Erasing Safety?
 

Unless I am mistaken, which is always possible, the latest charts I’ve seen have some airstrips marked with a big fat “U” - which I take to mean uncertified. Other strips or ALA, for example the dig tree strip, have been completely removed. What is going on?

Is there a 'birdy'-looking symbol near the 'U' ?
If so, then according to the legend it means ultralight aircraft nearby.

The charts have a legend that explains the symbology ......

Also this details changes:

CHANGES TO AIP AERONAUTICAL CHARTS EFFECTIVE 21 MAY 2020

So how is any of this "erasing safety"?

Disappointed there was only 31 pages, surely they could have padded it out with a few More "This page is intentionally blank". There could have also been another 20 or so pages of disclaimers plus another 20 or so of credits and references.

There isn't a single "This page is intentionally left blank" page in there, nor any disclaimers, references or credits. So how do you figure 'More'?

Is this the only thing you have to whine about today? Its a list of changes, it takes as many pages as is needed.

I can just imagine Sunfish sitting at the dining room table, frothing at the mouth looking incredulously at the big fat U while he was looking at his chart (without checking the chart legend first!), already working out in his head what he was going to say in his Pprune post and how he could blame CASA for this disgraceful change and the amount of danger it will put us all in. :}

Think Biggles might be on the score about the 'U'. Looking forward to getting a blasting endorsement from RaAus...

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b89a05d6c8.png

"1.4 While every effort is made by Airservices to ensure the accuracy of international data contained in Airservices’ charts and publications, international data is based on, or contains, information provided from regional governments or third party sources over which Airservices has no control, and which may not always be completely up to date."

Silly me, I thought the AirServices produced AIP et al was supposed to be reliable operationally valid information.

CC

It would be quite an ask to have Air Services go survey the height of every mountain, and measure the length of every runway so they can take full accountability for their documents. I think the cost tradeoff for having 3rd parties provide their own information to Air Services is sound.

I’m offended by the term ‘manned ballon’, I think there should be a royal commission into the use of this terminology. It should be chaired by Dick Smith and we should look to America for the way they do it. We can then agree at a federal level what the term should be and the states can lock their borders if it is close to election time.

There’s your safety risk right there in the legend. Model rockets and Plumes! Imagine
if one of those hit an aircraft, oh
the humanity!

When the 'Mola Tecta' speaks it must be gospel......

A circle with a “u” in the middle of it. The actual paper chart may have a description in the legend, the Ozrunways charts legends don’t show it and the strips marked “u” no longer appear in Ersa as far as I can tell. The AIP says nowt.

Deliberately removing information from pilots is not too bright from a safety point of view.

I don't know which version of OzRunways you use, but when I go to select a different map on OzRunways, above the list of selectable maps (VFR, ERC, TAC etc) there is the option to select "Legend".

Despite what many may believe, this is not in fact a compliment regarding the user's piloting skills, but brings up an image of a legend that explains the symbols present on the map...scroll down a bit and theres a U and Biggles's angular birdy symbol with the explanation that it refers to locations where ultralights are present.

I don't believe this is a deliberate removal of information at all, it's been there for ages - that symbol has had that meaning for at least 15-20 years that I know of.

I can’t find an example in any of my charts can you post a screenshot?

Sunfish, what chart has this U in a circle? And what airport is it?

It means that the airfield is 'Unverified'. It gets this status whilst Airservices tries to establish reliable contact with the owner in order to keep the data maintained. If no contact is established or the owner is unwilling to maintain the data, the information is removed from the charts.

Thats what the U is for.
Thats why some ALA's have been removed.

Establishment of a data originator is a CASR 175 requirement. No data should be published without a recorded data originator.

Alpha

In monochrome so it was small enough to download. Lots of them. You’re ‘safer’ Sunfish, if you don’t know about these places rather than use an ‘unverified’ ALA in an pinch.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e03867032.jpeg

alphacentauri, looking at the legend on my OzRunways chart, the relevant section of which looks like a scan of the WAC chart legend, there are a few different airfield symbols, including the following:

-A circle with a thin inner concentric circle, which represents "Aerodrome - licenced",
-A circle without that thinner concentric circle, representing "Aerodrome/ALA - verified Airservices has a responsible person registered for the location and associated information confirmed"
-A broken circle with 5 breaks in the outline, representing "Aerodrome/ALA - Unverified Airservices has not been advised of a responsible person for this location. Status and serviceability are unknown."

I can't see a reference to the U indicating "unverified" on any chart legends, instead the broken circle is used to indicate an unverified ALA. The same chart legends do use a U to indicate ultralight aircraft activity.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7b2238f93.jpeg
Another one that’s presumably going to disappear from the charts.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0181a44f2.jpeg
And another.

Sunfish: On your favourite EFB, you should be able to tick an ‘ALA’ box that will add them to the map overlay, notwithstanding that the safety bureaucracy has airbrushed them out of history. Whether they are in any fit state to use is, as always, at the users’ risk.

That’s ‘cause the left hand doesn’t know what the right’s doing.

Lead Balloon that's ridiculous. You'd have a symbol on a chart that for 20 years hasn't been verified as even being an airport any more. Assuming you're a lawyer, based on your liberal use of legalistic codswallop, you'd have a field day if a pilot pranged an aeroplane and worse hurt someone if they landed in a ditch across a airstrip and flipped it while said airstrip was in ERSA but not under continual review.

You’re not paying attention, Cap’n (as usual).

The current charts published by Airservices have a symbol on them that is not described in the legend: An unbroken circle with a “U” in the middle. According to alphacenturi, that means the place is “unverified”. And the place is, apparently, going to be removed entirely from the chart.

The current charts published by Airservices have a symbol in the legend for an “Aerodrome/ALA unverified”: A broken circle.

Why are the charts not marked in accordance with the legend? Because the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

There are unverified ALAs everywhere. That’s why there’s a symbol for them in the legend on the current charts published by Airservices. The reason they are marked as “unverified” is to make clear that their use is at the users’ risk. I don’t know who you reckon is going to have a ‘field day’ when someone has a prang using an unverified ALA, but I can rarely fathom what’s going on in your head.

I don't care about that minor anomaly. Do keep up. I was referring to your statement:

If it's not current and updated regularly by a person who is held responsible for said info, get it off the charts.

“Get it off the charts”? Spoken like a person who’s not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft.

Confusing aerodrome symbology on current charts a “minor anomaly”? Spoken like a person who’s not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft.

I’d make an educated guess that you’ve not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft, Cap’n. Must be distressing sharing a country with pilots that have.

Better that a pilot in the middle of nowhere never knows that there’s an unverified ALA within gliding range, because the unverified ALA might not be suitable. Best to do a forced landing somewhere else. It’s all about safety, doncha know!

Does anyone not see the Kafkaesque absurdity in this action? The airfield is marked with a U for unverified. Well and good. However the absence of an ERSA entry leaves me with no contact information if I want to find out more. Furthermore, I would have thought the basic information of lat and lon, plus elevation, plus a few other details is/was/ accurate unless an earthquake has intervened. Even an entry explaining what WAS there would be useful.

Its bizzare, “there is an airstrip here, but we won’t tell you anything about it, nor how to find out more”. This is a safety hazard. In the absence of data pilots might not use them when they should. Furthermore, gossip and second hand information will replace ERSA an ERSA entry. This is a hazard.

*sigh*.

Sunfish: There is no ERSA information for these places for Airservices to publish because Airservices is unwilling or unable (usually practically unable) to find anyone to provide and take responsibility for the information. That is precisely why Airservices wants to delete any reference to the places from AIP. (I’d pay folding money to watch you and them in a room ‘discussing’ this stuff.)

Here’s what you should be lobbying for, Sunfish: The retention and publication of unverified ALA locations on AIP maps. At least then you’d know where there might be a usable landing area, but you would remain responsible for the consequences of use. That’s PRECISELY WHY THERE’S AN “UNVERIFIED AERODROME/ALA” symbol on the legend for these maps!

Becuase it goes a little something like this: Due to incomplete, timely or unreliable data, AirServices remove the aerodrome from the maps.

Sunfish makes a pprune post whining about "Erasing Safety".

So AirServices put it on the map, but put a note at the bottom saying data could be unreliable

So Checklist Charlie complains about AirServices not giving reliable data.

So they put an 'Unverified' identifier on the map so everyone will be happy.

Except they arn't cause some people have nothing else in their lives to whine about.

And here we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balon

I’d make an educated guess that you’ve not spent much time flying around the outback in light aircraft, Cap’n.

---

OK, so let's get this straight. You'd like to have information on XXX, unverified, unchecked, not updated for say 20 years. See my answer to Sunfish below.

Have you put in a document change request to correct this shockingly dangerous situation where the WACs have a un-legended symbol, being a circle with a U in it?

No, said info comes from a person who signs for it's accuracy. Otherwise, keep it out of the official docs. Use the Ozrunways Pilot's Touring Guide.

So...

What, precisely, is the broken circle symbol for on aeronautical maps and the legends for those maps? Why did anyone go to the trouble of coming up with the symbol in the first place?

Quote:

---

OK, so let's get this straight. You'd like to have information on XXX, unverified, unchecked, not updated for say 20 years.

---

Absolutely I do. It’s better than the alternative. But you wouldn’t know that, Cap’n, ‘cause you’ve never ‘been there’.

You should go for a job in Airservices, Cap’n. It is, of course, the fault of the user (who pays for the privilege) to do the quality control for an ANSP who’s certified on the basis of its supposed quality control on the content of the AIP.

To clarify: WACs are NOT produced by Airservices and have a much longer update cycle.

Ya gotta laugh... LB ans Sun slink away with their tails between their legs... NEXT!

Nobody's perfect, LB. But instead of whining, whinging and slagging off at all and sundry on Prune, I submit corrections to all sorts of organisations and generally get results. I suggest you do the same. I do note, of course, in true lawyer-ese, that you didn't answer my question. Typical.

So there you have it: The WAC charts with the Airservices logo and legend, and which must be carried in order to comply with the law, are NOT produced by Airservices and - presumably according to Vag277 and the Cap’n - are not part of the AIP or the responsibility of Airservices. Again, this image is in B/W for size purposes but is the current official AIP WAC content.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a0404b387.jpeg
Apparently Airservices is not responsible for the content of this document. Go figure!

You see everybody: It’s your job to know the errors in documents which Airservices pastes its logo on, charges you for and must be carried so as to comply with the law.

Go and watch the news, LB. You're hanging on too tight.

On a more interesting note, I found an old Sydney VTC the other day and apart from the nostalgia of seeing Hoxton Park marked in all its glory and Camden having an NDB I noticed how many of the spot height values have changed. Most were within several feet or so but a few differed by 30-40' (plus and minus). Found that curious. Were the old heights that badly surveyed or has the earth moved over the last 20 years?