Another ASA RIPOFF !!!

[RYAN TCAD]

Well, how do you like that. Air Services is about to turn 2 TACS into 3!

They say they can't get that size of map paper any more, so TAC 1/2 and 3/4 will have some taken off them and put on to a 3rd TAC 5/6.

TAC 1/2 and 3/4 will still cost $7.40 each and 5/6 is being offered at a really great "introductory price" of $3.70 before reverting to $7.40 after 12mths.

And here's the GREAT part, Townsville is being taken OFF the TAC series!

So entire cost will be $22.20 for 3 TACS with less info!

ASA's position is PAY MORE FOR LESS !!!

Bend over - pineapple on re-entry!

PS - Jeppeson has never looked more inviting...

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Another reason to use Jepps.

Jepps are Expensive at first (initial issue, binders and subscription) but competitive after that considering the info that comes with it.

[Dale Harris]

After the initial up front cost, on an ongoing basis Jepps are now cheaper, and getting better due to the Oz $ improving all the time.

[karrank]

Many moons ago in Perth Flight Service we used to get a call regularly on our Bunbury VHF from the Springbok flight from Jo'burg, who used to regularly lose us on HF as he got close. We used to just tell him to call on the right freq, but one guy asked why he was calling on this one. He said his Jepp chart said this was the freq for ATC at Perth, and added that maybe he should let them know it was wrong. Two years later, when I left Perth they were still doing it.

I have personally recieved a number of calls from pilots criticising something on Jepp charts & plates who then react with outrage and horror when told the world is right, and Jepps are wrong, and no we won't put out a notam, your problem is between you and Jepps.

In the outback the quality paper makes a good ars# wipe.

[CurtissJenny]

I hate to say this chaps but as I understand it the ASA charts are in fact printed up by Jepps in the US of A.

But they are in fact printed as per orders from ASA.

Perhaps others can confirm same.

[Tinstaafl]

I've always preferred the binding method used by DAPs & precedents (the ringbound flip-over thing, similarly for ERS/ERSA). All without having to do the Jepp & UK Aerad shuffling of plates in & out of a cumbersome folder.


I vastly preferred the plate organisation of the old IALs/TMAs. In SP ops I could have my departure procedure open AND have an alternate return procedure open at the same time . For arrival I could have the TMA flip-over open to use the DME Arrival steps and have IALs open on the approach plate. Put one flip-over down, pick the other one up.

[Binoculars]

DOC C0027/03 NOTAMN
A) MACKAY C0027/03 (DOC) 04160236
B) 0304160235 C) PERM
E) JEPPESEN TERMINAL (13-1/APT) AERODROME CHART
ISSUED 11 APRIL 03 EFFECTIVE 17 APR 03
THIS PLATE INCOMPLETE, (CAUTIONS, NOTES AND ALTN MINIMA MISSING).
IF POSSIBLE RETAIN PREVIOUS PLATE DATED 18 FEB 00.
REPLACEMENT PLATE BEING DISPATCHED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


Mistakes happen everywhere, people, it's human nature. Let's stop the crap, shall we?

[RYAN TCAD]

Did anyone receive an E-Mail from ASA re the TAC change? I was told (after asking wether the industry had been consulted in any way) that if you are an existing subscriber with ASA and they have your e-mail address, then you would have been advised of this and asked for your feedback. (He didn't sound to confident saying this). - As opposed to receiving the 'Important Notice' re the TAC change in with the last bundle of maps that were issued for this month.

Apparently some 3,500 people gave feedback indicating their positive support for this. - so he said.

ASA had my e-mail address, but i did NOT receive one. I think i'm being fibbed to, so i asked the guy to send me a copy by e-mail of what was sent out by e-mail, and he said that he wasn't able to do that because it had already been wiped off the system. (No copy's? - nothing saved? At all?) he then said ohh look i'll see if i can send you a hardcopy of what was sent out by e-mail.

I'll let you know how it goes....

Ouch! - those F'Kin Pineapples hurt

[Torres]

".... Armidale NSW that showed the aerodrome elevation as 356 feet (it’s actually more like 3,556 feet).

It occurred to me that it was entirely possible that someone might hurt themselves if they were to rely upon the information printed on the government charts.

ROFL @ BIK's dry sense of humour...............

Suppose I shouldn't find it amusing. Quite dangerous really.

[ulm]

just makin a buck!

Seems AsA are tryin to profit from safety.

If they got all thier changes together and gazetted them (and changed the maps) once a year on the same day, then:

1) They would be more affordable, and
2) Everyone would know when the change happened.

A lot less pilots zooming about with the wrong charts flying into bl@@dy great MBZs (like TI) with the wrong maps and the wrong frequencies.

This profiteering seems to be a severe safety issue

Chuck

[axiom]

Bit like mad mick screaming into Morouya one weekend, (wrong circuit direction, wrong maps?) but mates dont tell do they.

[ulm]

wrong again (becoming a habit)

Messers Axioms

Right, Wrong, Wrong. But I guess (knowing you all as I do) that the first was just a mistake.

Wrong Circuit, right map, wrong ERSA page (Merimbula not Moruya).

And Mr Toller was swiftly 'dobbed in' to AOPA (one Mr Bill Hamilton) by someone Mr Hamilton doesn't usually call 'friend'.

But then, the truth never means much to the likes of you does it Messers Axioms.

Chuck

[axiom]

Bit like the pre AOPA elections and the misinformation about accountancy proceedures, the villification of one Mr Bill Hamilton and others and sanctioned by profiteers with and without legitimate rights to ascendancy to the new world order.

Big trouble in little China come the end of the month methinks.

Trouble here is that nobody knows what to believe any more.

[Lodown]

Ulm, I like your thoughts on one set of maps per year, but I don't know about the practicalities. One set of charts at the same time would be a big drain on resources. AsA would have to employ more people to handle the production spike. What would they do with them for the other six months of the year? I guess they could be employed issuing NOTAM to correct the errors as they arise.

Then because of this production spike, the information would have to be finalised and worked on for six months ahead of time, so in reality at the end of a year's chart duty, the information wouldn't just be a year old, it would be perhaps 18 months old to 2 year's old. I can see everyone coping and conforming with that.

I like the US system where chart production is staggered and each chart updated every 56 days (depending on the chart) and there is a shop at every airport and a multitude of FBO's. The production is levelled instead of spiked. Before I go flying I look at my chart, check the date, and if it's out, buy a new one.

I think the problem lies not with the chart production, but in the chart availability. Just my thoughts. Perhaps AOPA could come to some sort of arrangement similar to US AOPA where they distribute charts and pocket a little profit in the process. Does AsA take back the charts that aren't sold by pilot shops or do the pilot shops foot the bill if demand isn't up to expectations? This would have an impact on availability.

[Binoculars]

Lodown,

Your post addresses various suggestions made by another poster. It suggests areas where those suggestions may lead to the exact opposite of what the original poster wants. It suggests alternatives which may be more efficient, producing the best possible result with the resources available for the best price. It contains no abuse, no simplistic solutions, and no overwhelming contempt or hatred for anything emanating from the public sector.

In short, it doesn't belong here. I suggest you delete it before anybody feels uncomfortable. Dick Smith might be watching.

[Lodown]

Oooops! You're right Binoculars. What was I thinking? Gawd, how niaive of me.

[ulm]

OK, hows this

Lodown

Let me give you a PPL perspective. Most of my WACS are as old as my aerplanes. I got a few VTCs, but I've got by without em too. VNCs, whats that. ERCs, too many pretty coloured lines.

RACQ charts, now we're talkin.

And my 'goto' button is nearly worn out. (I hope they haven't updated any airspace since I bought the GPS in 1997).

Now, jokes aside, I have (more times than I care to admit) blasted off while transmitting the wrong CTAF (or MBZ) frq.

I don't do it on purpose, it is just I have a real job that makes money and keeping tack of my maps, charts DAPS etc is just too frikken hard in the spare time I have left!!! So, every now and then I decide to get warmer, find my charts are out of date, realise the ones I need aren't sold at the IGA supermarket and that AsA want 10 days to send em to me. So bugga it, off I go. (Life is too short to wait for AsA).

Now you want to update them every 60 days, and stagger it!!!! Geez, be prepared for a lot of no-comms bugsmashas!!!!

Now, having spoilt your day by predicing a collision at every turn, may I make a suggestion. Make em free again!!! Aint that a safety case???? A guy from CASA once suggested that to me and didn't even say 'comrade' afterwards (see, CASA aint all @rses)

If they won't make em free, what about a licence fee. $100 a year and you gets maps charts, flightplans in the mail just like we used to in the good old days. (more for IFR etc cos you need more maps).

Whaddya reckon???

[Binoculars]

For what it's worth, Ulm, I for one agree totally with the second part of your post. Free maps, notams, general aeronautical information used to be part of the deal, and a bloody good deal it was too.

That super-inefficient government mechanism, the Department of Civil Aviation had this nonsensical idea that some things like air safety should come under the general heading of things a civilised society should be prepared to pay for, and you were all socialistically subsidised for the things you needed to know to make flying safer for the people who might run into you in their blissful ignorance.

Then along came a self-made businessman and boy scout who decided that nothing, NOTHING, should get in the way of untrammelled private enterprise. Incredibly enough, this guy made so much noise in the asylum that the governors made him the boss, and it's been all downhill from there.

They completely removed an unnecessary 1000 or so staff operating an organisation called Flight Service. This was to be good for GA because the money saved would be translated into cheaper airfares, and not only would everybody fly everywhere, thereby creating jobs in the airline industry and GA as well because everybody would want to learn to fly so training organisations would flourish, but bugga me if the road toll wouldn't decrease as well because people wouldn't drive when they could fly for virtually nothing! Talk about a win-win situation!

But hang on, this lean mean competitive machine had to be funded now, so somebody suggested User Pays and brought in an Avgas levy. Loud was the wailing and gnashing of teeth from these champions of private enterprise struggling to make a buck. Whaddaya mean we have to pay for our maps and amendments? Landing charges? ATC charges? Stuff that, we don't need them, we're struggling businessmen, we can sort ourselves out from the passenger carrying jets, thanks.

Meanwhile, Joe the GA pilot with his inbuilt mistrust of any authority, started finding ways to avoid charges. Psst psst, mate, if you call it a Maintenance flight there's no charge! Mate, if you say nothing you can't be charged anything cos they don't know you're there. And whatever you do, don't switch your transponder on. Maaate, why would you fly IFR? Just change to VFR and climb to A095 through the 800ft cloud base and it doesn't cost you a cent. Hahahaha, those tea-drinking public servants won't get any money from me. And if you think I'm going to pay them every bloody six months to update my maps you've got another bloody think coming.

Suddenly, despite the best efforts of AOPA to portray all private aircraft owners as paragons of rectitude who spent most of their spare time poring over the latest maps and amendments, the incidences of penetrations of controlled airspace quadrupled because there was nobody on the ground to tell Joe where to change frequency.

I could go on, but it's getting late. I just found the irony delicious when somebody to whom all towers are a bloody nuisance preventing a man from making an honest living suddenly pines for the good old days when Sir Donald ruled the roost.

Do you honestly think GA is better off now than it was then?

Baah. All hail the USA, because the fricken boy scout tells us it works there. Why do we have to put up with an elected government and the Minister appointed thereby being outrageously swayed by a private pilot, a self-appointed legend, who misses being the King Dick?

[ulm]

Maps and charts we needs, towers for 20 movements a day we don't need. Use the latter to pay for the former.

FSOs, I used to like them, but I can do without.

We certainly do need simplified airspace, particularly below 10,000'. I suppose with simplified airspace will come simpler maps, I suppose

Getting away from user pays, well after 3 terms of being the left of the Liberal party the ALP is going to have to change back to a LABOUR Party if it ever wants to win again.

I am no supporter of user pays. (I hate pay for other users, which is what I have now). You guys should lobby the lefties, you'd have my full support for any system you wanted then, just as long as I didn't have to pay for it, or pay for gadgets to make it work.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Ulm, what are we going to do with you? You're starting to sound nearly as polite, sensible and reasonable as lowdown. This just will not do.

Maps and charts we needs, towers for 20 movements a day we don't need. Use the latter to pay for the former.

Absolutely. Spend the money on the area of greatest need. A violation of CTA by a bugsmasher near Sydney because of out of date charts is infinitely more dangerous than removing a tower from somewhere with only a few movements a day.

I propose that CASA initiate a 'rating' system (similar to the current internationally accepted RFF categories). Under this system, the type and frequency of operations into an aerodrome would dictate the level of ATS required. Nobody would like to see multiple B747 operations into an untowered aerodrome, nor do we want to waste money on providing services where they are not needed. A simple rating system would define what is required and operations could not commence until those services are in place.

Aerodrome operators who want to attract more business (e.g. RPT ops) would the way up the cost vs benefit of providing the infrastructure and make a decison. They could then put out the provision of towers to tender.

FSOs, I used to like them, but I can do without.

Not a lot of choice there. There may be a market for US style 'service providers', but that would depend on what people are willing to voluntarily pay for.

We certainly do need simplified airspace, particularly below 10,000'. I suppose with simplified airspace will come simpler maps, I suppose

You want simple? How's this for simple, safe, economical and easy to implement:

• Apart from CTA steps into controlled aerodromes, make all airspace class G up to 8,500ft, Class E up to FL160 and either C or A above. This will allow almost everyone to operate in a class of airspace of their choosing, with little or no penalty in terms of preferred level.
• Allow anyone to fly either IFR or VFR as they like.
• Allow IFR to 'suspend' and 'resume' IFR whenever they like and receive the appropriate services to their category at the time.
• Allow companies to determine what they will allow their pilots to do. If REX want to always operate IFR, so be it. If Southern want to allow flexibility to operate VFR at pilot discretion, then so be it. (I am not proposing B737s etc. operating VFR)
• Scrap confusing and useless schemes like "IFR Pick-up, VFR on top, VFR climb and descent. The rules associated with each one are muddled and provide no benefit over simple VFR operations.

I am no supporter of user pays. (I hate pay for other users, which is what I have now). You guys should lobby the lefties, you'd have my full support for any system you wanted then, just as long as I didn't have to pay for it, or pay for gadgets to make it work

You will pay for it, through taxes etc. That is the way it should be. The airways system is a national asset. It impacts on national security (you fly more track miles when there is a restricted area active), the economy(more costs in aviation mean more costs to the economy generally) and public safety (accidents and mid-air collisions are a public safety issue, affecting more than just pilots).

With few exceptions, we do not pay to drive on our roads directly. (I see driving my own car as analogous to VFR flight)

We do pay, however, to travel by bus. (I see this as analogous to buying a ticket on an RPT flight)

The costs of maintaining the national road system (including not just the roads but the traffic lights, signs, level crossing booms etc.) are a government reposnibility and it is acknowledged that the benefts of the road system are shared by all Australians, not just those who drive.