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.