CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Dick,
Not particularly relevant, but interesting ...
In those 40 years that Flight Service "owned" uncontrolled airspace, there was not one collision between aircraft that they serviced. Yep, plenty of scares, I dare say, but the controls in place seemed to work... at the time.
Similarly, today, I'm still not seeing too many prangs between aircraft that ATCs are providing a traffic information service to in G Airspace... it also seems to be working.
Yes, by all means, lets up the ante and make all G, Class E. That will definitely bring in an extra layer of risk control for IFRs (except for the more complex and onerous VFR self separation responsibilities).
But please accept that there is a cost to this ... in equipment, facilities and training. No one on the forum has control over those resources ( I think), so your time would be better spent convincing CASA/ASA that they need to spend a penny to fix a problem that, arguably, some say does not really exist.
Yes, harmonisation is also important and we'll embrace it ... as long as it's not going to kill us, cost us, delay us or confuse us.
Go for it ...
Not particularly relevant, but interesting ...
In those 40 years that Flight Service "owned" uncontrolled airspace, there was not one collision between aircraft that they serviced. Yep, plenty of scares, I dare say, but the controls in place seemed to work... at the time.
Similarly, today, I'm still not seeing too many prangs between aircraft that ATCs are providing a traffic information service to in G Airspace... it also seems to be working.
Yes, by all means, lets up the ante and make all G, Class E. That will definitely bring in an extra layer of risk control for IFRs (except for the more complex and onerous VFR self separation responsibilities).
But please accept that there is a cost to this ... in equipment, facilities and training. No one on the forum has control over those resources ( I think), so your time would be better spent convincing CASA/ASA that they need to spend a penny to fix a problem that, arguably, some say does not really exist.
Yes, harmonisation is also important and we'll embrace it ... as long as it's not going to kill us, cost us, delay us or confuse us.
Go for it ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Sorry to be a bore, but does that include G??
Simple question from before:
Sorry to be a bore, but does that include G??
Simple question from before:
Does this include in G? I appreciate the qualification regarding upgrading to E, but when it's G and it's IMC, your comment would seem to imply that 'airline jets' get an IFR ATC service' regardless.
I did address the "resources" issue - see the post where I said it looked as if we were under resourced be 100 compared to the USA.
Sorry, simply naming something doesn't "address" it. Not by a long way.
Ping, I don't know of any Australian airline that trains in such out of date sims' Do you?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-14000 controllers in the USA (depending on who you believe) to 800-950 controllers (depending on who you believe) in Oz, for roughly the same geographical area.
Yes the States is alot busier, but who pays and how? How much area does each ATC controls? When the faeces hits the fan, due weather, how many airports will the OZ controller be responsible for monitoring and controlling the approaches?
Yes the States is alot busier, but who pays and how? How much area does each ATC controls? When the faeces hits the fan, due weather, how many airports will the OZ controller be responsible for monitoring and controlling the approaches?
Dick,
This is a red herring. Aircraft simulators are not programmed with or for any operation in any particular place/country. All they do is do what the aircraft does. Operators the world over operate their aircraft differently, optimised for the actual operating conditions. One thing I have learnt is that it is impossible to create a "one size fits all" set of procedures for operating aircraft and it is plainly obvious that we cannot do the same with airspace, just as you have been told for the last 12 years.
Any pilot here who wants to fly a jet aircraft competently will end up at some time in an overseas built multimillion dollar simulator.
This results in some pretty good standardisation of procedures for similar types of aircraft throughout the world.
This results in some pretty good standardisation of procedures for similar types of aircraft throughout the world.
Howabout, it's not the norm for IFR airline jets to fly in G in the USA.
However if they do go through a small amount of G on the way down to the landing area- yes in the USA the controllers keep separating them from other IFR aircraft.
It's the "culture" None of our " cleared in and out of controlled airspace" for them!
Peuce, I have never suggested we make all G , E.
Simple try the E in the terminal area at places which are serviced by RPT Jet aircraft. If there is some radar coverage- that will add a bit to safety- but as VOR has made clear, it is by no means a necessity.
Proserpine would be a great place to see how it would work.
Bloggs, keep resisting mate. Yes I know, safety changes like changing G to E should only be made after an accident!
However if they do go through a small amount of G on the way down to the landing area- yes in the USA the controllers keep separating them from other IFR aircraft.
It's the "culture" None of our " cleared in and out of controlled airspace" for them!
Peuce, I have never suggested we make all G , E.
Simple try the E in the terminal area at places which are serviced by RPT Jet aircraft. If there is some radar coverage- that will add a bit to safety- but as VOR has made clear, it is by no means a necessity.
Proserpine would be a great place to see how it would work.
Bloggs, keep resisting mate. Yes I know, safety changes like changing G to E should only be made after an accident!
safety changes like changing G to E should only be made after an accident!
Howabout,
The FAA AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual) (or Jeppesen World Wide Text US section) contains a very good cross-section/ pictorial representation of US airspace.
What you will find is that you have to go to Alaska to find extensive areas of G airspace. In the lower 48, you will find some in the "Mountain" regions, otherwise only below 1200 ft/750ft AGL. Thus generally it is E up to transcontinental A, with the various cutouts for D, C and B towers.
It is well worth while digging this sheet up, just one page is very instructive.
A further look into how US handle airspace will reveal a far healthier approach to how the military and civilian aviation share airspace. Nowhere in the US (or most western countries, for that matter) will you find the vast volumes of airspace locked up, as in Australia, by various military organizations. Despite the present level of cooperation between AsA and Mil, does anybody doubt that Mil restricted airspace costs airlines large sums of money in unnecessary track miles, and as for the impact on GA -- dreadful.
For starters, just have a look at a standard USAF/USN or NATO/Europe airfield CTA ---- tiny, compared to, say Richmond. Actually, the same goes for civil, London or Los Angeles zones are a fraction of the size of YSSY etc. If YSSY was the same size as EGLL, YSBK would not have the severe restrictions it has.
What is it about Australia, as distinct from almost the rest of the western world, particularly the English speaking world, that makes aviation in Australia suffer so many impediments that simply do not happen in US, Canada, NZ, SA,most of South America and a good swag of EASAland. Increasingly,even aviation in the old CIS (USSR) states is far less restricted than in Australia.
Why is "committing aviation" in Australis so bloddy hard, compared to so many other places I fly.
Aviation, as an industry sector in Australia, should be far bigger than it is, but it's not, and never likely to be, unless we finally realise that so many restrictions are completely unnecessary, many so called "safety" rules have nothing to do with safety, that the Australian aviation sector is being regulated to death.
What is it about the aviation sector in Australia, including the bureaucracy, that makes it it's own worst enemy. Not just airspace, rules etc., have a look at the last US/AU Airworthiness Bilateral, for a one sided document --- as agreed by our lot. If NZ, Canada, Singapore. Malaysia, Korea and Japan can negotiate the bi-laterals they have, what is wrong with us.
Why have we reached the stage where the Australian Government sees the answer to pilot and LAME shortages as 457 visas ?? Yep!!! That was a public announcement.
Maybe a bit off the original topic of the thread, but it is all a symptom of the same problem.
Tootle pip !!
PS: Bloggs, I hope you are only masquerading as a pilot (of any kind) with statements like your last --- such determined ignorance and such a belligerent attitude to other airspace users is a safety hazard.
The FAA AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual) (or Jeppesen World Wide Text US section) contains a very good cross-section/ pictorial representation of US airspace.
What you will find is that you have to go to Alaska to find extensive areas of G airspace. In the lower 48, you will find some in the "Mountain" regions, otherwise only below 1200 ft/750ft AGL. Thus generally it is E up to transcontinental A, with the various cutouts for D, C and B towers.
It is well worth while digging this sheet up, just one page is very instructive.
A further look into how US handle airspace will reveal a far healthier approach to how the military and civilian aviation share airspace. Nowhere in the US (or most western countries, for that matter) will you find the vast volumes of airspace locked up, as in Australia, by various military organizations. Despite the present level of cooperation between AsA and Mil, does anybody doubt that Mil restricted airspace costs airlines large sums of money in unnecessary track miles, and as for the impact on GA -- dreadful.
For starters, just have a look at a standard USAF/USN or NATO/Europe airfield CTA ---- tiny, compared to, say Richmond. Actually, the same goes for civil, London or Los Angeles zones are a fraction of the size of YSSY etc. If YSSY was the same size as EGLL, YSBK would not have the severe restrictions it has.
What is it about Australia, as distinct from almost the rest of the western world, particularly the English speaking world, that makes aviation in Australia suffer so many impediments that simply do not happen in US, Canada, NZ, SA,most of South America and a good swag of EASAland. Increasingly,even aviation in the old CIS (USSR) states is far less restricted than in Australia.
Why is "committing aviation" in Australis so bloddy hard, compared to so many other places I fly.
Aviation, as an industry sector in Australia, should be far bigger than it is, but it's not, and never likely to be, unless we finally realise that so many restrictions are completely unnecessary, many so called "safety" rules have nothing to do with safety, that the Australian aviation sector is being regulated to death.
What is it about the aviation sector in Australia, including the bureaucracy, that makes it it's own worst enemy. Not just airspace, rules etc., have a look at the last US/AU Airworthiness Bilateral, for a one sided document --- as agreed by our lot. If NZ, Canada, Singapore. Malaysia, Korea and Japan can negotiate the bi-laterals they have, what is wrong with us.
Why have we reached the stage where the Australian Government sees the answer to pilot and LAME shortages as 457 visas ?? Yep!!! That was a public announcement.
Maybe a bit off the original topic of the thread, but it is all a symptom of the same problem.
Tootle pip !!
PS: Bloggs, I hope you are only masquerading as a pilot (of any kind) with statements like your last --- such determined ignorance and such a belligerent attitude to other airspace users is a safety hazard.
Leadsled,
A bit off-topic's right!
You want to slather non-radar E airspace all over Oz. Talk about unnecessary restrictions. Or did you already mention that?
On the contrary, I go out of my way to fit my jalopy in with/behind all manner of VFRs who are probably paying out of their own pockets, as long as they are doing the right thing.
So what do you think of no-speakeees VFRs who only want E airspace so they can go wherever they please through terminal areas, mixing it with A380s and the like, with no consideration for others?
A bit off-topic's right!
You want to slather non-radar E airspace all over Oz. Talk about unnecessary restrictions. Or did you already mention that?
such determined ignorance and such a belligerent attitude to other airspace users is a safety hazard.
So what do you think of no-speakeees VFRs who only want E airspace so they can go wherever they please through terminal areas, mixing it with A380s and the like, with no consideration for others?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
What classification of airspace do IFR airline jets fly in in the USA? B, C, D, E? (some example locations would be appreciated) presumably the USA have thresholds for traffic densities, mix and passenger throughput assessment criteria! have you, the ferry man or the retired captain studied them?
In all your posts on airspace, this is the only source quote you have ever made, and at the same time contend that anonymous posters amount to
Who? the anonymous VOR? how do you know what they were really up to back in 03-04?
VOR? Surely they would not. Every other post they made was absolutely correct, I notice you don't reference those!
Evidence, discussing these important matters would be far more informative if evidenced based statements were the norm rather than rhetoric and panicked, irrational attack
I challenge you to provide one example of ill-informed information or opinion, and point out how a different conclusion to yours could be in anyway couter-productive or damaging to industry interests (as differing from your interests)?
Ever wondered why there is not a flood of American controllers posting here supporting your commentary?
Would it interest you to know that the US acknowledge it is time to reevaluate their ATM system! the US are modernising their system! I still cannot fathom why you are interested in taking Australia to the 1970's USA system?
Rational?
Could you suggest any organisations or individuals whose purpose would be totally opposed to the interests of aviation, and whose charter could be to undermine Australia?
For what purpose? for whose gain? at what cost? What is your purpose? for what gain? at what cost?
On the contrary, if Australia had legislated thresholds such as the CASR Part 71 (still in draft after many years) that you oppose, then proper safety and CBA assessments could be made with objective (not emotive and subjective) allocations of airspace made. Instead Australia seems to be paralysed in to reactionary change in response to political pressure, witness Avalon and YWLM.
Do you support the objective processes as set out in various documents such as ICAO and FAA for airspace allocations? In those airspace groups I would include GA only high volume GAAP, Class D and C RPT locations, as well as locations such as Ballina, Hervey Bay, Port Macquarie, Proserpine and other OCTA climb and descent areas above RPT serviced airports?
Or are we (at your whim) to change classifications such as from C to E because Dick Smith seeker of traitors and quoter of anonymous VOR's and a retired captain says so? Should the experts who operate the airspace and the other airspace users who fly it regularly have a say? they should be included in the process? even if consensus can be reached, criteria must be set on which the umpire the CASA may make a ruling, as executive decisions seem to be a large size fizzer! Surely your would agree
it's not the norm for IFR airline jets to fly in G in the USA.
If there is some radar coverage- that will add a bit to safety- but as VOR has made clear, it is by no means a necessity.
you are a traitor. Yes, a serious assertion, but I believe correct nevertheless.
I believe the majority of your posts are directed to undermining the efficiency of aviation in Australia. Who is to say you are not someone who wants to do this? You are anonymous and that means you could be doing anything and everything you can to harm our country.
In reading your posts I believe there is evidence of this.
If for one second you were genuine about your claims, you would stand by them under your own name. Your campaign against Class E airspace is particularly ill-informed and damaging.
Once again, I quote the very informative post by Voices of Reason “VOR” in relation to Class E airspace.
I warn all people who read this website, especially young pilots, that PPRuNe would be an ideal place to undermine what’s good about aviation in this country. I honestly believe there are people on this site who are doing everything they can to damage our future.
What’s happened around the world supports the suggestion that this type of subversion can happen anywhere.
I bet that one day ARFOR will be exposed as a person who was affiliated with some organisation which was totally opposed to the interests of aviation and who was doing everything he/she/they could do to undermine Australia.
For what purpose? for whose gain? at what cost? What is your purpose? for what gain? at what cost?
Yes I know, safety changes like changing G to E should only be made after an accident!
Do you support the objective processes as set out in various documents such as ICAO and FAA for airspace allocations? In those airspace groups I would include GA only high volume GAAP, Class D and C RPT locations, as well as locations such as Ballina, Hervey Bay, Port Macquarie, Proserpine and other OCTA climb and descent areas above RPT serviced airports?
Or are we (at your whim) to change classifications such as from C to E because Dick Smith seeker of traitors and quoter of anonymous VOR's and a retired captain says so? Should the experts who operate the airspace and the other airspace users who fly it regularly have a say? they should be included in the process? even if consensus can be reached, criteria must be set on which the umpire the CASA may make a ruling, as executive decisions seem to be a large size fizzer! Surely your would agree
ARFOR, You put so much time into this, however I believe we will see your views ignored.
One reason for this is that many will be suspicious that you have an unstated vested interest to damage aviation in this country.
There is no PPRUNE rule that you cannot post under your real name.
Indeed I understand there are those who post under a pseudonym when they are stirring and then under their real name when they want to be effective.
I simply don't have time to key in an answer about all the detail of the US airspace.
Yes, I have studied airspace systems in many countries so we can copy the best. Give me a phone call and I would be happy to answer any questions.
If you are not prepared to phone on a subject you deem so important, considering the time you spend on it, my views remain as stated previously. ie. you have an ulterior motive.
One reason for this is that many will be suspicious that you have an unstated vested interest to damage aviation in this country.
There is no PPRUNE rule that you cannot post under your real name.
Indeed I understand there are those who post under a pseudonym when they are stirring and then under their real name when they want to be effective.
I simply don't have time to key in an answer about all the detail of the US airspace.
Yes, I have studied airspace systems in many countries so we can copy the best. Give me a phone call and I would be happy to answer any questions.
If you are not prepared to phone on a subject you deem so important, considering the time you spend on it, my views remain as stated previously. ie. you have an ulterior motive.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 8th Sep 2009 at 00:03.
One reason for this is that many will be suspicious that you have an unstated vested interest to damage aviation in this country.
However if they do go through a small amount of G on the way down to the landing area- yes in the USA the controllers keep separating them from other IFR aircraft. It's the "culture"
ATC should not separate aircraft in G.
For a variety of good reasons -
A further look into how US handle airspace will reveal a far healthier approach to how the military and civilian aviation share airspace.
In 2.5 years on exchange in the USA I probably had 5 to 6 events where I was required to take avoiding action (close and late) from civvies operating in the MOA next to our base. This sounds like the system worked fine, but it was only due to a sequence of factors that made it possible for me to know the traffic was there at the time - I have no doubt there would be as many, if not more occasions where I didn't get the events in my favour such that I was not aware of the traffic (or often after the 'pass') - how many times was it pure luck that we missed?? The 'passing like ships in the night' feeling is not nice.
How many GA/military mid-airs have occured in the US versus AUS? Certainly the differing volumes and rates-of-effort are the major factor here, but I recall a few where the 'healthier' airspace sharing was a factor.
I also had a handful of times where I was given traffic on lighties flying through our visual arrival and circuit pattern a few miles from the airfield, ATC knew where they were (not altitude) but I could never see em with an air-to-air radar and IFF Interrogator - awful feelings again as I am sure they wouldn't have seen me too often either. They weren't on our frequencies either.
I acknowledge airspace sharing in Australia chould be better, and there are certainly many initiatives underway to try and make it happen, unfortunately the biggest Limfacs are the 'systems' (Mil and Civ) inability to react quickly and safely to airspace handbacks (rules and regs limitations), and industries inability to react to airspace 'handbacks' in a short enough time for any benefit. One of the biggest cultural shifts that is occuring is a change to NOTAM airspace ACTIVE vice NOTAM it DE-ACTIVE, we just need some work on tactical hand-back and give-back procedures now.
Take if from someone who has seen GA (little), RPT (a lot) and MIL, there is a need for RESTRICTED airspace for fast jet ops, and it is invariably desirably to be much bigger than anyone who doesnt understand fighter ops would expect. I am not saying the status-quo is ideal, I am sure there are examples of airspace that need work, change will come but slowly as it is natural to worry about giving something away cause you never get it back. It needs to be done right!
Why do you think the US military loves coming to AUS to train??? (apart from the obvious)
I second Capt Midnight's assertion. Dick, lay off ARFOR. Your inability to cope with criticism, especially from, shock horror, anonymous posters is not doing your argument any good at all. To accuse someone of deliberately trying to "damage" Aussie airspace is rather silly IMO.
An interesting counter view, ftrplt.
An interesting counter view, ftrplt.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Please do not assume that PPRuNe is the only vehicle to which input is being made on these subjects.
For the benefit of the wider industry viewing, you say you do not have time to respond to simple airspace and, more importantly safety process questions which is difficult to believe as you have spent a great many hours in the last 2 weeks monitoring this forum and these threads on PPRuNe, and finding time to post tripe attacking other posters, the silence on factual information is telling.
I'll make it one simple question
Do you support the use of proper international standard aeronautical study processes and CBA for allocation of airspace services?
YES or NO?
ftrplt an interesting perspective!
Please do not assume that PPRuNe is the only vehicle to which input is being made on these subjects.
For the benefit of the wider industry viewing, you say you do not have time to respond to simple airspace and, more importantly safety process questions which is difficult to believe as you have spent a great many hours in the last 2 weeks monitoring this forum and these threads on PPRuNe, and finding time to post tripe attacking other posters, the silence on factual information is telling.
I'll make it one simple question
Do you support the use of proper international standard aeronautical study processes and CBA for allocation of airspace services?
YES or NO?
ftrplt an interesting perspective!
ARFOR
You say
As nothing is communicated from the Office of Airspace Regulation in relation to this, presumably it is all being done in secret by people posting on some even more “anonymous” website than PPRuNe. What a pathetic reflection of incompetence!
I have said it before – there is absolutely nothing that should be secret, confidential or hidden about airspace allocation and procedures. Everything related to public air safety should be completely out in the open with all those involved being able to state their true beliefs under their real names.
If we continue down this “fake” route, we get into the problems that we have been through.
You say,
I certainly do support the use of proper aeronautical study processes.
I am not sure what you mean by “international standard”.
You should know that the system used by the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation to map aviation hazards into a societal criteria is wrong. Experts believe the misuse of this methodology is leading to deeply flawed responses to aviation hazards.
I suggest you have a look again at the three reviews on the Ambidji GAAP Report. See link here. I particularly note that you don’t dare to debunk these reports.
You may not know that ICAO provides, clearly in writing, two methodologies for “determining whether a system is acceptably safe”. They are:
a) comparison to a reference system, and
b) evaluation of system risks against a threshold
There is little doubt the most accurate way is the comparison with a reference system, as there have been hundreds of millions of movements in ICAO classifications of airspace around the world. As it is possible to get the actual accident rate in this airspace it’s ideal for making safety decisions.
Remember, airspace procedures and classifications were not designed by an engineer in a laboratory. They have evolved after accidents and after, as stated above, many millions of movements and many decades of experience.
So if you mean by “international standard” the ICAO “comparison to a reference system” method, I would certainly support and accept this method. I would certainly not support the type of amateurish, inaccurate incompetence that has been produced by Ambidji for the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation. The company should be severely embarrassed and should refund any money that was paid to them.
You say
Please do not assume that PPRuNe is the only vehicle to which input is being made on these subjects.
I have said it before – there is absolutely nothing that should be secret, confidential or hidden about airspace allocation and procedures. Everything related to public air safety should be completely out in the open with all those involved being able to state their true beliefs under their real names.
If we continue down this “fake” route, we get into the problems that we have been through.
You say,
I'll make it one simple question
Do you support the use of proper international standard aeronautical study processes and CBA for allocation of airspace services?
YES or NO?
Do you support the use of proper international standard aeronautical study processes and CBA for allocation of airspace services?
YES or NO?
I am not sure what you mean by “international standard”.
You should know that the system used by the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation to map aviation hazards into a societal criteria is wrong. Experts believe the misuse of this methodology is leading to deeply flawed responses to aviation hazards.
I suggest you have a look again at the three reviews on the Ambidji GAAP Report. See link here. I particularly note that you don’t dare to debunk these reports.
You may not know that ICAO provides, clearly in writing, two methodologies for “determining whether a system is acceptably safe”. They are:
a) comparison to a reference system, and
b) evaluation of system risks against a threshold
There is little doubt the most accurate way is the comparison with a reference system, as there have been hundreds of millions of movements in ICAO classifications of airspace around the world. As it is possible to get the actual accident rate in this airspace it’s ideal for making safety decisions.
Remember, airspace procedures and classifications were not designed by an engineer in a laboratory. They have evolved after accidents and after, as stated above, many millions of movements and many decades of experience.
So if you mean by “international standard” the ICAO “comparison to a reference system” method, I would certainly support and accept this method. I would certainly not support the type of amateurish, inaccurate incompetence that has been produced by Ambidji for the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation. The company should be severely embarrassed and should refund any money that was paid to them.
You want to slather non-radar E airspace all over Oz.
I never mentioned such an end state (but some of your mates are advocating ALL AIRSPACE be controlled airspace for all aircraft--- have a look at the more extreme supporters of the "ADS-B and datalinks for all" brigade, see the JCP).
So what do you think of no-speakeees VFRs who only want E airspace so they can go wherever they please through terminal areas, mixing it with A380s and the like, with no consideration for others?
Those who actually know me, also know that I have been absolutely consistent about the use of radio, and the importance of radio alerted "see and avoid" -for at least the last 40 years. Likewise, my views on legislative change to further reinforce the "proper use" use of radio are well known, and remarkably similar to the policy proposals outlined by John McCormick at the last CASA SCC meeting.
The one thing about pilots in general, and regardless of the type of pilot license or certificate, is that they are responsible human beings, who do not go out with the intention of deliberately endangering themselves or anybody else.
Once we learn to use radios for communications, and not the 'execution of radio procedures", we will start to make some progress. I hope the new proposed changes to CAR 166 (which McCormick has flagged he intends to enforce in its entirety --- which will be a culture shock to some Regionals) will be an enabler for such sorely needed progress.
Let's have some more ICAO compliance here ---- have a look at the (short) list of ICAO recommended phraseologies, you will find them, along with the rest of the ICAO recommended radio procedures, in ICAO Annex X, Vol. II. An alternative source would be the UK CAA "Radio Telephony Handbook", an excellent publication.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Unlike Australia, the FAA filed differences to Annex X, Vol.II are short and sweet, and largely involve interpretations of descent clearance phrases. It's all in the AIM.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Let's have some more ICAO compliance here.' Your words Lead, but the site seems to be having some serious problems at the moment, so I can't highlight. Wonderful Lead. You call for ICAO compliance, but want FAA D. Which is it buddy? Can we make our minds up?
This is another thread drift, but because the question of different military airspace arrangements between Oz and the U.S. has been raised .....
Leady do you know if in the U.S. the military authority managing a MOA is required to have primary radar surveillance of the area?
Leady do you know if in the U.S. the military authority managing a MOA is required to have primary radar surveillance of the area?