No thats not what they’re certified for. They are certified to provide an AIS and certified that the data they receive is published without modification.

They are not responsible for the accuracy of the data they publish. That is the responsibility of the data originator. This is all spelled out in CASR 175

”Other strips or ALA, for example the dig tree strip, have been completely removed. What is going on?”

Heh heh heh , gotta love this stuff.
Nothing is going on.
Nobody cares.
Check out the dig tree strip on Google Earth.
There is nothing there.
Hasnt had a grader over it since I was first there 40 years ago.
Airservices has not , should not , and will not take responsibility for publishing information on its suitability as an airstrip now or in the future.
Parochial drivel.
The real Mola Tecta spends its life meandering around the ocean minding its own business.
Enviable really.............

FWIW ALAs get deleted from the charts for reasons other than no longer existing.

Quite a few have been deleted over the years at the request of the property owners for a variety of reasons such as privacy, potential legal stoush if someone has an incident etc. etc.

I believe it has moved quite a bit in that time!

Especially over Badgerys Creek. There's been some huge earth moving work going on there in the past few months

Bloggs, Glass, etc. You utterly miss the absurdity of these “U” entries; If there is no information or even contact details for such a place, then why is it even on the chart???


Thie only excuse I can think of is a tidy legal mind arguing “for completeness” - “there was once something there, but now there isn’t, well actually, there is, but we pretend we don’t even know it exists, even though it does”. “Because it officially isn’t there, even though it is, we can’t tell you it’s abandoned or unserviceable”, “we know nothing about it, even though we probably once did”.

Why doesn’t Airservices just write “here there be dragons” on the chart at such locations?

Andamooka - YAMK, elevation 250 ft., a perfect example.

Airservices tried that, and removed a bunch all at one go. And you lot bitched your asses off. (Backlash from RAPAC us well documented)

Now you’re all bitching they should be removed.

Sunfish - Instead of bitching here, why do you not call the AIS section at Airservices and establish the facts?
For info, WAC charts are produced by Geoscience Australia. They are now starting to digitise so we will eventually see more current information on WACs.

Australia’s Aeronautical charts go digital

Geoscience Australia is collaborating with Airservices Australia to revise their World Aeronautical Charts (WAC).

World Aeronautical Charts are 1:1 000 000 scale paper maps used by pilots for flight planning and in-flight navigation on extended cross-country flights at low to medium altitudes and medium to high airspeeds. Forty-two WAC sheets provide complete coverage of Australia.

Whereas previous WAC revisions involved traditional manual cartographic techniques on film, the new Tasmania WAC has been produced from Geoscience Australia’s fundamental topographic database, GEODATA TOPO–250K Series 2.

http://www.ga.gov.au/servlet/BigObjF...igobjid=GA6552This new collaboration involves extracting the 1:250 000 scale topographic data from Geoscience Australia’s seamless geographic database. Using the previous edition maps as a guide, the features are then tagged for future use at 1:1,000,000 scale. The updated aeronautical information from Airservices Australia is then incorporated into the new database. The refreshed data is then symbolised, cartographically offset and annotated to produce a WAC with the same look and feel as previous editions.

New WACs for Albany, Armidale, Cooper Creek and Perth will soon be available as part of an ongoing agreement between the agencies for the production of a national 1:1 million scale seamless database and the complete revision and production of the entire WAC series covering Australia.

Figure 1. Extract of 1:1 million scale World Aeronautical Chart for Hobart, Tasmania



As with the production of Geoscience Australia’s 1:250 000 topographic NATMAP products, four spatial information companies are being contracted to produce the WACs.

Airservices Australia and Geoscience Australia have a long history of working together to produce various scale flight navigation charts like the WACs, 1:500 000 scale Visual Navigation Charts (VNC) and 1:250 000 scale Visual Terminal Charts (VTC).

Working together has many benefits for both agencies. Future revision of the digital data will be more efficient. The same data can be used in the production of other maps like Airservices Australia’s VNCs and Geoscience Australia’s Global Map data. Digital data could also enhance Airservices Australia’s ‘Flying Around’ (a new online delivery of VTCs), or be used in any future online or in-flight navigation.

For more information phone Phil Tickle on +61 2 6249 9353 (email [email protected])

SOLUTION FOUND - if you land at the same location that you took off from then none of you would have this problem.... :ugh:

I think you are all missing the point..............:rolleyes:

Airservices are just taking a section of the Tax Legislation - specifically 'A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 - Section 165.55 which states:

...and applying that logic........just substitute "Airservices" for Commissioner and "particular event or entity" for ALA.....

ROFL......

Tinkicka

I don't know why something so basic can go on for 3 pages. Oh wait, yes I can, because Sunfish keeps dragging it out.

If an airport operator is unable to respond, chooses not to respond, doesn't get the email, doesn't respond quickly enough, or if ASA has the incorrect contact information, or if the owner has only updated the Country Airstrips guide, then it is not logical for ASA to remove the airport from the maps, but rather mark it as unverified.

Makes perfect sense to me. In the case that an airfield has been sold and new owners decided to bulldoze it and it's listed with a "U," there is no onus on ASA because the pilot requires "written permission from the owner" / PPR to land anyway, so the onus is on the pilot to make the decision to land there.

Edit: Believe me, CASA take PPR and written permission very seriously, should the airport operator complain to them. I know this from personal experience. Always make sure that you have written permission from the operator and not someone that you believe may represent the operator or speak on behalf of the operator, unless you have something in writing to verify this.

You appear not to have comprehended the points made in the dragged-out 3 pages.If you read what alpha said, the plan in that event is to remove the airport from the maps! What you call “not logical” is, apparently, what’s going to happen.

Then there’s the question: What does “mark it unverified” mean? The legend suggests that a broken circle = unverified. (Which immediately raises another question: Why have a symbol for “unverified” at all, if the airport should not be on the map?). There is nonetheless aerodrome symbology used on official AIP maps that does not appear in the legend for those maps - namely an unbroken circle with a “U” in the middle.

This is all, apparently, the fault of the people who pay for the maps.

Rubbish. I landed there in April 2019. It had just been graded and was in very good condition.

Ssssshhhhh! The Dig Tree strip’s been verified as unverified.

I was told by an unverified source, that after an airfield appears X number of times on the new map releases with a “U,” it will subsequently be removed.

That is unverified though, so I can’t confirm it.

Reports to hand confirm the fact that no more facts can be confirmed at this time.
However, at a date soon to be announced, more unconfirmed reports will be denied.
This should put an end to all those rumours circulating at present.

And it’s about time!

Nothing is going to happen
Something might happen but we shouldn’t do anything
Maybe we should do something but there is nothing we can do
We should have done something but its too late now............

yeah, I knew that.

One of the few 'truths' to come out of 'that' era...............

Thanks DR

Cheeerrrsss.....

Thanks for finding them LB. Looking at Google Earth at a couple of them, there appears to be some basic form of dirt strip there. Sunfish, I'll admit to not having a clue about what the U means in this context. Regarding removing unverified strips I'd much rather know they were there - I won't be using them either way, but if I hear somebody broadcasting that they are downwind at WoopWoop Station I'll know where they are and can stay out of their way or disregard them as being nowhere near me and not requiring action.

It's also nice to know where it might be possible to land without incident if it's unplanned.

Plenty more of them on the current maps.

I’m with you!I‘d much rather know where they are, just in case I find myself in/mismanage myself into a precautionary landing/forced landing situation. It may be that in a particular case the strip is as unusable as the surrounding gaffa, but it could be that it’s not. (PS: What Stickshift said!)

(Coincidentally, the most recent sat photo of Narwietoomah suggests it would be a better option than the surrounding gaffa.)

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....739075150.jpeg
In an emergency, I’ll opt for the unverified strip instead of the surrounding gaffa.

This thread and others about Part 175 provides some insight into why this is happening: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...airfields.html

I don't suppose this "unknown" known has anything to do with trying to avoid implementing a MULTICOM procedure in Class G, would it?

CC

Poor fella, has not felt the earth move for 20 years.

After all this, has anyone actually established what a circle with a "U" in the middle actually means and where is it published?

As for Merty Merty, how dare they delete such a fine airstrip. It was fine the last time I landed there in the 70s.
If I remember correctly, it was a multi-directional airfield. Just a big claypan.

Perhaps the unbroken circle with a “U” is some remnant of a valiant attempt to align with US chart symbology: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flig...g-complete.pdf

My brief research suggests that the interesting question is: Where did the broken circle symbology on Australian charts come from (apart from the obvious)? My wild guess is that CaptainMidnight, alphacentauri or Vag277 might have some insights.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a396422d13.png

I have to say I find some of these posts really quite funny.....

In terms of ‘I’d much rather know they were there’, I find this a ridiculous premise. So are you going to fly over a perfectly good forced landing paddock to glide to a place you know ‘was’ there? Or do you need to divert to a place because you’ve planned poorly? I can guarantee you there are many many unverified locations that are either in the wrong place, have been ploughed or are now housing estates. And if you ‘know it was there’ why do you need a chart when you’re in the sh!t anyway? The only reason these places have remained on the charts is because some RAPAC members were in denial that these places no longer exist and kicked up a stink on the same ridiculous basis as the arguments on here..

There was a push by Airservices to remove any unverified locations from the charts a few years ago for very good reason, the previous examples being two of them. In the world of data, there is no place for poorly managed, unvalidated or duplicate data. We rely on this data way too much now to have it be incorrect. Part 175 or not, we can’t afford bad data. Think of old mate with his Ozrunways and The aerodrome he is going to is in the wrong location on the chart, he hasn’t done any visual navigation and is totally reliant upon that? Poor airmanship yes, but also demonstrating the need for good data. Did you know these single source datasets are also in FMC databases?

I know there are all these conspiracy theories and haters Of government organisations, but the reality is a simple modern problem, not only in aviation either.


Yes, many aerodromes have been demolished and yes it’s a sad state of affairs. But by putting nostalgia on the charts isn’t the solution.

Flying Higher, I agree with you, either remove them or improve the data. The issue is indeed quality of data. You want charts, all charts, to inform the user, pilot, hiker, ships captain with the best knowledge available for their intended use. You do not want a chart to be ambiguous or misleading.

The data is not “unverified” call it “unknown” instead. Even mark it as ruins or leave it out (but that is another argument). We have done the same on land and sea charts for decades.

Whatever you do, don’t leave the pilot in doubt as to expectations or provide misleading expectations.

My reason is also that in the absence of “good” data, gossip, mud maps, hearsay and rumor will fill the gaps - and that most definitely will lead people astray. For that same reason I’m pleased that the VFRG and many charts are now available for free download.

I'm so glad you're amused. How about none of the above? I fly in a lot of regional/remote areas and I won't be landing or diverting to any of these unverified possible strips either, but I don't want to fly straight through someone else's circuit pattern if they've set up a basic ALA. For clarity, if there's nothing whatsoever present, its been bulldozed or built over, the markings should be removed from the chart, but having had a look on Google Earth at a couple of Lead Balloon's locations, there appears to be some form of airstrips present at those places, so I'd rather not fly through their circuit patterns. Having some form of marking on a chart indicating that "hey, theres an airstrip here called Bloggs Field, nothing more about it is known" seems like a reasonable way to do this.

How many decades/hours of outback flying do you have, Flying_higher?

Your post manifests the experience of a child of the magenta line, cocooned in the coastal fringe.

I don't know about the history of the introduction of this "U" inside a circle symbol, but I assume that after the fuss in 2015 re deleting ALAs for which data could not be verified, someone in Airservices decided it was a way to placate the industry. What if any consultation was done I don't know, but it seems their charting people may not have been alerted to update the legends. Then of course in 2016 Airservices VRed or IVRed a few hundred of their "back room" people and a lot of knowledge (particularly historical) and expertise went out the door.

FWIW ICAO Annex 4 Aero charts Appendix 2 has basic recommended symbology:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4ad0d470ae.jpg
Then para 2.4.1 says:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c0edea9393.jpg

So perhaps that's what the FAA and Airservices have hung their hats on to offer additional symbols.

If you are cruising at circuit altitude in remote areas you better be just as careful you don't blunder through someone's mustering operation.

Useful stuff (as usual) CM.

It seems to me that the FAA has stuck with the ICAO symbology of a single unbroken circle, but just added stuff inside (or the curious “Objectionable”).

The provenance of the broken circle on Australia’s charts remains a mystery. And, given that the legend of the Australian chart says a broken circle denotes that the place is unverified, the point of adding the ‘U’ remains a bigger mystery.

"Objectionable". If I suggested that that be put on a chart next to an AD I'd be ridiculed out of town, and rightly so. Rediculous. :}

I.m with Stick****y..Better to know if 'something' is there rather than the boondocks.
Did nearly suffer the reverse once,, due wx was considering a diversion to xxxxx as map circle, but having reached the intended destination OK ...was advised that xxxxxx was no longer there but was now a tree plantation.

Does the broken circle denote 'unverified' or 'uncertified' aerodrome? I don't have a chart at hand, but it should be the latter.

Guys,
both the broken circle and circled "U" go back a ways. I thought I had seen them on old charts so I dug out a few. Not my very oldest from the 80s, I don't know where they have got to, but...

WAC charts from the 1990s show _both_ symbols with the following descriptions in the legend.
Broken circle: "Unlicensed Aerodromes. Named in purple. Status and Serviceability Unknown"
Circle with U : "Aerodrome Landmark (unusable)"

It also seems that around 2003/4ish the description on the broken circle symbol on VTCs etc went from "Non Licensed Aerodrome (status unknown)" to "Aerodrome (Not Certified or Registered)"

Certifs.