entire trip in VFR conditions. Positive fix at least every 30 minutes and must be able to descend to your destination whilst maintaining VFR (Fly above BKN060 on this sector and you MUST take into consideration Mt Baw Baw at 5160 to give you a LSALT of 6000). Your example has ARFOR BKN060 and TAF YLTV as CAVOK. So, it would suggest that you would be able to find a hole to descend through near(Are you 100% sure you are where you are with regard to high ground to north of track?) or OVER your destination. Which begs the question, why bother over such a small sector? I am only PPL but no way known would I fly that sector above BKN060.Maybe you need to use a different sector as an example.
TAF and ARFOR work for me. The definitions mean exactly what they intend.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fictitious checkpoints
The taf's and arfors are fine, except they often use IFR checkpoints that VFR pilots would not be familiar with, to define areas.
These checkpoints do not appear on wac charts (remember them?)
If we are going to use fictiotious names, lets print them on VFR charts.
Otherwise stick to names that already appear on VFR charts.
These checkpoints do not appear on wac charts (remember them?)
If we are going to use fictiotious names, lets print them on VFR charts.
Otherwise stick to names that already appear on VFR charts.
When you live....
Originally Posted by bushy
The taf's and arfors are fine, except they often use IFR checkpoints that VFR pilots would not be familiar with, to define areas.
These checkpoints do not appear on wac charts (remember them?)
If we are going to use fictiotious names, lets print them on VFR charts.
Otherwise stick to names that already appear on VFR charts.
These checkpoints do not appear on wac charts (remember them?)
If we are going to use fictiotious names, lets print them on VFR charts.
Otherwise stick to names that already appear on VFR charts.
UTR
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fiction
Sure it is. But why is it necessary to use fiction????, and
complicate the process un necessarily.
If you really want to reduce the number of weather related accidents, one of the things you could do is to make weather information simpler, and more readily available, so that our 20,000 or so VFR aircraft pilots will use it.
If it is simple it works better.
But, it appears that our aviation authorities do not want GA to flourish. And many pilots have little respect for our Authorities.
Sad.
And wrong.
complicate the process un necessarily.
If you really want to reduce the number of weather related accidents, one of the things you could do is to make weather information simpler, and more readily available, so that our 20,000 or so VFR aircraft pilots will use it.
If it is simple it works better.
But, it appears that our aviation authorities do not want GA to flourish. And many pilots have little respect for our Authorities.
Sad.
And wrong.
At risk of confusing my JAR and Aus training, why would CAVOK be in a TAF? Surely it would only be part of a METAR, or issued on ATIS? - ie: a statement of current weather conditions, not a forecast?
A (still GFPT)
A (still GFPT)
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another example...
TTF METAR YSSY 140700Z 05011KT CAVOK 24/14 Q1015
RMK RF00.0/000.0
NOSIG
Cheers, HH.
TTF METAR YSSY 140700Z 05011KT CAVOK 24/14 Q1015
RMK RF00.0/000.0
NOSIG
Cheers, HH.
Why shouldn't CAVOK be on a forecast? It's merely shorthand for a defined set of conditions ie vis>10km, cloud base > 5000' etc etc
Just as meaningful in a forecast as a report.
Just as meaningful in a forecast as a report.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ceiling And Visibility OK. Works for me.
CACAVOK? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
CACAVOK? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
.. very witty Buzzy, very witty!
Read your bloody AIP's. It's CAVOK. Move on....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the U.S. they don't use CAVOK because it isn't meaningful enough for the large amount of VFR aircraft that exists there.
Most stations report cloud below 12,000 ft and visibility up to 10 SM (16 KM), some larger airports report cloud at all levels.
Most stations report cloud below 12,000 ft and visibility up to 10 SM (16 KM), some larger airports report cloud at all levels.
