I think your interpretation is correct. The Reg refers to "planning, conduct and control" of a flight, not just planning.

It is a stupid rule, to the extent that it prohibits the taking into consideration of unapproved sources of weather information. It is stupid if for no other reason than that those other sources of information are frequently taken into consideration. Or maybe the pilots that do so are dangerous criminals. :rolleyes:

You plan according to the forecast. You conduct the flight according to the VFR and remain in VMC according to your own observations. At no time have you used the unofficial "observation" other than as an indication that it may be suitable.

C'mon, IFR aircraft do this all the time. The forecast says the forecast is below the minima but the local agent says the base is above a particular feature which indicates you'll get in off an instrument approach. You plan a suitable alternate or holding fuel according to the forecast. You arrive, shoot an approach and land or not depending on the conditions you encounter at the time.

What if the local agent says "it's way too low" and you decide not to go? You've based an operational decision on an unofficial source, but haven't planned, conducted or controlled a flight using that information.

Not completely accurate. And what if the scenario is the other way around?

I frequently make decisions on the commencement and continuation of a flight taking into consideration information about weather obtained from unapproved sources. That's because weather information obtained from approved sources is often demonstrably wrong, and I consider it to be my duty to make decisions on the basis of as much information from as many sources as are available.

CAR 120 appears to prohibit me from doing so.

If someone wants to ping me on the basis of a decision I made to continue a flight because I called a mate who told me that the tower on Mount Dangerous was visible from his position, and that turned out to be true, and the flight was conducted in accordance with the VFR or IFR as applicable, the arseclown that wants to ping me can do his worst as far as I'm concerned.

Cams are useful
 

The use of any additional information is an absolute bonus - especially if it is live and quickly accessible in real time. for example a camera looking across YBUD yesterday would have been very useful as the cloud base was lower and dynamic.

These kind of high res cameras are quite inexpensive to set up and stream and they are reliable. A small Sydney firm captivaction.com] has dozens of them around country. In Melbourne there's one atop the Westgate Bridge operated by the port authority that used to be public - it was especially useful for the annual Melbourne fog festival or those times when sitting at YMMB you can't get any reliable info on the conditions.

These cameras stream HD in a compressed algorithm that means even with the weakest 3G/4G signal you can get crisp detail pics - what's more you can also pan tilt and zoom the camera in real time. I'm not selling them but the idea of cameras in key locations makes sense.

Could not care less about egos, I'm interested only in innovation that adds safety.

AT

The FAA has no equivalent prescriptive regulation. It was written to support the Unions.

It was going to be corrected 15 years ago.

Don't hold your breadth. What changes have been made that lower costs to G A over the first year of Mr Skidmores reign?

Dick, out of interest have you contacted the BoM to see what they're take on this is?

Surely a large organisation like themselves could see numerous benefits in these cameras and use their position to get CASA to fund it under some "Safety Scheme". It seems like this would result in pats all around from the BoM providing increased services, CASA getting to put their name to it and proudly attach their name to it and the Aviation Community amongst others gaining a new and undoubtedly valuable piece of infrastructure to use. There are many examples of these systems currently in use including the FAA and Alaska systems already mentioned so it would hardly require any real innovation, just the selection of a suitable system and someone to look after them at the very least put them where they already have Automated Weather Stations as an upgrade.

As everyone has mentioned these types of cameras can provide the type of services that FS and other ground based agents (And friends) used to and in some places still do provide and I have no doubt the majority of Pilots can tell you of at least 1 time if not many more when observations provided to them from someone elses Mk1 Eyeball has saved them a lot of time and hassle.

You know, there is a real gap in weather coverage out to the west of Melbourne... If you head from EN to Colac and out that direction, you head into a blindspot for the BoM.

I've been on trips before that are CAVOK at either end, but had moments of wondering if I should turn around in the middle lest I find CumuloGranite.

On discussion with the BoM guys after that, I find there's no real reporting stations between (from memory) Avalon and Warrnambool.

CCTV at Airports, Seems like a no brainer!
 

Late to party, sorry.

As to Dick's original question and a look at FAA site the case for this cost effective enhancement to safety would seem to be straight forward. The technology today makes it low cost and it wouldn't be difficult to assess locations where a weather observation would be a useful aid.

Two thoughts to add to the debate.

1. CAR 120. The negative expression of this requirement is astounding. But as far as this topic is concerned CCTV doesn't provide a weather report but allows the pilot to make an observation of the weather. (I'm not a lawyer so I might be shot down here.)

2. More importantly as a private pilot I have my own personal minimas. I can read a forecast for Kilmore gap and forecast indicates its just VFR what do I do? Often I'll cancel the trip or, sometimes, go and have a look to see if I'm comfortable flying through. Much cheaper to look on the web.

CRC:

Maybe there wouldn't have been todays fatal off Barwon Heads?

Possum1's post has shown that these things are easy to set up but a right royal PITA to maintain at a level that is persistently useful.

This is effectively a "communications data network" and when an expectation is created that it should be reliable and used for critical functions then it needs engineers to maintain its safe upkeep, this means it will cost significant money to run - there is no free lunch - someone has to pay for that level of service.

Having said that, I hear on the grapevine that there are to be some private trials by Airservices on this very matter.

Many years ago I sent the BoM a photoshop presentation of a proposed weather reporting social network I envisaged called GoVisual. The premise was it used uploaded photos of the skies by subscribers such as pilots, airports and even the general public which was shared around to allow pilots to plan their routes in near real-time. The BoM must have laughed out loud as it turns out this is well outside their brief.

That's an interesting point, because it highlights what an ambiguous POS CAR 120 is:(bold added)

There is no such thing as a "report" of "forecasted" conditions. A report is a report ... of actual conditions. A forecast is ... a forecast.

As Dick observed, it's just a remnant of industrial relations struggles.

I think you'd have to draw a long bow to make the connection - but it certainly won't help the situation. I think it's far too premature to try and imply a cause on todays crash.

That being said, as far as general weather information goes, it'd sure be nice to have SOME information around this area.

CAR120 cannot stop the use of unofficial information in planning NOT to fly.

A weather radar at Broken Hill would be nice. There is a fair bit of RPT and Flying Doctor traffic. Current weather radar coverage from Mildura and Adelaide is limited.

The local Federal Member is Sussan Ley, a private pilot.

Maybe she could use her influence to get the BoM to fund another few radars instead of spending it on the human caused climate change delusion. (yes the climate always changes and it has only been 15000 years or so since Chicago was covered by a kilometer or more of solid ice - which may still be a good idea - and the ice will be back soon enough)

As for the nit pickers here,(I'm looking at you AOTW) when you come close to achieving what Dick has you'll actually be entitled to nit pick. You could try adding something useful to the discussion also.

As for information for flight planning, I use the BoM hi res satellite pictures, the public weather forecasts, look at the synoptic charts, check the winds etc on www.windyty.com then get a complete weather and Notam brief via Airservices. So far I haven't used weather cams at various places but that is a good idea. I have also been known to phone a friend at the destination.

I don't see at as nitpicking to point out that Dick's methods are often unproductive and, in some cases, counterproductive.

So Dick thinks CASA's completely hopeless at bringing about any substantial improvements in the regulatory regime. Well ... durr. We got that 3 decades ago, and on pprune he's pretty much preaching to the converted on that point.

But in this particular case he seems to be labouring under two misconceptions:

1. That CASA is preventing people from setting up webcams at aerodromes, and
2. That CASA could choose to set up those webcams itself.

If that's what he thinks, he's wrong on both counts. CAR 120 doesn't prevent anyone from setting up webcams anywhere they like. And CASA doesn't 'do' infrastructure.

What, then, is to be achieved by writing to CASA about the subject then bagging CASA for not doing something it cannot do?

Eyrie, if you read back over my comments I think you'll see I contributed a bit of useful comment to the discussion.

Also if you'd read thoroughly before posting, you'd have seen I said this about Dick,

.

He annoys me with the way he comes out with provocative statements in a kind of spin doctor style, but I admit he gets results.

Possibly instead of advertising for staff at $150 k per year they could have one less staff member and fund 20 or more cameras.

I know what is more likely to reduce Aviation fatalities!

Or instead of those around Australia safety talks sometimes only attended by a small number of pilots they could allocate some of the money for cameras !

It's called lateral thinking and spending the finite and limited money where it's most likely to be effective!

Lead balloon, you need to revisit Dick's post that started this thread.
If CASA can't install the cameras then let's just outsource the running of Australian aviation regulation to the FAA.

I've re-read Dick's opening post. The first sentence says:I interpreted that sentence to mean that:

1. Dick "wrote to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority", and
2. the letter "suggest[ed] [CASA] fund ... weather CAMS...".

I'm merely trying to help by pointing out that CASA does not have power to spend its money for that purpose. But I could be wrong about that.

The FAA is a combined ANSP and safety regulator. In Australia, the combined ANSP and safety regulator was split into the ANSP (Airservices Australia) and the safety regulator (CASA) in 1995. Airservices Australia and CASA are entirely separate corporate entities with very different powers and functions.

But I could be wrong about that as well.

Would there be any harm in Dick putting his proposal to Airservices Australia? Or to BOM? You know: the entities whose job it is to provide aviation weather services.