I found this interesting. When talking to Norm Block a few years ago he told me a B767 if it could take off from Coolie full of fuel is going thru 10000ft at 19mn(Mt Warning) and my experience of flying out of Coolie in B767 was far better than this (140000ft at 19nm - I was just going to Sydney) Steps out of airports will only get steeper as we finally see the demise of the Chieftain doing IFR round the countryside. Ian McPhee
---- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Borgelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] How many NAS PilotCD-ROM have your received ? > At 02:29 AM 21/11/03 +1100, you wrote: > >Mike > > > >I think you misunderstood Bob's reply - what he actually said was that the > >educational material did not mention CTAFs and MBZs because there were no > >changes in that area. > > I thought the piece of paper with the climb descent profiles of regional > turboprops put the CTAF thing in perspective completely. It does involve > changes to current procedures and glider pilots should know these. At > present a glider pilot would not use the CTAF freq unless within 5 miles of > the aerodrome. > > > > He is correct, > > As above he isn't. That change is about the most significant thing to > affect glider pilots - they might have to shutup and monitor the CTAF at a > lot further than 5nm where relevant instead of draining their batteries on > 122.7/9/5 > > though I question the proposed "US > >CTAF" without proper education to help pilots make the right choice of > >frequency to listen out on AND TALK IF IT HELPS RESOLVE POTENTIAL CONFLICT. > > Where does it say you should not talk if you think there is a potential > conflict? In fact it says you should. > > > >My main problem - apart from the fact that what we are getting is NOT the > >US NAS - > > I agree - the system we are getting is the US with additional transponder > requirements and a far better integrated radar/computer ATC system. This is > so we can actually make some progress. Without the transponder requirements > this wouldn't have flown. > > is the lateness of the training material which Qantas signed up to > >the system on the basis that all training material was to be available with > >a 3 month lead time, and which Government requirements were for all > >material to be in the hands of pilots 1 month before implementation date. > > While it is nice to get all the stuff early I think anyone who was awake > would know there were about to be large changes. This group has been > talking about it for 2 months or so. The GFA surely must have known. Where > was the educational material in the compulsory magazine? It didn't need to > be definitive at the time, just a heads up. If the material was to be out > earlier what efforts did the GFA make? Plan to put it in the magazine? > > > > >Given that this must be implemented on an international AIRAC date, > >publication of a 4-week delay from November 27 (Merry Christmas!!) would > >not be unreasonable and would allow for proper educational timescales. > > Backslider. The MBZ's were meant to be abolished this time around. That has > already been delayed. > > Well I'll have had my charts for a month come Nov 27. No delay , let's get > on with it. The sheer volume of irrelevant drivel on the area frequency is > a safety hazard. > > > For > >me to get the GFA material the day after the CASA material, and the AUF > >material the day after that, reflects well on these other > >organisations. > > If they all had RPL's then this stuff could all come from one source. > Needless duplication with opportunities for stuff ups. > > > In terms of safety outcomes the Australian system sh**s on > >the US system and I would be interested to compare accident rates of SSA > >and USUA members versus non-members if such data were available. > > This sort of crap has been used for 60 years to justify bureaucratic > repression in Australian aviation. > > The material I've seen from time to time shows the US beats or equals us in > all areas except main trunk airlines and that will change the first time we > lose a 737etc. Mike Valentine published some data a few years back that > indicated accident/fatality rates were about the same for glider pilots in > the US/Germany/Australia. > > > > >The rules as presently expressed are not suitable for aircraft without > >generating capacity. Loss of radio and other electrically -powered > >equipment is a far greater safety hazard than absence of a transponder, > >though it might be "nice-to-have" a transponder for some > >situations. > > Aircraft do fly without radios you know. > > > Having re-read the NASIG printed material tonight, the simple > >rule of "if you have a transponder you must use it all the time" can lead > >to less-than-safe situations in gliders or balloons, or vintage aeroplanes > >with no generator but a battery-operated radio. > > > Agreed and I have pointed this out to NASIG in writing. > > If flexibility is really > >the key to it all working, how about he flexibility to use radio and/or > >primary radar instead of SSR to achieve the desired level of > >safety? > > > What primary radar? Which applies in much of the US too. Why do you think > the US is so keen for airliner transponders to be unable to be switched off > in the event of a hijacking since 9/11? > > You do have the flexibility to use radio. The changes mean that the use is > concentrated in the high risk areas. It is rational risk management. > > Incidentally, since gliders in the US do not need transponders > >within 40 NM of a Class D tower, why should we? > > Politics to placate the regional airlines. We have such big wins in other > areas we should go along with this one. > > > >If you disagree with this then we must agree to disagree. > > > >Incidentally, when did you last fly a glider? > > Two 4 hour cross countries this year. Not that it is relevant. > > Mike > > Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments > phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 > fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 > cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 > Int'l + 61 429 355784 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: www.borgeltinstruments.com > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
