That's him...
|
Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar. There are many examples around the world. |
Slippery Pete – you make the extraordinary statement, “You're just destroying PPRuNe Oz. Your ad nauseam repeats of the same thing over and over are pushing professional pilots away from this site”.
Slippery, it’s actually a free country and no one has to click on the particular thread. They can easily see the terrible ‘Dick Smith’ name and give it a miss. You might note there has been 3735 views on this particular thread since I started it on the 11th April – 3 days ago. I know if I was selling advertising on PPRuNe I would be delighted. And to everyone who is reading this site, who has a rational mind – it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace. I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft. The whole thing is another crock. It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s. |
Dick, you have been proven wrong re navaids for night VFR and class C requiring radar, how about acknowledging you were wrong?
|
Ok! Let's do it tonight...........
Area70 (70)
area qnh 07/10 area 70: 1028 amend area forecast 130500 to 131700 area 70. Amd overview: Isolated showers ne of marr/mrl. Areas of smoke/haze. Isolated fog patches after 14z. Wind: 2000 5000 7000 10000 14000 18500 vrb/10 030/10 350/10 300/10 ps04 280/15 ms04 270/20 ms13 remark: Winds at all levels tending 250 degrees se of lrp/edp until 09z. Cloud: Sct st 1000/2500 e of cpld/stte/yswa extending ne of ydpo/yswa after 09z, bkn base 0500 with shra. Bkn cu/sc 2000/8000 e of cpld/irons/mrl extending ne of ysmi/irons/mrl after 09z, sct base 4000 elsewhere. Bkn base 1500 with shra. Bkn cu/sc 3000/6000 w of ykii/ysrn/ybyi. Amd weather: Fu, fg after 14z, hz, shra. Visibility: 0500m fg, 4000m shra/fu, 6km hz. Freezing level: 12000ft. Icing: Nil significant. Turbulence: Mod in cu. Hobart (ymhb) taf ymhb 130507z 1306/1406 16012kt 9999 sct040 fm131000 01005kt 9999 sct020 bkn035 fm132000 36008kt 9999 sct025 rmk t 15 13 12 10 q 1028 1029 1029 1029 metar ymhb 130830z 19007kt 9999 few040 12/05 q1029 rmk rf00.0/000.0 launceston (ymlt) taf ymlt 130508z 1306/1406 vrb05kt 9999 few030 bkn050 fm131200 vrb05kt 9999 sct020 bkn030 fm140000 01010kt 9999 sct025 bkn040 rmk t 17 15 12 10 q 1026 1027 1029 1028 metar ymlt 130830z auto 33009kt 9999 // sct035 ovc053 15/08 q1027 rmk rf00.0 Launy to Hobart shouldn't be a problem NVFR.............:eek: |
Fujji. I said nav aids are not required for night VMC. ( or VFR). Others said they are.
I understand I am correct. My point is that if a non nav aid fitted aircraft wants to fly in the terminal C , Melbourne Centre will have great difficulty in providing a meaningful separation service with an IFR approaching or departing aircraft. My proposed "test" everyone remains silent about will show the truth. Or would such a test not meet acceptable levels of safety ? Under NAS class C requires terminal radar. I understand this policy has not been reversed. That's why the Ministers Class C directive remains current. Why else would it remain current? |
I understand I am correct No one believes that your proposed test would work. And, in determining the proper allocation of scarce resources, it's entirely correct that it should fail (don't start talking MLAT). For all of our sanity's sake - please describe in plain English the point you are trying to make? |
1 Attachment(s)
As per the current AIP, at least one navaid is required for night VFR flight, and the pilot must be qualified to use it. Otherwise why would there be an alternate requirement for night VFR if the aerodrome doesn't have a navaid?
Additionally, aircraft flying visually still have a tolerance in which they must be able to maintain track, and in Class C a pilot must adhere to the clearance. This tracking tolerance is then used to create a lateral separation point as per the table from MATS shown earlier. Additionally, ATC can use things like clearance limits etc to ensure separation. |
The "others" being CAP 40.2.2 published in Commonwealth Law under the authority of the the Australian Attorney General.
As for the night VFR aircraft in the ML CTR, the police air wing does it almost every night. Although fitted with navaids, those aids are not used for separation. |
Originally Posted by Dick
it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace.
I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft. The whole thing is another crock. It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s. |
The point is why wouldn't Airservices have the Broome Airspace at a place like Hobart ?
Only overflying VFR would be an occasional adventurer off to the South Pole. If it's safe at Broome, why not Hobart? Don't the controllers ever point this out! And Bloggs is from Western Australia and he would have taken action if it was unsafe. And bloody big jets go to Broome. And it would be NAS compliant ( like Broome) and not hold ATCs liable for the impossible . Why can't we standardise our airspace above D like the rest of the world? Oh. I know. If you once mis allocated airspace it must never be corrected. Concrete. Concrete Resist change in every way. There will be a lot of silence from everybody except Bloggs. |
Just shot yourself in the other foot! Lower level of E at Broome, no tower, is 5500ft, leaving the RPT and the "adventurer" to sort it out amoungst themselves in, OH MY GOD, Class G! How dangerous is that! Bang bang...
|
Ok. It's nearly NAS. All we have to do it drop the E a bit lower to 700'
I would support that extra level,of safety at Broome. Would you? |
"Nearly" indeed. You don't even know the airspace you're trying to lecture us on.
What's safe about an IFR being hobbled by an ATC clearance and simultaneously trying to negotiate an arrival with a VFR, who may or may not appear on TCAS depending on when he last checked his transponder? |
Bloggs. I wish you could talk with an open mind to an experienced US Airline pilot. You would find that they consider they are just as " professional " as you and just as obsessed with safety as you are.
They don't consider they are being unnecessarily " hobbled" and really like their airspace system. It's evolved with about 30 times the number of aircraft and sometimes atrocious weather that you would be unlikely to get in WA. Bloggs. Have you ever flown a US designed airline aircraft? Their airspace system is similar - as good as any advanced system in the world. Maybe you just don't like change. |
I like change, Dick. I like ADS-B and I like transponders. Why don't you lobby your VFR mates fit to them so that ATC can use them to maximise safety and efficiency for me and the VFR? It really is pretty pathetic that RPT jets mix it with aircraft that don't have transponders. This isn't 1950, is it?
I would also like you to change your tune and find the few extra million $$ a year to fund Class E approach services everywhere I fly... |
If the US pilots, ATC, and FAA are the be all of aviation Dick, why don't you pack up & move?
|
Please explain how you extrapolate the USA to the rest of the world.
|
The US system would be fine here, IF and I mean IF we had, all the surveillance all the VHF coms and all the same towers services etc.
I would rather have my Toyota 86 on 4 wheels than a Ferrari on 3. YMMV |
Why not try the US system at an airport where we do have the radar and the VHF coms?
Everyone may be pleasantly surprised that it actually works really well. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.