Port Hedland AFIS wind back
LB,
The composite chart overlay is simply a stitching together of the raster product as supplied by Airservices. They are not at liberty to add or subtract to the data they supply in the EFP.
EFP suppliers are not data originators. The solution to the problem (if there is one) does not rest with them
Alpha
If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?
The composite chart overlay is simply a stitching together of the raster product as supplied by Airservices. They are not at liberty to add or subtract to the data they supply in the EFP.
EFP suppliers are not data originators. The solution to the problem (if there is one) does not rest with them
Alpha
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*/Slightly Off Topic */
Re: William Creek & NOTAMS: Almost (if not all) Non registered & non certified airfields are PPR (Prior Permission Required) due to the fact it is extremely difficult to issue NOTAMS. After speaking with AirServices about a NOTAM (as we were closing a runway) it was basically impossible due to the fact that it all had to go through CASA and they would issue the NOTAM on our behalf if they felt it was required, which apparently they rarely do.
So for all those out there please give a call to the Aerodrome Operator before arriving (and not two months before arriving, try and call within a couple of hours of ETA) so that we can inform you of any changes, or special conditions (like BA's, Fly Neighbourly's etc) that might exist at the time.
8/ end Off Topic */
Re: William Creek & NOTAMS: Almost (if not all) Non registered & non certified airfields are PPR (Prior Permission Required) due to the fact it is extremely difficult to issue NOTAMS. After speaking with AirServices about a NOTAM (as we were closing a runway) it was basically impossible due to the fact that it all had to go through CASA and they would issue the NOTAM on our behalf if they felt it was required, which apparently they rarely do.
So for all those out there please give a call to the Aerodrome Operator before arriving (and not two months before arriving, try and call within a couple of hours of ETA) so that we can inform you of any changes, or special conditions (like BA's, Fly Neighbourly's etc) that might exist at the time.
8/ end Off Topic */
LB,
The composite chart overlay is simply a stitching together of the raster product as supplied by Airservices. They are not at liberty to add or subtract to the data they supply in the EFP.
EFP suppliers are not data originators. The solution to the problem (if there is one) does not rest with them
Alpha
The composite chart overlay is simply a stitching together of the raster product as supplied by Airservices. They are not at liberty to add or subtract to the data they supply in the EFP.
EFP suppliers are not data originators. The solution to the problem (if there is one) does not rest with them
Alpha
I realise they are not data originators. The 'composite' charts they produce are sourced from the data from Airservices.
But for some reason e.g. PRDs that are depicted only on an ERC are 'picked up' and added as an overlay on the 'composite' charts, but the Broadcast Areas that are depicted on an ERC are not.
Anyway, I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior and the problem is entirely one of my bad airmanship.
Dexta: So typical of the Australian aviation bureacracy.
But nobody has complained about the broadcast area up in the Torres Strait. It's much bigger than Hedland at about 40nm and 8,500ft.
People have been going up there for the last what, 10+ years and getting it right. Yes even "dangerous weekend warriors" who were terrible on the radio were at least terrible on the correct frequency so they managed.
The system up there has worked.
Or is it only a "problem" at Port Hedland because there's a trained and certified professional on the ground with a radio who is able to give correct and usable advice?
Dick, please please please tell us what the real benefit (or point) of having an untrained, unlicensed person on the radio giving non-official advice is? Especially someone whose primary job at the airport is to do something else and for a fairly significant time period you probably won't get a hold of them. Clogging up the airways somewhat with repeated attempts to talk to them. Clogging up the airways with calls that are really of no benefit.
Dexta, what is this black magic/logic thing about calling an aerodrome operator for information of which you speak?
People have been going up there for the last what, 10+ years and getting it right. Yes even "dangerous weekend warriors" who were terrible on the radio were at least terrible on the correct frequency so they managed.
The system up there has worked.
Or is it only a "problem" at Port Hedland because there's a trained and certified professional on the ground with a radio who is able to give correct and usable advice?
Dick, please please please tell us what the real benefit (or point) of having an untrained, unlicensed person on the radio giving non-official advice is? Especially someone whose primary job at the airport is to do something else and for a fairly significant time period you probably won't get a hold of them. Clogging up the airways somewhat with repeated attempts to talk to them. Clogging up the airways with calls that are really of no benefit.
Dexta, what is this black magic/logic thing about calling an aerodrome operator for information of which you speak?
LB,
You are going to have to spoon feed me mate. Please point out a PRD that is shown on a ERC that is not shown on a visual chart, but is shown on a visual composite?
BTW I am looking at Ozrunways and I can't readily find one....
You are going to have to spoon feed me mate. Please point out a PRD that is shown on a ERC that is not shown on a visual chart, but is shown on a visual composite?
BTW I am looking at Ozrunways and I can't readily find one....
R525 - the Parkes 'Dish' - is not on any WAC, VNC or VTC. But it is on the ERC.
Ditto R409A and B.
Ozrunways and AVPLAN depict them on their 'composite' chart.
Ditto R409A and B.
Ozrunways and AVPLAN depict them on their 'composite' chart.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Apr 2017 at 06:10. Reason: Correct a typo
Originally Posted by LB
R525 - the Parkes 'Dish' - is not on any WAC, VNC or VTC. But it is on the ERC.
It's on your on your electronic WAC because it has been overlaid by the App. It's not on the paper WAC. (And yes: The Romeos I am using as examples are not on VNCs or VTCs.)
My point is: The composite charts will 'pick up' and depict every charted boundary associated with a mandatory procedure. All except one.
My point is: The composite charts will 'pick up' and depict every charted boundary associated with a mandatory procedure. All except one.
I will try to explain it a different way, Capn.
Does your Ozrunways WAC depict the boundary of the Broadcast Area for YPPD?
Is there any setting for any composite chart that you can select that will depict that boundary?
To put this an even different way, is the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?
Does your Ozrunways WAC depict the boundary of the Broadcast Area for YPPD?
Is there any setting for any composite chart that you can select that will depict that boundary?
To put this an even different way, is the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Apr 2017 at 08:01.
Yes yes yes LB just because I don't answer within 5 seconds doesn't mean I'll never be back, I do have a life outside Prune.
Point taken.
Yes it is. So what? Too hard to click across to the ERC to see what is going on at YPPD (or many other places) for airspace, including shock horror the existence of a BA? Caution, there's a whole bunch of them in the NT!
As I asked before but didn't get an answer... how would you know about the existence of a tower at YPKA? Because you read about it on Prune? Come on.
Especially with these electronic gizmos, you have no excuse for not knowing what's going on at a location, especially a person of such intellect that uses "analogous" and "sophistry".
Well hop to it, get your local RAPAC to raise it with the powers-that-be. 
It's on your on your electronic WAC because it has been overlaid by the App. It's not on the paper WAC.
To put this an even different way, is the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?
As I asked before but didn't get an answer... how would you know about the existence of a tower at YPKA? Because you read about it on Prune? Come on.
Especially with these electronic gizmos, you have no excuse for not knowing what's going on at a location, especially a person of such intellect that uses "analogous" and "sophistry".
My point is: The composite charts will 'pick up' and depict every charted boundary associated with a mandatory procedure. All except one.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 7th Apr 2017 at 10:49. Reason: Increased the level of "sophisticated" punctuation.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS, it's not hard. Even if you don't read ERSA before you fly in there, you're quickly going to realise it's not a regular CTAF when old mate responds to your inbound call.
Having said that, IMHO, I'm not sure how the traffic density post mining boom justifies the service at PD still being there.
Having said that, IMHO, I'm not sure how the traffic density post mining boom justifies the service at PD still being there.
[I]s the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?
Yes it is. So what? Too hard to click across to the ERC to see what is going on at YPPD (or many other places) for airspace, including shock horror the existence of a BA? Caution, there's a whole bunch of them in the NT!
I'm looking at the lovely EFB composite chart that depicts all the topographical information, all of the ARFOR boundaries, all of the FIA boundaries, all of the CTA steps out of YPKA and associated Class E airspace (thus giving a gentle hint that there may be a tower at YPKA) and all of the PRDs on the Burrup Peninsula.
Why would I think anything other than those are the entirety of the boundaries of things with an associated mandatory requirement (subject of course to checking NOTAMS)?
Why would I think to check ERC rather than rely on the composite chart, when the point of the composite chart is precisely to avoid having to use multiple charts by displaying all of the important information on one composite chart?
All of you 'experts' can tsk tsk about airmanship this and ERSA and AIP the other thing all you like, but why is the trap there in the first place?
My overarching point in raising this particular issue was to suggest that maybe the reason for the anomaly is that, like me, the producers of the EFBs were blissfully unaware of the revival of the AFIZ/MBZ concept out in the various hearts of darkness. Group hug on a revival of the AFIZ/MBZ concept out there, plonk it on the charts and in AIP and the job's done. After all, all of the 'locals' know about it. No further flow-on effects.
But I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's your first time in a while, hopefully you look at ERSA and think, what's this AFIS business and give them a call and ask.
If that didn't happen, hopefully your composite chart gives you the CTAF frequency which you call up at say 10nm or whatever. Someone responds, says traffic is xxx (or no traffic), confirm you have received info xxx which you haven't because you didn't know about it. So they relay the info and advise you that there is a broadcast area 20nm to 8000'. And there it ends. It's a broadcast area in Class G airspace so you can't infringe it as you don't need a clearance.
Unlikely to be any follow up unless you were in someones immediate way, which at 10nm is generally unlikely, or you already knew about from monitoring the most appropriate frequency on the way.
If that didn't happen, hopefully your composite chart gives you the CTAF frequency which you call up at say 10nm or whatever. Someone responds, says traffic is xxx (or no traffic), confirm you have received info xxx which you haven't because you didn't know about it. So they relay the info and advise you that there is a broadcast area 20nm to 8000'. And there it ends. It's a broadcast area in Class G airspace so you can't infringe it as you don't need a clearance.
Unlikely to be any follow up unless you were in someones immediate way, which at 10nm is generally unlikely, or you already knew about from monitoring the most appropriate frequency on the way.
If it's your first time in a while, hopefully you look at ERSA ....
.... and think what's this AFIS business and give them a call and ask.
It's a service.
If that didn't happen, hopefully your composite chart gives you the CTAF frequency which you call up at say 10nm or whatever. Someone responds, says traffic is xxx (or no traffic), confirm you have received info xxx which you haven't because you didn't know about it.
The point is that to people who don't visit these places very often and are used to composite EFB charts that depict every charted boundary associated with a mandated procedure, YPPD 'looks' like a CTAF with no mandatory Broadcast Area.
Depending on what traffic I heard on the CTAF and my ETA, I might stumble into inadvertent compliance by making a call at 25nms. Or maybe I'd stumble into inadvertent non-compliance by making a call at 12nms.
So they relay the info and advise you that there is a broadcast area 20nm to 8000'. And there it ends. It's a broadcast area in Class G airspace so you can't infringe it as you don't need a clearance.
Unlikely to be any follow up unless you were in someones immediate way, which at 10nm is generally unlikely, or you already knew about from monitoring the most appropriate frequency on the way.
As you can see from the above, I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior and any non-compliance with the mandatory broadcast requirements would be entirely my fault and a consequence of my poor airmanship.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does the regulator regulate third party data providers?
I've been resisting the rant on regulation of aeronautical data but you guys have got to me at last.
It is an issue we faced when the AERU was first established and one I've seen several times recently, most recently here in paradise. After we beat up the recalcitrant (then) AIP Manager and got him to understand that his part of AirServices WAS going to be subject to regulation we looked the third party providers.
The assumption was (incorrectly) that they took the official data from an AIP and faithfully reproduced it in their "for sale" documents. Not so, we discovered very early in the checking: reformatting, word changes that changed the intent, missing information, additional information and so on.
The "official" and (hopefully*) fully regulated source of aeronautical data is the State AIP.
The regulator has the devil's own task in trying to bring those third party providers to task in providing only correct data in the form and meaning intended in the AIP.
My advice and practical application to several national regulators have been the best way to ensure the accuracy and integrity of third party providers is through the users. Sorry chaps and chapesses, that means a ramp check of documents to make sure they faithfully reproduce the regulated aeronautical data for a particular flight. Easily targeted when the regulator finds an incorrect data set in a commercially provided document or electronic package. Then commercial regulation takes over as the operator blows a fuse!! Ask Nigerian Airways about the ramp check on the flight about to leave for Port Harcourt in 2003. And wait for the eruption in the Pacific when one of the operators finds that the GNSS procedures they are using from a very popular third party provider are not certified.
Now, back to my weekend chores and monthly report.
MJG
*Remember, I work internationally and not much in Australia these days so my recent CAsA experience is limited.
It is an issue we faced when the AERU was first established and one I've seen several times recently, most recently here in paradise. After we beat up the recalcitrant (then) AIP Manager and got him to understand that his part of AirServices WAS going to be subject to regulation we looked the third party providers.
The assumption was (incorrectly) that they took the official data from an AIP and faithfully reproduced it in their "for sale" documents. Not so, we discovered very early in the checking: reformatting, word changes that changed the intent, missing information, additional information and so on.
The "official" and (hopefully*) fully regulated source of aeronautical data is the State AIP.
The regulator has the devil's own task in trying to bring those third party providers to task in providing only correct data in the form and meaning intended in the AIP.
My advice and practical application to several national regulators have been the best way to ensure the accuracy and integrity of third party providers is through the users. Sorry chaps and chapesses, that means a ramp check of documents to make sure they faithfully reproduce the regulated aeronautical data for a particular flight. Easily targeted when the regulator finds an incorrect data set in a commercially provided document or electronic package. Then commercial regulation takes over as the operator blows a fuse!! Ask Nigerian Airways about the ramp check on the flight about to leave for Port Harcourt in 2003. And wait for the eruption in the Pacific when one of the operators finds that the GNSS procedures they are using from a very popular third party provider are not certified.
Now, back to my weekend chores and monthly report.
MJG
*Remember, I work internationally and not much in Australia these days so my recent CAsA experience is limited.
No, actually, Kitty.
If you actually read and comprehend what I've written, I'm actually "grizzling" about the way in which the AFIZ/MBZ concept was revived.
I'm suggesting that the EFB producers may have been, like me, labouring under the same misconception about the demise of the concept. Why else would the mandatory broadcast areas not be depicted on the composite charts, when the producers have managed to overlay every other boundary on the composite charts.
If you actually read and comprehend what I've written, I'm actually "grizzling" about the way in which the AFIZ/MBZ concept was revived.
I'm suggesting that the EFB producers may have been, like me, labouring under the same misconception about the demise of the concept. Why else would the mandatory broadcast areas not be depicted on the composite charts, when the producers have managed to overlay every other boundary on the composite charts.
I'm suggesting that the EFB producers may have been, like me, labouring under the same misconception about the demise of the concept. Why else would the mandatory broadcast areas not be depicted on the composite charts, when the producers have managed to overlay every other boundary on the composite charts.
As I said earlier:
Then I suggest you tell your EFB provider that
1.Broadcast Areas have been in place and charted for around 10 years
2.by omitting them they are presenting a safety issue, and
3.CASA will have an interest in their product omitting key operational information that appears on AIP charts.
1.Broadcast Areas have been in place and charted for around 10 years
2.by omitting them they are presenting a safety issue, and
3.CASA will have an interest in their product omitting key operational information that appears on AIP charts.
