Temora at Easter - RAA + RV homecoming

[Jabawocky]

And the Jepp map rings are not that accurate at times.


Apply a few miles, all is good

Simple.

[Shagpile]

Concur. Also be aware that even though a gps is accurate to a couple of metres, the georeferencing of the maps can be out by up to a couple of miles in parts.

Airservices have done a very good job in fixing the maps so they are quite accurate now, but it's not perfect and land marks dont always line up 100%. Most are good to probably 100m or so.

Plan a 2nm buffer and you can't go wrong.

[SW3]

The 2nm (Not 0.1nm VH-XXX!!!) applies for the same reason as the requirement to be 500ft above the step whilst in CTA, it's a safeguard buffer. Most regs are conservative on the side of safety, and for a reason, so why deliberately stretch right to the edge?

[VH-XXX]

What's this 500 ft above the step?

You are under it if at the lower limit, but in it at the altitude given to you by ATC, so is what you are saying, that to be in airspace where the LL is 7500ft you would be at a minimum of 8,000ft IFR? That makes sense if this is what you mean. Have never thought about it being an actual requirement however I guess it's a given.

(the first sentence above sounds aggressive, but it isn't meant to be)



.1 nm is a little bit tongue in cheek, but point being, have never ever been questioned on it. Particularly when getting a clearance, many of us come super close to CTA if not in it by the time the clearance arrives.

[Creampuff]

Well that puts a very different spin on your earlier post.

If you’ve contacted and have been identified by ATC in the course of requesting an airways clearance, miles before reaching the boundary, that’s a very different situation. (Although I would urge caution about entering controlled airspace before the clearance is issued.)

Try tracking along a line 0.1 nm outside the boundary of controlled airspace without contacting ATC, and let us know how you go.

[SW3]

It's in the Jepps/AIP undee the requirements for a visual approach in CTA. So published "LL" should really be treated as the LL +500 if in CTA. It's still possible to bust a step under vectors, they'll often clear a lower level before reaching the next DME step.

[andrewr]

The 2nm (Not 0.1nm VH-XXX!!!) applies for the same reason as the requirement to be 500ft above the step whilst in CTA, it's a safeguard buffer.

No, it's a buffer to take into account the potential inaccuracy of the method of navigation. That's why the buffer is different depending on the method of navigation: visually depending on day or night and height AGL, and a number of degrees for NDB, VOR and DR (and, interestingly, 7NM for GPSRNAV - I'm not sure if GPSRNAV is different to regular GPS?)

I think that Creampuff has it 100% correct in post #74. The tolerances are applied to the INTENDED flight path. It is OK to fly closer to the boundary unintentionally - that is what the tolerances are for. It is not OK to plan closer, or deliberately follow the boundary on the GPS.

I assume ATC also apply a buffer inside the CTA similar to the 500 feet from the vertical limits.

[SW3]

One in the same, true the buffer is for navigational error which ultimately is there to protect controlled airspace and in turn a safeguard. ATC can and will vector right up to the boundary and this could be with the aircraft visual or in IMC.

[LeadSled]

What's this 500 ft above the step?

XXX,

Actually, yet another example of the rest of the world (including ICAO) being out of step with Australia.

A close perusal of the ICAO source docs., and of the AIPs of many other countries, including US, show that the whole volume of controlled airspace is available for aircraft operating in that volume.

In this case, aircraft operating in G (or F) are required to create the vertical buffer, and interestingly, it is not 500', but 700' (expressed in meters in the source docs.)

Thus, in US, UK etc, the lowest base of CTL will frequently be local ground level plus 1200', so that an aircraft complying with the vertical buffer of 700' will still be 500' AGL.

But, Australia has to be different!!

Tootle pip!!

PS: It seem like many of you need to re-read the criteria for VFR navigation ---- and I believe we are seeing incidents and accident starting to show up as being a result of blind reliance on GPS of doubtful standards (even some older TSOd equipment) and a far from complete understanding, on the part of many pilots, of the limitations of their equipment.

[Frank Arouet]

I have an endorsement to use the ADF and VFR. Without it, I could only use those instruments as an aid to The Visual Flight Rules.

I can't see how any piece of equipment, TSO'd or not, can be used in any other way.

I could be wrong again, but I have always planned to fly below the steps if not in CTR.

[Creampuff]

I always admire your chutzpah, Leaddie.

Never a ‘Jeez, I see what you mean about the tolerance rules. I’ll stop telling people that they’ll always be OK if they remain just a little bit outside controlled or restricted airspace.’

Never a ‘Jeez, you’re right: aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown aren’t 2,500’ AGL.’

No: just change the topic and bluff and bluster on.

By the way, what are the VFR navigation tolerance rules in the USA, me ol’ cumquat? And I’d be very careful with my answer, if I were you…

[Kharon]

The Parrot, as a confident?.

Parrot – Just had a yarn wiv a Gallah from Temora, wanna hear about it ?.

Me – (fzzt – bottle opening); 'K, but make it short.

Aside - It just so happen that I share some parts of my life with a particularly attractive talking Parrot; now, during periods of absence, this foul, fell fowl converses with same same. The stories I hear at midnight quite oft' send me to my little wooden bed, breathless with laughter. For example (and verbatim do I quote it).

Parrot – Well, the story goes – the Fuzz turned up, unexpected like, to see some fellah laying about in the BBQ area. The “lads” just thought he was pissed again; and, didn't worry too much – anyway.

Plod – Well then - what 'appened to his nose then??.

The lads – **** mate, beats us; WE have no idea, been stood here having a few beers mate.

Plod – Well, he's bleeding a bit, sure none of you saw anything??.

The lads – Nah mate, he must have tripped on a tinny or sumpthin': we saw nuttin.

Fuzz – Well if your sure.

The lads – Yeah mate – never seen the blighter before, NFI about his snoz.

Case (slab) closed. Bloody bird, one day; I swear.

[T28D]

?????????????????? too much rum methinks

[LeadSled]

Never a ‘Jeez, you’re right: aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown aren’t 2,500’AGL.’

Creamie,
So, what are you trying to say ? That I can't fly in G (in Australia) up to the base of a step ---- which in most of the light aircraft lane north of Sydney is 2500' AMSL---- you added AGL, not me.

I’ll stop telling people that they’ll always be OK if they remain just a little bit outside controlled or restricted airspace.’

I didn't say that, either, in fact I specifically wrote words to the effect that you should leave a buffer, because, amongst other things, ATC radar is not pinpoint accuracy, but it is the usual "evidence" for an airspace violations.

What are VFR navigation tolerances here?? ---- Which is not the same thing as the buffer/tolerances for pre-flight planning in the AIP --- and the way I read your reply on the subject, you agreed that the published tolerances in the AIP did not constitute a direction as to the final flight path of the aircraft.

What are VFR navigation tolerances in the US?? I have no idea, without looking them up, if, in fact, they exist. Given that almost all flying by light aircraft in the US will be in E, D or C, and rarely B, (ie; virtually all flying in the US is in controlled airspace) and only fleetingly in what G there is, are we talking about the same thing??

In practical terms, I have never had the issue of VFR tracking tolerances arise in US ---- or anywhere else, for that matter.

I stand by what I said about the ICAO requirements for vertical separation for aircraft in G below a CTA/CTR base.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Late addition, in case Creamie wants to pick me up --- the one place in US where there is lots of G is Alaska.

[Creampuff]

Now I understand where the most of the chutzpah comes from. You must just post stuff then pretend to yourself that it never happened.

So, what are you trying to say ? That I can't fly in G (in Australia) up to the base of a step ---- which in most of the light aircraft lane north of Sydney is 2500' AMSL---- you added AGL, not me.

I didn’t ‘add’ AGL: AGL an element of avoidance rule that we (or at least those of us who were concentrating) were discussing.

In post #35 I quoted the tolerances that must be applied to the intended flight path of powered aircraft operating against the VFR, below 10,001’.

In post #44, you said, among other things:

Also consider various "lanes" around the country, such as north of Sydney ---- staying two miles (@ c2500') from the boundary puts the north and south bound traffic rather close together

The clear implication if not express effect of that assertion is that the applicable tolerance is 2 miles because the aircraft in the lane north of Sydney are at 2,500’. That’s just plain wrong.

The avoidance tolerances are calculated by reference to AGL. Aircraft in the lane north of Bankstown at an altitude of 2,500’ are not at 2,500 AGL. You know that spot called Pennant Hills? There’s a reason the word ‘Hills’ is in the name. Most of the terrain under the lane is around 1,000' high. Get it? Or are you now going to tell me that you were obviously referring to night VFR operations, in a thread about RAA aircraft?

In post#44 you also said:

[E]ntering controlled airspace without a clearance is the offense, not entering an "x" mile buffer around a control boundary.

However, a word of practical caution, AsA radar images are not all that precise, but are, nevertheless used as evidence for a penetration of controlled airspace allegation and aircraft targets on the radar screen are not "scale", it is hard, but not impossible, to prove that you did not infringe controlled airspace, when the radar say otherwise.

The clear implication if not express effect of that assertion is that the only potential offence (note the spelling of ‘offence’, me ol’ pomegranate) in the circumstances is entering controlled airspace without a clearance, and that the only risk of entering the buffer is that, due to the inaccuracies of radar, the aircraft can appear to be within controlled airspace. That’s just plain wrong.

Entering the ‘buffer’ is also evidence that the rule requiring the tolerance to be applied to the intended flight path may have been breached.

I’ll say it for the third and last time, because almost everyone else seems to be getting it: The FOIs to whom Baswell referred raised the issue of aircraft ‘skimming the edges of CTA’ and the avoidance rules, for a reason.

[LeadSled]

Entering the ‘buffer’ is also evidence that the rule requiring the tolerance to be applied to the intended flight path may have been breached.

Creamie,

I am just going to have to disagree with your chosen interpretation of my previous posts.

It's a bit pointless "convicting" me on "implications", what I see here is an argument coming back to whether the "buffer zone" around a control boundary can be "breached" ---- or is it an offense ( or offence --- chose your dictionary) to fly within that buffer zone.

So, please advise what the ( in your opinion) VFR tracking tolerances are, en-route ---- as opposed to the pre-flight planning of tracks with a tolerance, as already done to death.

Are you backtracking on your previous post that the AIP tolerances for pre-flight planning do not constitute a CAR 99AA(5) direction as to the final flight path of the aircraft.

And I am well aware of the elevations in the lane under discussion, I live in the middle of it, at 430 ft elevation --- reread my original post again --- I (also) referred to the 2500' step ---- the "implication" being AMSL ---- but not all of the lane has a local ground level of around 1000', far from it. Have a look at the elevations along the Richmond edge of the lane --- I hope you are not "implying" my "regulated" buffer expands and/or contracts as local ground level varies, as I fly south in the "lane".

As to opinions of individual FOIs, the big problem is "individual" interpretations of "the law", and have I seen some doozies with the latest crop of recruits.

Re. Offense v. offence, I note the Macquarie Dictionary gives offense, the US spelling, as an alternative. Maybe it's the spell checkers, but I have (NSW system) legal documents in front of me that use offense, and I have CASA documents that use both spellings. I also get documents from Russell Hill with, variously, defence and defense.

--- and that the only risk of entering the buffer is that, due to the inaccuracies of radar, the aircraft can appear to be within controlled airspace. That’s just plain wrong.

Just what is "plain wrong" ----- that there are no other risks of entering the buffer zone, or that the radar can be "wrong".

The intent of my comment didn't (at least to my mind) "imply" that the only reason to leave a margin was the risk of being accused of an actual infringement of the controlled airspace due limitations of radar, but was a risk ---- base on cases, in which I have been involved.

Or, are you saying the (surveillance/SSR --- not to be confused with precision radars, like PAR or SMC) radar, or the interpretation of the radar records can't be wrong. If it's the latter, you're the one who is plain wrong.

Calibration flights have mapped errors (of which I am aware, there may be greater) in indicated versus geographical position of over 5km, with common ones between 2 and 3 km. The various technical reasons for these results are no state secret, but probably not common knowledge outside the group who deal with this as a job. As already mentioned, it is not a separation issue, within the standards, the relative positions of targets come up to an acceptable level of accuracy.

A good friend of mine has been one of those people ( a manufacturer of precision GPS tracking equipment, and involved in radar calibration) who has been used as an expert witness, to illustrate the various ways the surveillance radar system does not give pinpoint geographical accuracy.

Tootle pip!!

As a final thought, where do we measure the ground level, for the purposes of the buffer ---- directly under the flight path of the aircraft, in some other fashion akin to the minimum height for flight over obstructions, or from the tints on a WAC etc??

[Creampuff]

I am just going to have to disagree with your chosen interpretation of my previous posts.

Others will judge whether my ‘chosen’ interpretation is the correct one.

It's a bit pointless "convicting" me on "implications", what I see here is an argument coming back to whether the "buffer zone" around a control boundary can be "breached" ---- or is it an offense ( or offence --- chose your dictionary) to fly within that buffer zone.

So, please advise what the ( in your opinion) VFR tracking tolerances are, en-route ---- as opposed to the pre-flight planning of tracks with a tolerance, as already done to death.

Are you backtracking on your previous post that the AIP tolerances for pre-flight planning do not constitute a CAR 99AA(5) direction as to the final flight path of the aircraft.

You keep putting words in other’s mouths, to suit your argument.

You always make the mistake of introducing a false dichotomy.

The rule doesn’t have to apply, and isn’t expressed to apply, to only pre-flight planning or the final flight path. It’s about every decision the pilot in command makes about the intended flight path of the aircraft. The avoidance rule applies to:

The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace etc..

Operating.

A present tense verb.

If the pilot plans to fly a route in G without applying the tolerances to the intended flight path, then flies that route, that’s a breach of the direction under 99AA(5).

If the pilot, in flight in G, plans a diversion in G without applying the tolerances to the intended diversion track, that’s a breach of the direction under 99AA(5).

If the pilot just takes off and takes up an intended track in G without applying the tolerances to the track, that’s a breach of the direction under 99AA(5).

And I am well aware of the elevations in the lane under discussion, I live in the middle of it, at 430 ft elevation --- reread my original post again --- I (also) referred to the 2500' step ---- the "implication" being AMSL ---- but not all of the lane has a local ground level of around 1000', far from it.

You evidently don’t live at Carlingford Shopping Centre, Pennant Hills or Castle Hill Shopping Centre, all of which are landmarks along the routes marked in the lane, and all of which are over 500’ elevation.

But, as usual, you just can’t bring yourself to concede the actual tolerance required of day VFR aircraft following the actual recommended tracks marked on the VTC.

Have a look at the elevations along the Richmond edge of the lane --- I hope you are not "implying" my "regulated" buffer expands and/or contracts as local ground level varies, as I fly south in the "lane".

Of course it expands and contracts, depending on the ground level. That’s what the rule says. It’s not hard to understand.

If someone’s that far away from the route marked in the lane and that close to the Richmond boundary, they’d better make sure their intended flight path has the required tolerance applied to it. And I thought you were worried about opposite direction traffic being too close. Have you not measured how far apart those routes marked on the VTC are?

As to opinions of individual FOIs, the big problem is "individual" interpretations of "the law", and have I seen some doozies with the latest crop of recruits.

That’s all well and good, me ol’ banana, but the reason I get so energetic about this stuff is because of the number of poor naïve b*st*rds I’m aware of who’ve dug themselves into really deep, smelly, expensive holes on the basis of some of the rubbish that is sprouted by people who claim expertise in matters legal and regulatory – always on a ‘all care but no responsibility’ basis, of course.

Re. Offense v. offence, I note the Macquarie Dictionary gives offense, the US spelling, as an alternative. Maybe it's the spell checkers, but I have (NSW system) legal documents in front of me that use offense, and I have CASA documents that use both spellings. I also get documents from Russell Hill with, variously, defence and defense.

Just goes to show how ubiquitous the decline in literacy is. Next you’ll be telling me that licence and license mean the same thing.

As a final thought, where do we measure the ground level, for the purposes of the buffer ---- directly under the flight path of the aircraft, in some other fashion akin to the minimum height for flight over obstructions, or from the tints on a WAC etc??

There’s a regulation that answers that question. In another thread you said

Jack,
I'll back my knowledge of the AU Act, Regulations, Orders, AIP etc against you or anybody else, any day.

What’s the answer to your question?

[Jack Ranga]

Jack,
I'll back my knowledge of the AU Act, Regulations, Orders, AIP etc against you or anybody else, any day.

Hold on old mate, not challenging you In reply to your post in the thread that was shut down. I have a common sense attitude to my flying and my day job I posted slack-arse like that so that this prudish, American website wouldn't bleep out arse, turns out it doesn't bleep out arse

Now, what is your attitude to pilots who make up their own RT and still don't deliver the required information?

Example:

'ABC taxies Birdsville for Innaminca, request traffic and code'

Required:

'ABC Aerostar, (my new favourite aeroplane) 6 POB, IFR, taxing Birdsville for Innaminca, Runway 32'

Now, in my humble opinion this: 'ABC taxies Birdsville for Innaminca, request traffic and code' is lazy, slack garbage. Who started this tripe? Some lazy bastard who couldn't be bothered looking it up in AIP. It took me 3 minutes to find it in AIP.

Why is it lazy, slack garbage? Because: The correct call is important for everybody's situational awareness. It's also important for SAR action (POB) if the unthinkable happens. If I have to request that information, it is two extra calls that are time consuming and unnecessary.

If you think this is anal and over the top, I would love for you to have been plugged in with me this morning when accurate radio calls were a must

Your opinion old fruit, you're entitled to it. And so am I. In my 26 years in aviation I think I've probably made 5 times the radio calls you have, happy days fellow aviation professional

[SW3]

Nice one Jack, couldn't agree more. Standard calls are there for the same reason as regs, just follow them! No point re-inventing the wheel.

[Jack Ranga]

SW3, the scary (well, not scary but I can't think of the appropriate word) part is that an Air Force in Australia, it's Royal (?) started transmitting this sh!t, why? because they were hearing all the other sheep transmitting it.......

lazy, slack sh!t legitimised by clowns who say standard phraseology is anal. I do have a chuckle when yanks 'check in' but I always get the correct readback because I'm farked if I'm going down because there was any confusion about what was 'meant' or 'implied' or 'assumed'