Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr/Mrs mjbow2
Interested readers will have looked at the IFR arrival and departures procedures [also available at the previous links] and when applied to expected profiles, 'normal' turbo-jet arrivals and departures are not exposed to Class E [un-alerted VFR] below A100 at LA [VFR overflight routes are not Class E].
If your argument held, then Jets in D or C airspace [above CTA steps] climbing and descending into Australian Class D airports would be flying through Class G [Class F] simply because this category of airspace exist below the outer elevated D or C steps. A patently ridiculous statement to attempt to sustain!
- Van Nuys - is Closed to Scheduled Air Carrier
- Burbank - is full radar Class C
- Chino is D below C and B steps - FAA hold no data for Scheduled Air Carrier
- Ontaria - is full radar class C
- Santa Ana - is full radar class C
- Riverside - Class D below C and E steps - FAA hold no data for Scheduled Air Carrier
The airports you cite above are all serviced by the SOCAL [Southern California] Tracon. Multiple Approach and Departues sectors [very small sectors by comparison to Australian Sectors]. Even with Class B, C protection around the busier Torbo-jets serviced airports, the fact remains Air Carrier aircraft [>30 pax seat capacity] have very limited exposure to Class E Below A100 in the US, and overwhelmingly within surveillance coverage.
Again thankyou for citing locations to use as examples. Far from having my eyes shut [or mind closed], these discussion prove the points being made by many, I feel certain I am not alone in understanding the points being made!
The facts speak for themselves!
Interested readers will have looked at the IFR arrival and departures procedures [also available at the previous links] and when applied to expected profiles, 'normal' turbo-jet arrivals and departures are not exposed to Class E [un-alerted VFR] below A100 at LA [VFR overflight routes are not Class E].
If your argument held, then Jets in D or C airspace [above CTA steps] climbing and descending into Australian Class D airports would be flying through Class G [Class F] simply because this category of airspace exist below the outer elevated D or C steps. A patently ridiculous statement to attempt to sustain!
- Van Nuys - is Closed to Scheduled Air Carrier
- Burbank - is full radar Class C
- Chino is D below C and B steps - FAA hold no data for Scheduled Air Carrier
- Ontaria - is full radar class C
- Santa Ana - is full radar class C
- Riverside - Class D below C and E steps - FAA hold no data for Scheduled Air Carrier
The airports you cite above are all serviced by the SOCAL [Southern California] Tracon. Multiple Approach and Departues sectors [very small sectors by comparison to Australian Sectors]. Even with Class B, C protection around the busier Torbo-jets serviced airports, the fact remains Air Carrier aircraft [>30 pax seat capacity] have very limited exposure to Class E Below A100 in the US, and overwhelmingly within surveillance coverage.
Again thankyou for citing locations to use as examples. Far from having my eyes shut [or mind closed], these discussion prove the points being made by many, I feel certain I am not alone in understanding the points being made!
The facts speak for themselves!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what position MjBow comes from - what is his interest? What does he do in Aviation
I have flown in SOCAL airspace. I wonder when the last time ARFOR flew in SOCAL airspace or any US airspace for that matter? I speak from experience. ARFOR and some others on Pprune unfortunately rely on Internet explorer for forming their opinion on US NAS.
My interest in this matter is to see Australia emerge from the 1950s rules and procedures we currently use to a far superior, more user friendly and safer aviation environment.
Last edited by mjbow2; 28th Nov 2009 at 05:24. Reason: poor grammar
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown in SOCAL airspace.
see Australia emerge from the 1950s rules and procedures
MJBOW2,
I think we all have the same wish ... that is, a safe and efficient Air Traffic System for Australia.
Certainly, we all have differing ideas on how that might be achieved. Some even believe that our 1950s system may have been the most ideal ... you're either in, or you're out.
I would not claim "someone who has flown the airspace" to be an expert, as, from my experience, half the jockeys flying in a particular piece of airspace don't really understand what is going on within it.
Just as Intellectuals, Proceduralists, Managers, Googleists and ATCers aren't necessarily experts either ... as they also, don't always have the whole picture ... especially from a Pilots POV.
In this particular scenario (Broome/Karratha), I tend to take more heed of those who regularly use that airspace. I hope the Regulators have also taken notice of their arguments ... and proceed accordingly.
I think we all have the same wish ... that is, a safe and efficient Air Traffic System for Australia.
Certainly, we all have differing ideas on how that might be achieved. Some even believe that our 1950s system may have been the most ideal ... you're either in, or you're out.
I would not claim "someone who has flown the airspace" to be an expert, as, from my experience, half the jockeys flying in a particular piece of airspace don't really understand what is going on within it.
Just as Intellectuals, Proceduralists, Managers, Googleists and ATCers aren't necessarily experts either ... as they also, don't always have the whole picture ... especially from a Pilots POV.
In this particular scenario (Broome/Karratha), I tend to take more heed of those who regularly use that airspace. I hope the Regulators have also taken notice of their arguments ... and proceed accordingly.
Folks,
MJBOW is right, and with all due respect, ARFOR, you are not.
QF aircraft operate extensively in Class E airspace, and not only in the US, including KJFK, as well as KLAX and KSFO --- and my experience goes right back to origins of the present ICAO "alphabet soup", when what is now called E in US, was controlled airspace, but notated "VFR Exempt".
The low and wide STARs at KLAX guarantee operation in E. In normal airline operation in the US, it is impossible not to operate in E.
Not commonly known, but all heavy departures to the west of KLAX will probably also operate in G outside the US continental boundary, where ICAO rules take over from FAA (12 mile rule, depicted on all relevant Jep. charts, if you know how to read them.)
ARFOR, have a look at some of the E, F and G QF operates through between Singapore and London, you might be very surprised. Mostly NON-radar.
As for Broome and Karratha, given the traffic levels, and ICAO airspace design standards, E above D is compliant, there is no technical (ie "safety") justification for C.
Given the prominence legal butt-covering gets in CASA decision making, if there was the slightest justification for C, it would have been C.
My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.
Tootle pip!!
MJBOW is right, and with all due respect, ARFOR, you are not.
QF aircraft operate extensively in Class E airspace, and not only in the US, including KJFK, as well as KLAX and KSFO --- and my experience goes right back to origins of the present ICAO "alphabet soup", when what is now called E in US, was controlled airspace, but notated "VFR Exempt".
The low and wide STARs at KLAX guarantee operation in E. In normal airline operation in the US, it is impossible not to operate in E.
Not commonly known, but all heavy departures to the west of KLAX will probably also operate in G outside the US continental boundary, where ICAO rules take over from FAA (12 mile rule, depicted on all relevant Jep. charts, if you know how to read them.)
ARFOR, have a look at some of the E, F and G QF operates through between Singapore and London, you might be very surprised. Mostly NON-radar.
As for Broome and Karratha, given the traffic levels, and ICAO airspace design standards, E above D is compliant, there is no technical (ie "safety") justification for C.
Given the prominence legal butt-covering gets in CASA decision making, if there was the slightest justification for C, it would have been C.
My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.
Tootle pip!!
A Comfy Chair,
m'poor darling, what a well chosen name, maybe you should retire to one.
I have had my share of of RA's, the two worst, of many (actual possibility of a hit) both being in the YSSY CTA's, so what does that or your experience prove, the answer is nothing ---- except that TCAS II is a wonderful "last ditch" device for picking up (mostly) ATC stuffups.
You really should have a good look at Australian collisions, airprox. and loss of separation stats., you are looking at ATC capabilities through rose coloured glasses.
That is why the major Australian airlines fitted the original TCAS, years before it became a regulated requirement, very sensible management decisions.
Guess what, looking out the window is all part of the job, it is party of "flying the aeroplane".
Tootle pip!!
m'poor darling, what a well chosen name, maybe you should retire to one.
I have had my share of of RA's, the two worst, of many (actual possibility of a hit) both being in the YSSY CTA's, so what does that or your experience prove, the answer is nothing ---- except that TCAS II is a wonderful "last ditch" device for picking up (mostly) ATC stuffups.
You really should have a good look at Australian collisions, airprox. and loss of separation stats., you are looking at ATC capabilities through rose coloured glasses.
That is why the major Australian airlines fitted the original TCAS, years before it became a regulated requirement, very sensible management decisions.
Guess what, looking out the window is all part of the job, it is party of "flying the aeroplane".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Fair the well then, explain to us mere mortals why?
Explain with a ‘Sectional’ where and why you [retired] and your B744 would enter class E [below A100] on descent or climb out of KLAX or KSFO? Motherhood’s don’t count when so much counts! 
Good point! How much ‘reclassification’ has occurred since then? and why? [The NTSB database might be a start]!
Crappola! For LAX that statement is not supportable below A100! Prove otherwise with specific examples!
Which means what? Class B service as per the charts?? So you confirm, that an aircraft [multi-engined turbo-jet] will not leave Class B unless low- wide and rooted anyway?
NO, Really? Above A100, High Flight Levels. Where exactly?
Says who based on what criteria?
Perhaps your assumption applies in all cases!? When and where is that going to be properly tested in an airspace Aerostudy [Aeronautical Study] assessment? Or like GAAP changes, are you happy for change without process? [as long as it suits your agenda of course]
Garbage! A recent Class C P.I.R was pulled at less than 24 hours notice! Why? The D.A.S! Why? One could be forgiven for wondering about political agendas!!??
That about sums up the expectation as opposed to the reality! You dinosours are happy to enforce un-alerted see and avoid with 100's of fare paying passengers!
ESIR [or previous 225] where, when?, document numbers cause I don't believe you!
Can’t help yourselves can you? ACAS of any version has alerted far more otherwise ‘unalerted’ conflicts than ATCO errors!! In fact. If one was not being an anti-ATCO pratt! You could safely assume that thousands/millions of aircraft conflicts in CTA/R had been resolved without the assistance of ACAS RA!
Pot calls Kettle Black! Be real!!
[B]OCTA traffic data in Australia is not accurate [no capture]! YOU know there have been more fatalities [ALL] OCTA/unalerted than compared to ATC positive separation CTA incidents!
Sensible in the context of what is being argued!
And your 100-300+ passengers [before you retired] relying on you to see the VFR target with less than 10 sec’s [often un-alerted] before impact is IMHO just plain Walter Mitty Crap!
MJBOW is right, and with all due respect, ARFOR, you are not.
QF aircraft operate extensively in Class E airspace, and not only in the US, including KJFK, as well as KLAX and KSFO
--- and my experience goes right back to origins of the present ICAO "alphabet soup", when what is now called E in US, was controlled airspace, but notated "VFR Exempt".
The low and wide STARs at KLAX guarantee operation in E. In normal airline operation in the US, it is impossible not to operate in E.
Not commonly known, but all heavy departures to the west of KLAX will probably also operate in G outside the US continental boundary, where ICAO rules take over from FAA (12 mile rule, depicted on all relevant Jep. charts, if you know how to read them.)
ARFOR, have a look at some of the E, F and G QF operates through between Singapore and London, you might be very surprised. Mostly NON-radar.
As for Broome and Karratha, given the traffic levels, and ICAO airspace design standards, E above D is compliant
, there is no technical (ie "safety") justification for C.
Given the prominence legal butt-covering gets in CASA decision making, if there was the slightest justification for C, it would have been C.
My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.
I have had my share of of RA's, the two worst, of many (actual possibility of a hit) both being in the YSSY CTA's,
so what does that or your experience prove, the answer is nothing ---- except that TCAS II is a wonderful "last ditch" device for picking up (mostly) ATC stuffups.
You really should have a good look at Australian collisions, airprox. and loss of separation stats., you are looking at ATC capabilities through rose coloured glasses.
[B]OCTA traffic data in Australia is not accurate [no capture]! YOU know there have been more fatalities [ALL] OCTA/unalerted than compared to ATC positive separation CTA incidents!
That is why the major Australian airlines fitted the original TCAS, years before it became a regulated requirement, very sensible management decisions.
Guess what, looking out the window is all part of the job, it is party of "flying the aeroplane".
Folks,
Never let it be said that those so resolutely opposed to ICAO Risk Management based CNS/ATM, in favour of "Australian unique" procedures, ever let the facts stand in the way of a good story.
ARFOR, get yourself some Jepp. or equivalent for all the routes QF flies, and have a look at the airspace classification. As I have previously said, you may be surprised, but I will not be the least bit surprised if you don't, but prefer to hide behind specious debating tactics.
Re. departures to the west of KLAX, it is normal to climb through the W areas outside the US continental boundary, for which the ICAO rules are G.
No matter how many times you rattle on with accusation to the contrary, my record is quite clear, I have NEVER advocated "un-alerted see and avoid" over "alerted see and avoid", see my above comment about specious debating tactics.
OWEN STANLEY, regardless of your personal opinions, at least I am working from a basis of demonstrable technical knowledge and actual experience in the airspace. And I do hope you are aware of Australian regulations requiring you to look out the window.
Tootle pip!!
Never let it be said that those so resolutely opposed to ICAO Risk Management based CNS/ATM, in favour of "Australian unique" procedures, ever let the facts stand in the way of a good story.
ARFOR, get yourself some Jepp. or equivalent for all the routes QF flies, and have a look at the airspace classification. As I have previously said, you may be surprised, but I will not be the least bit surprised if you don't, but prefer to hide behind specious debating tactics.
Re. departures to the west of KLAX, it is normal to climb through the W areas outside the US continental boundary, for which the ICAO rules are G.
No matter how many times you rattle on with accusation to the contrary, my record is quite clear, I have NEVER advocated "un-alerted see and avoid" over "alerted see and avoid", see my above comment about specious debating tactics.
OWEN STANLEY, regardless of your personal opinions, at least I am working from a basis of demonstrable technical knowledge and actual experience in the airspace. And I do hope you are aware of Australian regulations requiring you to look out the window.
Tootle pip!!
So, after all the pontificating and crapola that goes on, where this thread drift off to the US etc, class D towers for Broome and Karratha, where E is on top of D and G in the surrounds and out of hours goes back to CTAF(R) with a 30nm boundary is OK then? Keep smilin lads!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after reading the previous posters view, it very plain that IFR traffice get sweet all extra service, but the real possibility of taking out a VFR aircraft exercising his freedom to fly.
So why put it in place. Why not put a 30 nm Class D zone at Broome and Karratha, sfc to 10,000. That will give the controller time to sequence inbound traffic, we will enter on descent at 30nm, about 5 mins out.
We can look after ourselves, (as we have been doing for decades) in G airspace from FL180 to 10000. This is a workable proposition, normally their is no VFR aircraft above A100, except the odd survey flight.
That means there is no additional industry charges for the implementation of another sector.
So why put it in place. Why not put a 30 nm Class D zone at Broome and Karratha, sfc to 10,000. That will give the controller time to sequence inbound traffic, we will enter on descent at 30nm, about 5 mins out.
We can look after ourselves, (as we have been doing for decades) in G airspace from FL180 to 10000. This is a workable proposition, normally their is no VFR aircraft above A100, except the odd survey flight.
That means there is no additional industry charges for the implementation of another sector.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who thinks the US airspace system is so great, please explain to me why they have had so many mid air collisions over the years 
According to Wiki, 11 " notable " mid airs in the US in the last 50 years, with the loss of some 500 lives, the most recent in August this year.
The only thing their airspace seems to be good at is keeping the population of Yanks down
Interestingly not one in Oz..........................yet
According to Wiki, 11 " notable " mid airs in the US in the last 50 years, with the loss of some 500 lives, the most recent in August this year.
The only thing their airspace seems to be good at is keeping the population of Yanks down
Interestingly not one in Oz..........................yet
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog One’s idea is the answer IMHO.
Class D SFC – A100 [With range steps similar to other CTA/R that contain RPT profiles]
Above A100 to the existing CTA base is the interesting bit.
I agree that it need not be positive ‘control’ for IFR from a safety standpoint. From a traffic management point of view, it gets a little messy as IFR climbing out of the Class D to OCTA G then back into CTA above that would technically have to be issued a clearance to leave and re-enter CTA.
The choices are two:-
1. Make it C or E above A100 [Centre controlled]
Being above A100, it may prove to be a manageable addition to existing CTA given the Centre controller will not have all the A100 and below DTI to manage [now a D tower], which then has the advantage of contiguous CTA, which subject to separation requirements, means ATC can issue climb from D into C [less frequency complexity for both pilots and ATC]
2. Make it G [Oz F] above A100
Presumably, The tower would co-ordinate departures with centre [S.A.R purposes]. The tower would clear the aircraft to leave CTA climbing, transfer to centre, the aircraft would then have to be separately issued an onwards clearance into the high level CTA if a previous ‘leave and re-enter clearance had not been co-ordinated. Also, assuming situations will occur where 2 departing aircraft on same or similar tracks are being separated by the tower [Timed departure standard 2 or 5 mins etc], contiguous CTA is helpful, otherwise sector have to separately set up step climb or other form of separation autonomously. Contiguous CTA is better for arrivals management as well.
Either option would be workable!
If the workload of C down to A100 was manageable for existing sectors, then I would be fairly sure there would be no additional ‘enroute IFR charge’. Someone more in the know on this might like to chime in!
Class D SFC – A100 [With range steps similar to other CTA/R that contain RPT profiles]
Above A100 to the existing CTA base is the interesting bit.
I agree that it need not be positive ‘control’ for IFR from a safety standpoint. From a traffic management point of view, it gets a little messy as IFR climbing out of the Class D to OCTA G then back into CTA above that would technically have to be issued a clearance to leave and re-enter CTA.
The choices are two:-
1. Make it C or E above A100 [Centre controlled]
Being above A100, it may prove to be a manageable addition to existing CTA given the Centre controller will not have all the A100 and below DTI to manage [now a D tower], which then has the advantage of contiguous CTA, which subject to separation requirements, means ATC can issue climb from D into C [less frequency complexity for both pilots and ATC]
2. Make it G [Oz F] above A100
Presumably, The tower would co-ordinate departures with centre [S.A.R purposes]. The tower would clear the aircraft to leave CTA climbing, transfer to centre, the aircraft would then have to be separately issued an onwards clearance into the high level CTA if a previous ‘leave and re-enter clearance had not been co-ordinated. Also, assuming situations will occur where 2 departing aircraft on same or similar tracks are being separated by the tower [Timed departure standard 2 or 5 mins etc], contiguous CTA is helpful, otherwise sector have to separately set up step climb or other form of separation autonomously. Contiguous CTA is better for arrivals management as well.
Either option would be workable!
If the workload of C down to A100 was manageable for existing sectors, then I would be fairly sure there would be no additional ‘enroute IFR charge’. Someone more in the know on this might like to chime in!
ARFOR
Your last post (#99) is the most convoluted I’ve ever read. You want to go into a unique, complex airspace design in any way you can think as long as it’s not following a proven system from overseas.
You may be interested in knowing, but the expression “cleared out of and into controlled airspace” does not exist anywhere in the world. It’s a unique Australian invention – no doubt because before 1991 we had a completely separate organisation operating with full position reporting in Class G airspace.
By the way, our Australian Class G has no similarity with ICAO Class F despite the many claims saying it is so. Australian Class G is totally obsessed with VFR having mandatory radio procedures. ICAO Class F has no requirement for VFR to have radio at all.
Your last post (#99) is the most convoluted I’ve ever read. You want to go into a unique, complex airspace design in any way you can think as long as it’s not following a proven system from overseas.
You may be interested in knowing, but the expression “cleared out of and into controlled airspace” does not exist anywhere in the world. It’s a unique Australian invention – no doubt because before 1991 we had a completely separate organisation operating with full position reporting in Class G airspace.
By the way, our Australian Class G has no similarity with ICAO Class F despite the many claims saying it is so. Australian Class G is totally obsessed with VFR having mandatory radio procedures. ICAO Class F has no requirement for VFR to have radio at all.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
The lets ‘compare to a reference system’ [FAA] approach does not take account of two very relevant differences that exist right from the outset:-
1. The societal acceptance, and regulatory foundations
2. The vastly different geographical, infrastructure and traffic mix and densities
If the reference system is not built within sufficiently similar foundations, its compatibility and relevance is diminished.
Keh??
The lets ‘compare to a reference system’ [FAA] approach does not take account of two very relevant differences that exist right from the outset:-
1. The societal acceptance, and regulatory foundations
2. The vastly different geographical, infrastructure and traffic mix and densities
If the reference system is not built within sufficiently similar foundations, its compatibility and relevance is diminished.
our Australian Class G has no similarity with ICAO Class F despite the many claims saying it is so. Australian Class G is totally obsessed with VFR having mandatory radio procedures. ICAO Class F has no requirement for VFR to have radio at all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In East Timor, the zone at Dili is 15 - 25 nm radius, sfc to 11,000' You departed Dili with a clearance tp FL230, which gave you ample time to get BN on HF and get a clearance above FL245.
The same practice would work at Broome and Karatha. If the zones were about 30 nm and sfc to A100, their would be plenty of time to contact BN Center on VHF for a clearance. I would imagine that the twr controller would forward the departure details etc direct to BN.
G airspace above A100 does not pose problems as little VFR traffic operates above A100. The same would apply on descent.
We don't need E outside of radar airspace, it doesn't help anyone, and the implementation costs would far outweigh its usefulness.
The same practice would work at Broome and Karatha. If the zones were about 30 nm and sfc to A100, their would be plenty of time to contact BN Center on VHF for a clearance. I would imagine that the twr controller would forward the departure details etc direct to BN.
G airspace above A100 does not pose problems as little VFR traffic operates above A100. The same would apply on descent.
We don't need E outside of radar airspace, it doesn't help anyone, and the implementation costs would far outweigh its usefulness.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you said:
What is the relevance of this? It is a clear ATC instruction that save RT time, which you are all for. I have used it many times as an area controller so the aircraft doesn't have to waste time asking for a clearance on the way back into CTA. Also used it as a tower controller for VFT aircraft going from ath CTR inot a VFR lane OCT briefly (Parafield) then into another CTR (Adelaide). The lane was onlt 3 or 4 miles wide so it saved lots of RT to have the clearance to re-enter all ready to go. Why is this an issue?
Could you please tell me what the problem is with the phrase? It is a simple combination of phrases from the ICAO Doc 9432 which works. Who cares if it unique? Your American buddies use such great stuff as 'Taxi to position and hold' but no one seems to care.
Cheers,
NFR.
PS The phraseology is actually: LEAVE AND RE-ENTER CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
You may be interested in knowing, but the expression “cleared out of and into controlled airspace” does not exist anywhere in the world. It’s a unique Australian invention
Could you please tell me what the problem is with the phrase? It is a simple combination of phrases from the ICAO Doc 9432 which works. Who cares if it unique? Your American buddies use such great stuff as 'Taxi to position and hold' but no one seems to care.
Cheers,
NFR.
PS The phraseology is actually: LEAVE AND RE-ENTER CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
Because I want to stay in controlled airspace when in IMC on descent in a radar environment - that's what I am paying for and that's what I get in other leading aviation countries.
ie ; from WATLE I want a descent service from ATC which keeps a plane in IMC from hitting the mountains.
Why give zero control service when it's most needed?
I know- that's what we did before radar existed and we must resist change in every way!
ie ; from WATLE I want a descent service from ATC which keeps a plane in IMC from hitting the mountains.
Why give zero control service when it's most needed?
I know- that's what we did before radar existed and we must resist change in every way!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Dec 2009 at 07:28.