NAS Operational questions
I remember years ago that a very senior Departmental official said of Mode S - Australia won't need that. Its a pity as that is the way of the future. Then everyone can have their own code. In the interests of safety have the transponder hard wired ON at all times.
WRT Class B in Sydney, yep its a goer. One VFR at a time, be careful what you ask for.
WRT Class B in Sydney, yep its a goer. One VFR at a time, be careful what you ask for.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More questions:
Under the NAS 2a changes due on 10 July, VFR-on-top and VFR climb and descent procedures are introduced.
Questions
1.) AIP Supp H23/03 describes the procedures for both VFR-on-top and VFR climb and descent.
2.2 b. (iii) specifies that “(w)hen operating with an ATC clearance to “Maintain VFR-on-top”, pilots must:
(iii) comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to the flight; i.e minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, cleared route, adherence to ATC clearance etc.”
3.2 b (iii) specifies that “(w)hen operating in VMC with an ATC clearance to ‘Climb/Descend VFR’, pilots on IFR flight plans must:
(iii) visually maintain obstacle clearance”
Why are these so radically different? If the 3.2 provisions are complied with correctly, the pilot of an IFR aircraft at FL150 would not be able to conduct a VFR descent to FL 130 unless they could ‘visually maintain obstacle clearance’
Is this just another example of sloppy amateur drafting of operational documentation?
2) In both procedures, pilots utilising the procedures are required to “see and avoid” other aircraft. Additionally, other IFR traffic are provided with traffic information on the aircraft undertaking the new procedure. So far so good.
What do the pilots do to “avoid” the other aircraft if they feel that they want to do so? Remember that all IFR aircraft, regardless of the procedure in use, are required to comply with their cleared route. Thus, avoidance manoeuvres in the lateral plane become impossible without a resultant incident. (Of course, pilots will do whatever is required to avoid a collision – never mind the paper work. I am talking about routine situations.) Any manoeuvre by either aircraft to avoid the traffic would result in an incident report and a manoeuvre by the full IFR could result in a break-down in separation. How are these procedures meant to work in reality?
Under the NAS 2a changes due on 10 July, VFR-on-top and VFR climb and descent procedures are introduced.
Questions
1.) AIP Supp H23/03 describes the procedures for both VFR-on-top and VFR climb and descent.
2.2 b. (iii) specifies that “(w)hen operating with an ATC clearance to “Maintain VFR-on-top”, pilots must:
(iii) comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to the flight; i.e minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, cleared route, adherence to ATC clearance etc.”
3.2 b (iii) specifies that “(w)hen operating in VMC with an ATC clearance to ‘Climb/Descend VFR’, pilots on IFR flight plans must:
(iii) visually maintain obstacle clearance”
Why are these so radically different? If the 3.2 provisions are complied with correctly, the pilot of an IFR aircraft at FL150 would not be able to conduct a VFR descent to FL 130 unless they could ‘visually maintain obstacle clearance’
Is this just another example of sloppy amateur drafting of operational documentation?
2) In both procedures, pilots utilising the procedures are required to “see and avoid” other aircraft. Additionally, other IFR traffic are provided with traffic information on the aircraft undertaking the new procedure. So far so good.
What do the pilots do to “avoid” the other aircraft if they feel that they want to do so? Remember that all IFR aircraft, regardless of the procedure in use, are required to comply with their cleared route. Thus, avoidance manoeuvres in the lateral plane become impossible without a resultant incident. (Of course, pilots will do whatever is required to avoid a collision – never mind the paper work. I am talking about routine situations.) Any manoeuvre by either aircraft to avoid the traffic would result in an incident report and a manoeuvre by the full IFR could result in a break-down in separation. How are these procedures meant to work in reality?
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it so strange to keep an eye out for rocks as you keep an eye out for clouds below?
I think this difference between the visual procedures is generated by the way the US use it. I imagine (when your country is completely plastered in E) their options for assigning descent are to clear the aircraft down to the MSA, then clear them for the approach. If the pilot request VFR descent they can be cleared to hit the ground if they want, just look out the windows every so often, OK? Look forward to this concept here in Stage 3
I think this difference between the visual procedures is generated by the way the US use it. I imagine (when your country is completely plastered in E) their options for assigning descent are to clear the aircraft down to the MSA, then clear them for the approach. If the pilot request VFR descent they can be cleared to hit the ground if they want, just look out the windows every so often, OK? Look forward to this concept here in Stage 3
