Flying at the Upper Vertical Limit of Restricted Airspace
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: new zealand
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what prune does best, pedantic's...............
Seriously, though, you have an incident etc that gets investigated by CASA, then it will be pedantics over and over and not a bush lawyer's definition that decides the outcome.
Jetstar1 has already posted the reference that should be enough to conclude this debate.
I was noting how there were some people being pedantic, who seem blissfully unaware of that rule that Jetstar1 quoted, and that there seem to be too many of these people in Australia. Personally, I blame the near complete lack of proper theory training in Australian schools, but that is just opinion and I know you aren't interested.
Do you disagree, though? Do you think there aren't enough people misinterpreting the rules pedantically pushing that misinterpretation?
Now for the other stuff. I am not going to start a thread, but do you seriously think you don't have a habit of jumping on threads and criticizing people?
What did you just do to me today?
The thread a while back in which you criticized a flight of mine has been deleted, so I cannot link to it. Lets just say CASA did a thorough investigation thanks to "public concerns" (possibly yours), but did not find that we had done anything wrong.
I do not think I "know so much".
That is why I don't go around criticizing others on a regular basis!
I was noting how there were some people being pedantic, who seem blissfully unaware of that rule that Jetstar1 quoted, and that there seem to be too many of these people in Australia. Personally, I blame the near complete lack of proper theory training in Australian schools, but that is just opinion and I know you aren't interested.
Do you disagree, though? Do you think there aren't enough people misinterpreting the rules pedantically pushing that misinterpretation?
Now for the other stuff. I am not going to start a thread, but do you seriously think you don't have a habit of jumping on threads and criticizing people?
What did you just do to me today?
The thread a while back in which you criticized a flight of mine has been deleted, so I cannot link to it. Lets just say CASA did a thorough investigation thanks to "public concerns" (possibly yours), but did not find that we had done anything wrong.
I do not think I "know so much".
That is why I don't go around criticizing others on a regular basis!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets just say CASA did a thorough investigation thanks to "public concerns" (possibly yours), but did not find that we had done anything wrong.
"Pedantic's that don't know the rules."
It seems, glekichi, that you didn't read that post of Zanzibar's thoroughly as in it his comments are qualified - i.e. he wrote "in this context" which would seem to distance his comments from being those of the rules to those regarding correct grammar and proper definitions as against "our own technical definitions".
You have an opinion which you are entitled to air but you seem to have difficulty extending that right to others.
It seems, glekichi, that you didn't read that post of Zanzibar's thoroughly as in it his comments are qualified - i.e. he wrote "in this context" which would seem to distance his comments from being those of the rules to those regarding correct grammar and proper definitions as against "our own technical definitions".
You have an opinion which you are entitled to air but you seem to have difficulty extending that right to others.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question:
Let assume your VFR and which the plan with an Altitude as low as possible direct through Restrictive Airspace (which is active between SFC-2500). The above airspace is G airspace (i.e. clearance not req).
Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?
What about 2501ft?
Let assume your VFR and which the plan with an Altitude as low as possible direct through Restrictive Airspace (which is active between SFC-2500). The above airspace is G airspace (i.e. clearance not req).
Can I fly through this restricted airspace at 2500ft?
What about 2499ft?
What about 2501ft?
Down3greens,
I have read zanzibar's and your posts over and over, and both still read as to say that at the level that is the upper limit of the airspace IS restricted.
If that is not what you were saying then I apologise.
It does not, however, change the fact there are too many people who don't know the rules in this industry. I find most of the time the ones who don't know the rules are the ones telling you you CANT do something.
I try to only criticize someone after they have criticized another. I read your Gen Y crack as offensive (and I'm not Gen Y) and the tone of zanzibar's post similar.
XXX,
No I don't suspect you called CASA; you were amongst the critics in a thread about a subject that CASA later got involved in. Acutally, looking back if you had refrained from racist remarks you were actually being reasonably fair, just asking a lot of questions because you had a moral objection to the flight.
The issue though, is that you made offensive remarks and continually do so.
I have read zanzibar's and your posts over and over, and both still read as to say that at the level that is the upper limit of the airspace IS restricted.
If that is not what you were saying then I apologise.
It does not, however, change the fact there are too many people who don't know the rules in this industry. I find most of the time the ones who don't know the rules are the ones telling you you CANT do something.
I try to only criticize someone after they have criticized another. I read your Gen Y crack as offensive (and I'm not Gen Y) and the tone of zanzibar's post similar.
XXX,
No I don't suspect you called CASA; you were amongst the critics in a thread about a subject that CASA later got involved in. Acutally, looking back if you had refrained from racist remarks you were actually being reasonably fair, just asking a lot of questions because you had a moral objection to the flight.
The issue though, is that you made offensive remarks and continually do so.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answers provided so far - flying at 2500 puts you over, and not in, a piece of PRD airspace that is active SFC-2500 - are correct, but the supporting AIP reference isn't all you need.
By default, Restricted airspace is considered Class C below FL285 and Class A above that, "unless specified otherwise". In practice, unless it is associated with a military ATS unit, no control service is provided within most active restricted areas.
The answer you need is in MATS:
There's also 2-30-590, which after a lengthy spiel about calculating buffer heights, concludes:
Note that this is different to Danger Areas, where flying "on the limit" puts you in the Danger zone:
A similar distinction applies to the lateral limits of PRD areas:
By default, Restricted airspace is considered Class C below FL285 and Class A above that, "unless specified otherwise". In practice, unless it is associated with a military ATS unit, no control service is provided within most active restricted areas.
The answer you need is in MATS:
Originally Posted by MATS 2-30-1150
Delineate adjacent airspace as follows:
a. When one of the airspaces is controlled airspace, add the buffer to the navigation tolerances of air routes and contain within CTA.
b. When one of the airspaces is uncontrolled airspace, contain the buffer in the restricted area.
a. When one of the airspaces is controlled airspace, add the buffer to the navigation tolerances of air routes and contain within CTA.
b. When one of the airspaces is uncontrolled airspace, contain the buffer in the restricted area.
Originally Posted by MATS 2-30-1170
Aircraft operating at the vertical limits of prohibited areas and Restricted Areas/Airspaces are separated from activities within those airspaces.
The promulgated vertical limits of Prohibited and Restricted Areas and Restricted Airspaces shown in AIP, FLIP and NOTAM contain these buffers.
Originally Posted by MATS 2-30-620
The vertical limits of Danger Areas are the upper and lower limits of the activities within the airspace.
Originally Posted by MATS 2-30-470
The lateral limits of:
a. Prohibited and Restricted Areas/Airspaces encompass the activities of the administering authority.
b. Danger Areas are the extent to which activities may take place within the area.
a. Prohibited and Restricted Areas/Airspaces encompass the activities of the administering authority.
b. Danger Areas are the extent to which activities may take place within the area.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read your Gen Y crack as offensive (and I'm not Gen Y) and the tone of zanzibar's post similar.
You have an opinion which you are entitled to air but you seem to have difficulty extending that right to others.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- i.e. he wrote "in this context" which would seem to distance his comments from being those of the rules to being those regarding correct grammar and proper definitions as against "our own technical definitions".
Last edited by zanzibar; 14th Apr 2011 at 06:42. Reason: grammar, seeing I'm keen on it ...........
So, in this context if it does not or may not extend or pass beyond a point, line or level, it stands to reason that it is at that point, line or level at its greatest. It then follows that it is inclusive and, in this debate, results in an upper limit consequently being part of the restricted airspace.
Seeing as i started this grammar fight, I was simply making a joke about how seemingly cryptic some of the regs are and that they don't follow (what to me would be) obvious plain English. Lighten up, move on, it wasn't the main thrust of the argument. Although, thanks to those of you defending my Gen Y grammar!
Is MATS the ATC version of the AIP (give or take)? Can we find it online?
If pilots aren't required to know the MATS, then how are we meant to know these things woodwork has used to back up his point. Or is the line in the AIP previously quoted good enough to use as the reference in an exam etc.?
Is MATS the ATC version of the AIP (give or take)? Can we find it online?
If pilots aren't required to know the MATS, then how are we meant to know these things woodwork has used to back up his point. Or is the line in the AIP previously quoted good enough to use as the reference in an exam etc.?
Last edited by mcgrath50; 14th Apr 2011 at 07:03. Reason: Fixing grammar ;)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debates usually require two opposing views, a bit boring otherwise.
No, g, I think z is saying the opposite to what you state/ask in your last post:
I'm with you Mc50, let's move on and get a definitive answer to this poser.
No, g, I think z is saying the opposite to what you state/ask in your last post:
.... follows that it is inclusive ......... results in an upper limit consequently being part of the restricted airspace
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much ado about nothing ?.
Really children. The aviation world is coming apart faster than you can imagine.
Still, even now, you all persist with trying to unbutton the unique Australian regulations.
What about applying the same amount of energy toward the sinister proposed part 91. Jesus wept !!. Look about you lads; look about.
"Do you question me, as an honest man should do, for
my simple true judgment; or would you have me speak
after my custom, as being a professed tyrant to their sex?".
Courtesy of the Man. W.S. Even 600 years (bloody years) ago, they had more sense.
Selah.
Still, even now, you all persist with trying to unbutton the unique Australian regulations.
What about applying the same amount of energy toward the sinister proposed part 91. Jesus wept !!. Look about you lads; look about.
"Do you question me, as an honest man should do, for
my simple true judgment; or would you have me speak
after my custom, as being a professed tyrant to their sex?".
Courtesy of the Man. W.S. Even 600 years (bloody years) ago, they had more sense.
Selah.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I teach this very thing just about every day. The promulgated upper limit is available for use. It contains all buffers for the activity, be it aviation or non-aviation. In this example, you are able to transit above the area at the upper limit of 2500ft. Although MATS is the defining document for ATCs, the quoted AIP reference also indicates the same answer. This reference is AIP ENR 1.4-10 Para 5.4.2.
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
Hey Mr woodwork,
Not many of us 'mere mortals' would have access to MATS (Well, not NOW anyway...)
Dem is your instructions for YOUR workplace.
For the payluts in dis industry, we all rely on dem dere AIP stuff an' all....
Anyway the argument is now 'academic', as NFR and others have so simply stated.
Cheers
Not many of us 'mere mortals' would have access to MATS (Well, not NOW anyway...)
Dem is your instructions for YOUR workplace.
For the payluts in dis industry, we all rely on dem dere AIP stuff an' all....
Anyway the argument is now 'academic', as NFR and others have so simply stated.
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 17th Apr 2011 at 06:19. Reason: Credit where credit is due......
Originally Posted by down3gr33ns
Gen Y, are we?
