|
NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?
Don't think this one fits in with the other NAS threads,
Just received the AIC 10/03 amongst the bundle of others. Just read through the chart simplification and has got me wondering...:confused: Why why why????:* :*
Ok first point, WHY would we want to remove FIA boundaries and ATS frequency information on VTC and VNC? What additional SAFETY purpose could it hold? Ditto with removing point two. Several occasions I've had to divert unexpectedly and having this info on particularly the ERC chart has assisted in avoiding the area. Holding pattern on VNC chart???? Ok, perhaps I'm missing something with the word specific holding patterns. However by its name the VNC is a visual chart. Why do we need to add a holding pattern to a visual chart? Granted IFR pilots should carry necessary visual charts but why would I ever consult a visual chart when IFR when it comes to holding patterns? :eek: Fourth point, hoooorah! We're getting something of use added to the charts! Anybody care to add any thoughts? GA Driver:ok: |
I'm off to corner the landing light market in case Operation Lights On is taken seriously. Progress hey!
|
I think the removal of the FIA and ATS frequencies from the Visual Charts would be so that finding the appropriate frequency to make a tracking call for a VFR aircraft isn't so easy. This will then lead to less VFR calls being made (which is what NAS wants from what I have read) as no one will be bothered looking for it.
I think they should also take it one step further and add appropriate Flight Watch frequencies on the appropriate visual charts (unless i've read point 4 wrong) so that VFR flights can have this information readily at hand as this is the frequency we are being encouraged to use more. As for the holding points the only reason I can think of is so that VFR flights know where there may be a higher number of possible IFR flights that may conflict with their flight and that VFR flights should stay away from these areas. |
They say "removal ... associated ATC information", yet the charts will still display the freq! All the green lines have gone, yet you can still get a freq from the nearest "Dick's biscuit" (you'll understand when you see them.) RIS, approach & FW freq will be depicted the same (they are the same:8 ) The detailed information when one sector is stacked on another in G or E airspace is gone. The sectors are still stacked, but you have only been given one of the frequencies...
The aim is, as somebody else noted, to sabotage VFR broadcasting, and perhaps also to discourage IFR broadcasting, to make everybody look out their windows in the hope this will replace the concept.:confused: It clearly states in AIP that it is the responsibility of VFR traffic in E to avoid areas of IFR activity. Including the holding points is intended to allow you to do so. "Specific" holding points merely indicates that an IFR could actually be held ANYWHERE. Removal of the remote areas. Well, they are still in ERSA. It really says something about NAS. There is no compelling reason to remove them, and no justification offered to remove them. It is claimed that goobers don't display them on their charts, so we CAN'T. |
Well it is obvious why we need simplified NAS charts by the Photo Below.
It looks like these guys have drifted into uncontrolled airspace doing a low level run in a 747 below 5000’ or maybe they are trying to land at Bankstown while they get their photo taken by the hostess.
Great Photo; a lesson on not what to do! :E http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/aopa.htm/AOPA.jpg |
Drover - that is a Herc flight deck(even if you don't know what either flight deck looks like, the olive green flight jacket and gloves should tell you that they are not flying a 747) - exactly the type of AC you have to look out for low level. High speed mil AC at low level are a hazard I have come across occasionally
ps -from the position of the needles on the dials, this photo was taken when the engines were shutdown so I don't think you will see Raafies doing much of this airborne. Great Photo; a lesson in how little some people actually know! |
The goobers don't have them so we can't...
Yet some state produced charts, such as Virginia for example, have the boundaries and advertise this as an advantage and one of the reasons you should come fly in Virginia. Wonder what the advantages would be? Why don't we recognise them here? Bottle of Rum |
On the subject of designated remote areas, weren't they depicted in the past because aircraft weren't supposed to fly in the areas unless they had those extremely reliable HF radios or some other such thing? What's the point of them these days with improved VHF coverage, GPS positioning, EPIRB's, etc? As far as I am concerned, those depictions of designated remote areas can go follow HF radios into oblivion. Waste of space on the charts.
Out of order I know, but what purpose do the FIA boundary depictions serve anyway? Aren't they just a carry-over from the days of full reporting? If there is no requirement for full reporting, then why have the boundaries marked? Pilots can call on what they determine to be the most suitable frequency. If that doesn't work, they can try another. Even under the pre-NAS arrangement, when do pilots most need to contact other pilots? I would suggest in the CTAF. BIK's Big Sky Theory works perfectly well away from the choke points. I can understand the concern, but some of these points are just making mountains out of molehills. As Triadic suggested, the NAS education really needs to step up to the plate. |
Surely the easiest way for a VFR pilot to know which is the best frequency to call for help, is to have the relevant frequency marked on the chart.
|
On Track, as karrank mentioned above, the frequencies will still be marked. They just won't be plastered all over the charts with frequency boundaries. Try it and see. I think you will find the arrangements sufficient. If they aren't suitable, then raise the subject at the next available RAPAC and get a vote on putting some additional script back on. I think you will find it far easier getting additions to the charts than getting things removed.
|
lets see a show of hands, how many of you can't read the current charts.....I can't see the problem all the info can be seen clearly
If it's not broke DON'T fix it |
But it IS broke.
The information has absolutely NO use now and will have even less after NAS. Would you like to explain your reasoning for the retention of designated remote areas and FIA boundaries and how they will work under NAS? |
Well Lodown, I'll wait till I see the new charts.
However I don't see anything wrong with current layout. |
I'm told that these frequency information "biscuits" will not be on the VFR charts i.e. VTC & VNC. The only freq. info. on those will be the APP/Radar freq. within 30nm. The biscuits are purely for the IFR charts.
If you are VFR outside 30nm and want a RIS, or clearance to climb into CTA, or you are in a pickle, the only way to find out what frequency to call on would be to try Flightwatch. |
Lodown
What's the point of them these days with improved VHF coverage, GPS positioning, EPIRB's, etc? As far as I am concerned, those depictions of designated remote areas can go follow HF radios into oblivion. Waste of space on the charts Pilots can call on what they determine to be the most suitable frequency. If that doesn't work, they can try another. ...the NAS education really needs to step up to the plate My whole point to the original post, is I dont see that benefit of removing these things. These are items have never caused any hassle before so whats the big problem now? I'll be interested to see if in 2-3 years some bright spark decides that 'itd be a great idea if we had the frequencies on the chart, imagine the time and effort it would save!' :rolleyes: Cheers GA Driver:ok:: |
I think if we looked into it a bit, Designated Remote Areas were probably set up based on expectations that a search in the area for a missing aircraft would be difficult to undertake because of the equipment and technology available at the time. Pilots of the era had to carry certain survival equipment and utilise contact procedures based on the expectation that communication would be lost and any search for a missing aircraft and its occupants could be a protracted affair. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am, but I am also assuming designated remote areas were established sometime in the first half of the last century when satellites were unknown, search teams relied solely on visual cues and the Mark I eyeball, airlines were doing well to have a couple of flights a day on the east coast, other aviation traffic over the areas was almost non-existent and the few helicopters in the country, if any, were devoted to use by the military.
Do those circumstances and reasons for establishing designated remote areas and depicting them on charts still exist? Regarding FIA boundaries. I think they were established to indicate a changeover point from one frequency to the next for full reporting procedures. If all aircraft were on, or required to be on, the same frequency, then the boundaries would still be useful. But pilots are not on the one frequency anymore. So, other than providing a very, very rough guide for approximate radio coverage, what use are they now? And after NAS comes in, the frequency variations will be even more pronounced with some aircraft on VFR chat freqs, others on Class E, others on CTAF, each with different radio requirements. The frequency each aircraft will be on will be dependent on their altitude, position, configuration, intentions, etc. So what information would you expect to receive from still having the boundaries marked, and how dependable could you expect that information to be? Just my thoughts, but after NAS they will be pointless. There'll be no boundary for a frequency to indicate and VHF radio range will do as it has always done and improve with altitude. I think while much of this might not seem logical at this stage, it will become apparent and self-explanatory as we become accustomed to working in the NAS environment...I hope. |
Regarding FIA boundaries. I think they were established to indicate a changeover point from one frequency to the next for full reporting procedures. If all aircraft were on, or required to be on, the same frequency, then the boundaries would still be useful. But pilots are not on the one frequency anymore. So, other than providing a very, very rough guide for approximate radio coverage, what use are they now? And after NAS comes in, the frequency variations will be even more pronounced with some aircraft on VFR chat freqs, others on Class E, others on CTAF, each with different radio requirements. The frequency each aircraft will be on will be dependent on their altitude, position, configuration, intentions, etc. So what information would you expect to receive from still having the boundaries marked, and how dependable could you expect that information to be? Just my thoughts, but after NAS they will be pointless. There'll be no boundary for a frequency to indicate and VHF radio range will do as it has always done and improve with altitude. Without lines, it will be hit and miss; no value in the change. ERC-L is loosing the lines; isn't that an IFR (who still need the right frequencies) map? Bottle of Rum |
Apologies on drawing this out, but another consideration is that placing frequency information and boundaries on the charts might do no more than encourage pilots to be on the wrong frequency when they should perhaps be on the CTAF or MBZ frequency. Perhaps there is a safety issue if boundary depictions are retained. Frankly, I would prefer to fly with less clutter on the charts. A little pre-planning and having the frequencies written on a notepad suits me.
|
Lowdown, your assumptions regarding how Designated Remote Areas came about are a bit off the mark. They were in fact very remote, largely unihabited and inhospitable parts of this country. Survival was known to be 'difficult' in these areas. Not only the obvious bits of SA, NT, QLD and WA were on the list but the Eastern Victorian Great Divide and just about half of Tassy.
Comming down in any of these areas was something one considered and planned for (but hoped like hell the planning was unneccessary). Mind you if you had either an ELT or HF then you had a bit freer hand in your track planning, although there was (and I'm sure still is) some most uninviting real estate around Oz. This was of course all before GPS became all the rage and real men navigated using a pencil, a compass, a watch and a map. Designated Remote Areas are exactly that, remote areas and they deserve your respect. Disco Stu |
I don't disagree with you. However, when the DRA's were established, in many cases once the crash scene was found, rescuers would have to retrieve the occupants of downed aircraft on foot/horse/camel necessitating a lengthy wait for rescue. Things have changed and in my opinion, the situation of a downed aircraft within a DRA is not necessarily all that different from a downed aircraft in other parts of the country. I just don't think the DRA is as applicable nowadays as it used to be. At the same time, I don't mind much if they remain on the charts. My preference, since the subject came up, is that they no longer serve the purpose for which they were established and as such can be removed from the regs and charts.
(In my younger days had I have come down in a designated remote area and survived the landing, I would have poisoned myself trying to drink the water that we carried in the plane.) |
Just saw the charts. Oh dear...I take it all back.
R.I.P NAS. |
Sadly very very true Lowdown!
I must admit however that I like the choice of colours one now has in VTCs. For those who like the traditional look we have the blue ocean, red R & D areas, brown Class E, yellow built up areas, white base background and barely readable frequencies. For those who are more adventurous you can choose the option of the purple ocean, purple R & D areas, Purple/brown Class E, baby sh!t orange built up areas, grey background and unreadable frequencies (just to name a few). I now see where the savings in NAS are. Quality Control! What a disgrace!!! |
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...0&pagenumber=6
LeadSled I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe posted 27th October 2003 17:49 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All, Have a good look at Australian FLYING magazine for November/December. There is a whole supplement on the NAS 2b procedures and recommendations for NOV 27 and on, and it all looks pretty simple and straightforward to me. As simple as flying in US. There has been a lot of angst about timetables for getting Training and Educational packages out, but here is the guts of it, in the magazines. Flying folks are starting to receive the chart package in the mail now, I'm told there is lots more on the way, but the info. in FLYING Nov/Dec issue really illustrates that there is no great hurdle to jump, to cope with life in the new world order. I guess that we will all learn to live with the demise of the "fly by mouth" system of aviating, again !! ( in joke only inderstood by geriatric Qf types) Tootle pip!! |
Check out this link and have a read http://www.users.tpg.com.au/awetzel/...%20NAS0001.jpg
|
I'M HAPPY WITH THE NEW CHARTS
I have no complaint with the new charts.
The ERC has the detail I need for monitoring any area frequencies. AirServices intends to add useful tips like the Kilmore AWIS on the next chart VTC release so you know there is an AWIS at the critical location and can use it to ensure you can get thru. They are also considering putting a biscuit box with the correct freq near Wilsons Prom and Cape Otway for those over water crossing sked arrangements noted in the ERSA. They will also be cross referencing the AERIS and AWIS sections of the ERSA to assist VFR pilots to get their enroute met themselves. Sorry to non-Victorians who don't know the area but the above message is that the charts may actually be more helpful downstream. We spent the weekend in N/E Victoria - lovely wine - and never called on the area freq coming or going. No reason to. Had a listen on the area freq but otherwise checked Benalla to make sure the gliders and us were separated, Yarrawonga CTAF as we had 7 aircraft over the Lake and wanted to keep clear of the 2 operating at Yarrawonga, and also Yarra Valley CTAF that was quite active before I dropped in to Lilydale. Same messag as NASIG - the activity was concentrated around the CTAFs. Then the CTAF again at my home base so I didn't have one of the parachutists use the Airvan as a set of airbrakes. As far as remote areas is concerned, I am happy to take personal responsibility for what survival gear I carry on ANY flight. I don't need some bureaucrat to tell me that a line on the map takes me from safe to unsafe or vice versa. Much of Victoria is more dangerous for a forced landing than much of the Outback and i treat it accordingly with or without a DRA listing. I have put a number of suggestions to NASIG and AirServices and had excellent feedback and results. Hopefully they are monitoring these forums but if anyone has a constructive suggestion I suggest they email them - not just the problem but the suggested fix! Roll on the NAS - it is another step to AOPA's "Freedom to Fly - Responsibly". Cheers Brian H |
brianh
You continue to prove we don't need NAS. The weekend flight you spoke of all happened now and without the need for the NAS reforms.
CG |
brianh
I am happy to take personal responsibility for what survival gear I carry on ANY flight. I don't need some bureaucrat to tell me that a line on the map takes me from safe to unsafe or vice versa I have put a number of suggestions to NASIG and AirServices and had excellent feedback and results I must say that I'm not against change, I'm all for making things simpler for the average GA bugsmasher. I just can't understand the need to remove some of those things I mentioned in the original post, it gets back to what I said, I don't see the benefit of removing these things. I read somewhere that it reduces clutter, but I don't think the charts were cluttered to begin with! Well it's all too late really anyway, it seems to be chugging along at full steam ahead. I'll just watch with interest to see what happens! |
WE CLING TO STABILITY
Guys
Having worked at change in the corporate world, I understand that we cling to "no change" as a comfort to our perceptions. That is why unions are so successful in campaigns by pushing for the status quo. And, before any snipes, I have also held a position in the union movement. Yes, I did the flight in the present. And yes, remember there was resistance to removing the guy who used to walk in front of the horseless carriage with the red flag - come to think of it, the way Victoria is now gestapoe'd over driving, it may well return - and boy wouldn't that both cut the road toll and create a climate where people wanted to fly - let's do it! Ignoring the holes, what about the cheese. The NAS brings a higher level of safety to CTAF operations. Is anyone really going to argue in support of the high % of Oz that is Military/Restricted airspace - say one military aircraft per 10000 square kilometres? I will also be quite happy to buzz over melbourne at 3000' - although I hope I am still flying when that comes about. OK, lines on the map may remind people of DRA. But my point is that what CASA designates as DRA may be inappropriate in reality. If you come down in the sandhills at Moonlight Tank in Victoria (not in a DRA) you may perish just as dead as in a DRA. I remember being at a Safety Seminar when the trogs belittled the Oz move to ICAO phraseology and readbacks. Who knows, might have saved a few lives since? The one issue of concern I have with the NAS is whether it will once again be watered down to suit a few vocal vested interests, so that we get some but not all of the benefits. I would prefer it be rolled in as is. I have noticed a few posts critical of VFR pilots in this NAS debate (not referring to the last 2 posters). Oh venerable IFR and RPT gentlemen, please don't throw rocks at rubber walls - I might start bouncing back with a few cowboy things I have seen and heard. Those of us who fly VFR and attempt to always act by the letter of the law are not motivated to your cause by such ill intentioned divisive comment. PS The weekend trip was great and the Airvan is great to fly but if anyone is going bush in one, take some padding for the seats and don't try and fit anyone over 5'6'' in the seats immediately behind the pilot/co-pilot or numb bums and cramp will rule the day! PPS If NAS have not responded to that email - and I know they have been busy with the current rollout - send them a reminder and I am sure Brendan will get back to you with the answers. Cheers Brian H |
High percent of Australia being Military/Restricted Airspace????
I hope you're joking. If you read your NOTAM's the majority of this airspace is deactivated for all but a few weeks each year and makes up a very small percentage of Australian Territory.
As long as the boys in their CTAFS are ok, and can wander wherever they like, then thats all that matters Brian, isn't it. Safety of the travelling public isn't nearly as important as your weekend jollys. The reason the Unions are against this change is because it is less safe than the current preocedures. Full stop. Nothing to do with being resistant to change. Controllers especially have been involved in constant change for the last 8 years, New ATC system, No flight service, New name, RVSM implementation, DTI implementation, Centre Consolidation, Countless management restructures, Overstaffing resulting in redundancys, closely followed by Shortstaffing resulting in wild recruiting. One thing that the Controllers union is not afraid of is change, what they are afraid of is there members will have to sit idly by and watch one of their RPT aircraft disappear from their screen cos it hit the non-squawking, not on control frequency, non-broadcasting VFR sitting just below the cloud. But as I said see and avoid is ok for you so it should be ok for everyone else, even the guys descending 4,000 ft a minute through cloud. |
And where are the VHF outlets?
The charts certainly do not seem to enhance safety, I agree!
I was chatting to my ATSB mate about it at the beginning of the week and pointed aout a few things to him. No boundaries mean you don't know what frequency to use where - but, says Air Services, we name the VHF outlet. Are any of them anything you have ever heard of? My ATSB friend said "surely they are under the frequency blobby?" - We quickly resolved tha this was not the answer as Kalamunda was not under it's 'blobby'. That we did know! Suffice it to say I left him saying " I'm going downstairs to sort this out, this is ridiculous!". I just wish I had time to ask where downstairs was before he purpousefully dashed off. We still may make a difference. THIS airspace was stopped once when Trick Dicky was in power. Now he is again and the only way left to do something about it is go to www.australis.biz/nascomment and have your say. I am pretty sure I CAN get something done! ;-) See you there! |
just got my free ERCL and note with interest that the DME and lower limits on the CTR are now just a yellow smudge (class E??).
I thought these were a handy thing to have on a chart. now I have to get another map to make sure I dont bust CTR. dunno about that being more efficiant. used to be able to march into YPJT and use the DME and lower limits to arrange A/W clearances or stay out of trouble, now I have to get another map to look at (VTC's wern't required to get in if you were local and you could get by with a ERC) |
PS...
PS: You should have heard what my sister at TEN News said! And what she's going to say when the VCA and Breakdown Of Separation stats I researched for her hit her desk on Monday.
How many disasters are averted by the present system annually - over 150. Now, the system will have less capacity to avert these disasters under NAS. My sister thinks the public should know this! Get to www.australis.biz/nascomment and add your voice too! (She's logging the posts there too!) ;-) |
NAME CHANGE TO AIRNOLOGICAUSTRALIA
AirNoServicesAustralia
I really admire the mix of emotion and disconnected facts but in terms of the four paras of your reply, as 1 - 4 below:- 1. And are East Sale and Amberly in this class? If your argument is correct, let's remove them from the charts and only create by NOTAM as needed. And, even with all that airspace, we still need to issue AIPs to create more MIL airspace for exercises! 2. Another unwarranted dip at VFR. Since MBZ become big CTAF - which they are effectively already - and at MBZ/CTAF is the highest probability of a mid-air, so the procedures are being enhanced, I'd say the safety factor improves. The other area where VFR and RPT mix in proximity is the CTR and that remains protected. Your second sentence is totally unwarranted, purely emotive, and I'm still waiting for something concrete to substantiate this rash assertion. 3. Change is a part of life. Learn to live with it and adapt - the dino's didn't and are perished. ATC does an excellent job but the union strength is in subscriptions which equals membership and the average union will resist any change that decreases membership. I'm not agreeing that ATC should be the decision maker on what constitutes "safety". 4. Same story. You draw a hypothetical case - and I suspect it already exists anyway with all the ultralight aircraft flying around. Is such an event a regular occurrence in the USA? Perhaps the argument would have more substance if someone would like to offer some convincing statistics from the USA experience where their traffic volume is much higher - some details of VFR/RPT mid-airs for the past 5 years say, including where they occurred (CTAF / CTR / Class G). Then we can move from rhetoric to a discussion based on facts. Of course, the media will rarely allow facts to spoil a good story (as with the earlier release that VFR and RPT were going to fly in the same airspace below 3300 metres - gee, golly whizz, that must have scared the travelling public to hear it will happen - oh, it's been that way for yonks hasn't it but best we don't allow that to ruin the story). Continuing the subject of the media, and for anyone who sees or hears any media on the NAS, a warning to viewers from me who watches about ten minutes a month as I prefer to keep my brain in good shape. Some years ago a program - let's call it "An hour of lies" rather than name it - filmed a Q and A interview with one of our key people. They then went back to the studio and re-filmed the interviewer - let's call that person "non-event" rather than name them - asking slightly different questions. Then they spliced in the new questions with the answers our guy had given to the original questions. I have done media training and - like some of the disconnected logic in some of the postings on this forum - it is amazing how the media can twist facts by use of language - eg "Brian H refused to discuss the allegation that he flew under the Sydney Harbour Bridge". Obvious public verdict - he did it! And people really watch and believe this b#@$hit????? If we intend to continue a logical debate, can someone please trot out some USA statistics on the NAS. Otherwise, the emotion level will continue to rise and the debate will continue in useless circles. Cheers BRian H |
CloudStreet
THIS airspace was stopped once when Trick Dicky was in power. Now he is again and the only way left to do something about it is go to www.australis.biz/nascomment and have your say. I am pretty sure I CAN get something done! ;-) How are your website traffic stats looking with this vigorous self promotion? |
Meglomania
If you have ever taken note of the behaviour of afore mentioned Trick Dicky or read any of his biographies you would know him as a man who MUST take and be in charge...
I would love to bebate if he is in charge as they already have in Parliament. I quote from Hansard: Before we knew it, Dick Smith visited the Liberal Party court and soon announced that he would not run in Gwydir. We do not know what happened in those discussions but, soon after the election, the minister put him in charge of airspace design and reform. The design and development of our airspace has been outsourced to Dick Smith. The result is that not one person on the Airspace Reform Group has air traffic control or airline pilot qualifications. The proposed NAS system does not have widespread industry support and it will put the Australian travelling public at risk. It is one thing to lose ownership of Telstra, and it is another thing to spend millions of dollars to prop up a friend's industry; but to risk the aviation and the travelling public's safety to deliver a political outcome-in essence, to get Mr Dick Smith not to run or support a candidate in Gwydir at the 2001 election-is unforgivable. More at the web-site & yes, the stats are GREAT thanks! |
YET ANOTHER WILD ASSERTION
"The proposed NAS system ..... will put the travelling public at risk".
Cloudy, Where's the data supporting this gut wrenching statement? I'm reading all the chicken littles about the sky falling but it still looks blue (unusual for Victoria) to me. All Getting back to my comments yesterday, and remembering that I didn't start the rock throwing at other parties, I should have mentioned that I do read the ATSB reports quite regularly. Very instructive and potentially personally lifesaving. One thing I haven't noted in them is many VFR NAS type conflicts. By that I mean the sort of current scenario that will lead to a higher potential risk when the NAS changes come in. And, despite ANSA's derogatory comments about we weekend bugsmashers (and I fly mainly during the week anyway and an 8 seater isn't quite in the AUF category) I do note in those reports that even under the current rules we do have a reasonable number of "breakdowns of separation standards" or, to we realists, "near misses" between the real rulers of the skies under ANSA's aims (big jets) in CTR under ATC control. So, neither the current system nor ATC is perfect is it? Ah well, if someone can trot out those USA statistics I asked for, perhaps we can consider the options unemotionally and logically. Cheers Brian H |
Well said Brianh.
The closest 'near hits' I have had were both in C under control. A little Cessna 152 (on approach) was joining the circuit but had got too close. Tower (I was on Tower) hadn't seen him due sun. I spotted him and turned left (which I suppose is the worng way, but instinct kicked in and we were converging for a hit on my right) with about 100m to spare, (s)he never saw me (I asked later). Tower "FXR why did you turn?" Me "I don't like loud noises" No blame really, I suppose approach weren't watching my blip??? With the new TCAS thingy this probably won't happen again. The other was a similar incident many years ago, this time me in a 152 and a bl@@dy huge C130 popped around Cape Palleranda surprising both me and the tower. They thought he was further out ... why ... dunoo .. too low for the Palleranda RADAR perhaps???? AK |
LONG TIME NO HEAR
Akkers
Long time no hear, thanks for the two factual examples. In terms of someone's earlier comment re IFR dropping out of cloud onto VFR immediately below, your examples have jogged my memory that most factual IFR out of cloud problems involve commercial pressure and descent below LSALT - far higher risk of being promoted to angel status than the fictitious example quoted earlier. Most of my near misses have been at Moorabbin GAAP with the two runways and ATC in the tower watching. Hey, I think the NAS suggests the nearer the landing/takeoff the higher the risk. More factual examples. One becomes a tad complacent when Big Brother is guarding - all comes back to see and be seen in my mind. Hope the PhD is progressing well. Cheers Brian H |
Brianh and AOPA members.
I think NAS also makes circuit entry safer, providing the RPTers don't use it to scatter traffic!!
I have asked some specific map questions on the AOPA forum www.aopa.com.au and will take member views into account when the Board discusses this later this month. AK |
TEN News
Well, thank you for your comments. They form the kernel of tonights TEN late news story by Sharon Marshall.
Since TEN's uptake of the story many more media outlets have contacted us. After TEN airs - have your say too at www.australis.biz/nascomment Positive or negative - your comments ARE being heard at Australis.Biz! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.