Error on the latest Southern England half mill
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Error on the latest Southern England half mill
Watch out for that new beacon outside Hastings (1080'). The maximum elevation figure for that sector has not been updated and still says 0.9 instead of 1.1.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the frequency of Brize Radar changed just a few days after the charts were published, but they still show the old frequencies.
I have to say I'm not impressed. I've only been flying a couple of years, but I don't remember hearing of this many errors on previous charts. Any old-timers care to comment on whether this happens regularly???
FFF
-----------
I have to say I'm not impressed. I've only been flying a couple of years, but I don't remember hearing of this many errors on previous charts. Any old-timers care to comment on whether this happens regularly???
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
Brize Radars Frequencies haven't changed. 119.00 on the chart for zone transits is correct, as is 134.3 for the LARS service. Brize have another VHF LARS frequency available if they have to open another console due to workload (could this be what you are referring to?) but it's not published as it's on a 'need only' basis.
CM
Brize Radars Frequencies haven't changed. 119.00 on the chart for zone transits is correct, as is 134.3 for the LARS service. Brize have another VHF LARS frequency available if they have to open another console due to workload (could this be what you are referring to?) but it's not published as it's on a 'need only' basis.
CM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF is referring to a notice posted in the flight planning room at White Waltham (from Brize Norton) stating that the initial LARS contact frequency is changing from 134.3 to 124.275. The zone transit frequency of 119.0 is unchanged.
I think it was effective 1 April 2003, so maybe it's an early April fools joke?
I think it was effective 1 April 2003, so maybe it's an early April fools joke?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would this be the same 'Breeze Norton' that Radio 2 referred to yesterday?
Bourn's new frequency is the same as Paris Ground Control, so be very careful before accepting taxing instructions!
Bourn's new frequency is the same as Paris Ground Control, so be very careful before accepting taxing instructions!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt_s
I'll check in work this afternoon, though it sounds dubious as a) It's not been NOTAM'd (but with the current system what does that prove) and b) Normally all adjoining ATC units would be told in advance and we've seen nothing yet.
CM
I'll check in work this afternoon, though it sounds dubious as a) It's not been NOTAM'd (but with the current system what does that prove) and b) Normally all adjoining ATC units would be told in advance and we've seen nothing yet.
CM
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sparky, yes that's exactly the notice I was thinking of. On official RAF Brize Norton paper, too - very official-looking.
And how could I possibly forget that non-existent mast in Reading?
FFF
-----------
And how could I possibly forget that non-existent mast in Reading?
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just spoke to the supervisor at Brize - yep, 124.27 for LARS wef 1st Apr. Nice to have got so much notice to make sure everyone knows 
(the NOTAM was only sent 1045z this morning).
Why the hell couldn't they have changed on 20 March (The AIRAC cycle date) like the rest of the world!
(the NOTAM was only sent 1045z this morning).Why the hell couldn't they have changed on 20 March (The AIRAC cycle date) like the rest of the world!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please feel free to post comments to [email protected]
If we don't tell them it won't get fixed.
The "current date" for the Southern England & Wales half mil is 20 Mar 03 (Ed. 29) so one assumes that as Bourn's frequency changed on 7 March the new frequency should have been on it providing that the change was known by DAP prior to press day.
I have drawn this thread to their attention.
Mike
If we don't tell them it won't get fixed.
The "current date" for the Southern England & Wales half mil is 20 Mar 03 (Ed. 29) so one assumes that as Bourn's frequency changed on 7 March the new frequency should have been on it providing that the change was known by DAP prior to press day.
I have drawn this thread to their attention.
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Gentleman, Manager, Aeronautical Charts & Data at the CAA has responded as follows:-
+++
Mike,
Thanks for this. The mistake re MEF is certainly ours and will be posted as an amendment on the VFR Chart Web site. We will note the comment on the obstacle near Reading. The problem is caused by there being no legislation in the UK requiring Local Authorities to notify when an obstacle is actually erected, they only have to announce when planning permission has been granted. Therefore when permission is given the obstacle is added to the UK obstacle database as a fail safe mechanism and we then have to rely on local knowledge to say whether or not it has been constructed and actually there!!
We all have an obligation to share flight safety information and I would really urge all pilots to inform us of charts errors as requested in the notes on the VFR chart i.e. at [email protected]. and not expect us to monitor web sites such as pprune to glean information.(We, however, do read them as and when time allows!) Also even Chat forums can sometimes either be wrong or give misleading information and it is best to verify information before putting it out as fact,(a la Brize Norton frequency).
Well over 100 changes were made to the aeronautical information from Ed 28 on to Ed 29 of the Southern England and Wales Chart plus changes to the topo base made by OS. The aeronautical changes were list on the amendment page of the web site up until the new chart's effective date of 20 March. I trust that Evo had been amending his chart throughout the year and was really aware of the changes! The current changes on our web site refers to information that has changed since the production cut off date of 6 Feb and obviously refer to the Edition 29, these include the late and non AIRAC change of the Bourn frequency.
I have no objections if you wish to post my comments. My Staff are really here to help as much as we can and welcome comment at any time.
Regards,
John
+++
Whoops!
This e-mail arrived immediately after the one above.
+++
Mike,
To say the least I am furious and having to eat humble pie! - Brize Norton LARS frequency has indeed changed witness the NOTAM issued yesterday. It appears that the previous frequency was not assigned to Brize and was being used illegally. It had been in fact assigned to Scottish Mil and also to a unit in France and interference was being experienced by these other units and not Brize. Unfortunately nobody deemed to tell my Charts Editor of the pending change - in fact given the lead-in time required for publication it would have been too late in any case.
Apologies to the men who got their facts correct - it is a pity that the news came through the backdoor first but it does highlight the need to inform us via our chart correction facility at [email protected] of any mistakes, changes etc on our charts that anybody knows about even if they are rumour and need substantiating.
Regards,
John
+++
All good and useful information IMHO. Please e-mail them with any other problems you spot.
Mike
+++
Mike,
Thanks for this. The mistake re MEF is certainly ours and will be posted as an amendment on the VFR Chart Web site. We will note the comment on the obstacle near Reading. The problem is caused by there being no legislation in the UK requiring Local Authorities to notify when an obstacle is actually erected, they only have to announce when planning permission has been granted. Therefore when permission is given the obstacle is added to the UK obstacle database as a fail safe mechanism and we then have to rely on local knowledge to say whether or not it has been constructed and actually there!!
We all have an obligation to share flight safety information and I would really urge all pilots to inform us of charts errors as requested in the notes on the VFR chart i.e. at [email protected]. and not expect us to monitor web sites such as pprune to glean information.(We, however, do read them as and when time allows!) Also even Chat forums can sometimes either be wrong or give misleading information and it is best to verify information before putting it out as fact,(a la Brize Norton frequency).
Well over 100 changes were made to the aeronautical information from Ed 28 on to Ed 29 of the Southern England and Wales Chart plus changes to the topo base made by OS. The aeronautical changes were list on the amendment page of the web site up until the new chart's effective date of 20 March. I trust that Evo had been amending his chart throughout the year and was really aware of the changes! The current changes on our web site refers to information that has changed since the production cut off date of 6 Feb and obviously refer to the Edition 29, these include the late and non AIRAC change of the Bourn frequency.
I have no objections if you wish to post my comments. My Staff are really here to help as much as we can and welcome comment at any time.
Regards,
John
+++
Whoops!
This e-mail arrived immediately after the one above.
+++
Mike,
To say the least I am furious and having to eat humble pie! - Brize Norton LARS frequency has indeed changed witness the NOTAM issued yesterday. It appears that the previous frequency was not assigned to Brize and was being used illegally. It had been in fact assigned to Scottish Mil and also to a unit in France and interference was being experienced by these other units and not Brize. Unfortunately nobody deemed to tell my Charts Editor of the pending change - in fact given the lead-in time required for publication it would have been too late in any case.
Apologies to the men who got their facts correct - it is a pity that the news came through the backdoor first but it does highlight the need to inform us via our chart correction facility at [email protected] of any mistakes, changes etc on our charts that anybody knows about even if they are rumour and need substantiating.
Regards,
John
+++
All good and useful information IMHO. Please e-mail them with any other problems you spot.
Mike
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike keeps up his good record of keeping communication going between official bodies and the rest of us - thanks! 
It seems like John and the rest of the guys who produce the charts are far easier to work with than anyone involved in the NOTAMs, though - this must be a walk in the park for you!
FFF
-------------
It seems like John and the rest of the guys who produce the charts are far easier to work with than anyone involved in the NOTAMs, though - this must be a walk in the park for you!
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tomcs, the spelling of Shaftesbury has been minus its "e" for many years. I sought out the CAA charts section on their stand at Farnborough two shows running, I think 1994 and 1996, to tell them this, and the second time they actually wrote it down.
Over the years I have concluded there must be a reason for the mis-spelling that I don't understand, but in the light of your comment here raising the issue again, I look forward to next year's issue of the half mil....
Over the years I have concluded there must be a reason for the mis-spelling that I don't understand, but in the light of your comment here raising the issue again, I look forward to next year's issue of the half mil....
