They also publish WAC's with TAC/controlled airspace overlays, or they did
when I was power flying years ago. They were not cheap so I used to copy
the airspace onto WAC's and seal them with clear "contact" and flight plan
with chinagraph.
PeterS
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Newton"
Mike,
You said it yourself - "although I know this isn't what he meant" - and so
my remark about common sense stands.
Thank you for you advice about "SAAA and flying VH registered aircraft etc,
etc". However I occasionally visit http://www.saaa.com and what you said did
nothing to improve my kn
Are there any "anti-recreational licence" glider pilots out there who
would be willing to
provide an explanation as to why they oppose the RPL?
I understand that I'm asking you to have your head bitten off ;-)
But I'm actually seriously interested as to why someone would oppose
this concept
an
> Sports aviation organisation. You GFA idiots are believing your own
> propaganda.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments ABN
> 75532924542 Box 7474 Toowoomba M.C. Queensland 4352 Australia
O'Dear Mike.
Is "You GFA idiots are believing your own prop
At 10:02 AM 5/06/02 +1000, you wrote:
>Good post Simon.
>I have a bit of trouble using ERC low charts because they
>are to a different scale from WAC or Planning charts, so
>can't be just overlaid to show you exactly where the
>skydiving, gliding or balloon sites are in relation to the
>ground fea
Two thoughts on this matter:
1. The Australian Parachute Federation (APF) could perhaps produce a set of
GPS co-ordinates for known parachuting operations, as well as contact details
if available. You can easily put proximity alerts into most modern GPS units,
and if you are able to identify
At 01:33 AM 5/06/02 +1000, you wrote:
>At 10:05 04-06-02 +0930, Simon wrote:
>>At 9:55 AM +0930 4/6/02, ANDREW WRIGHT wrote:
>>> Why is it that a glider was is airspace through which parachutists
>>>were operating or the otherway around ?
>
>Simon
>
>Why would you expect to see anything li
At 09:07 PM 4/06/02 +1000, you wrote:
>Another aspect of interest is liability insurance.
>
>Looking at the policy for Nimbus 2C GAW, I note that there is a $250,000
>excess, which is covered by a GFA policy. I would be surprised if the GFA's
>insurance company would fork out for a claim against
At 08:08 PM 4/06/02 +0830, you wrote:
>GFA is, as I understand it, totally responsible for sailplane airworthiness
>under delegation from CASA. CASA, as I understand it, do not issue sailplane
>AD's, AN's etc. They probably receive a copy of each from GFA and someone in
>that bureaucracy files it
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 12:16:16PM +1000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Jeppesen charts?
No, they document approaches to runways. I think he meant Sectional
Charts.
- mark
I tried an internal modem,[EMAI
At 02:58 PM 4/06/02 +1000, you wrote:
>I would say that it was a perfectly reasonable question, until interpreted
>by someone seemingly devoid of common sense.
>
>What an incredibly dumb response.
>
>Or was it meant as a joke:-)
>
>
>--
>Brian Wade
Brian,
To throw a little light on your ignoranc
At 03:00 PM 4/06/02 CST, you wrote:
>> Remarkable isn't it how a little exposure to a professional training
>> system opens your eyes to what's really going on?
>
> Mike.
> I agree and it may be of interest to note that the professional
>training I received was provided by a very expe
In Australia, there is a NPRM (Notice of Proposal to Rule Making or
something like that - now closed means it is coming in soon) which will
allow parachutists to legally jump through cloud provided there is a
jumpmaster on the ground clearing the drop using a local frequency. The
aircraft will ha
Jeppesen charts?
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Hackett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Accident in the UK
> I agree - the VNC, extended nationally, would be a thing of beauty.
>
> Its really 'WAC + navi
> >An 'interesting' (in a macabre sense) statistic to understand would
> > be whether there is any significant incidence of collision between
> > skydivers and powered aircraft.
>From a US Web site - under a heading relating to parachutists colloding with
aircraft:
More than one such accident ha
>An 'interesting' (in a macabre sense) statistic to understand would
> be whether there is any significant incidence of collision between
> skydivers and powered aircraft.
>
I had an interesting "near miss" with a power plane when I was in free fall
one day. I was at about 2500' moving away from
So much discussion about one accident on the other side of the world. An
as I recall we have now had 2 similar accidents in several years.
Meanwhile millions have died in many other pursuits.
Some thoughts:
I have flown in the vicinity of Temora on many days with parachute
operations. The
I agree - the VNC, extended nationally, would be a thing of beauty.
Its really 'WAC + naviational overlays', and it works really well.
Unsurprisingly, the equivalent thing (forget what it's called) in the
USA works just as well - and those -are- national, I think (at least,
everywhere I've flo
Good post Simon.
I have a bit of trouble using ERC low charts because they
are to a different scale from WAC or Planning charts, so
can't be just overlaid to show you exactly where the
skydiving, gliding or balloon sites are in relation to the
ground features. ERC charts are mainly for controlled
Andrew Horton said:
> Not all power pilots necessarily know that
>gliders may not monitor the area frequency.
I'd postulate that -most- glider pilots either aren't on the area
frequency, and/or don't have a radio turned on anyway - because they
aren't required to!
(and I don't disagree with
At 1:33 AM +1000 05/06/2002, Mike Cleaver wrote:
>
>Why would you expect to see anything like that marked on a WAC -
>which is purely a 1:1,000,000 topographic chart that is overprinted
>only with aerodromes, isogonals and spot heights in feet. To find
>information like that you need to use th
At 10:05 04-06-02 +0930, Simon wrote:
>At 9:55 AM +0930 4/6/02, ANDREW WRIGHT wrote:
>> Why is it that a glider was is airspace through which parachutists
>>were operating or the otherway around ?
>
>Because it is in no way prohibited, I expect.
>
>i.e. Because they're allowed to be, and t
At 14:13 04-06-02 +1000, Mike B wrote:
>Everyone with a PPL flys under another organisation. It's much less trouble
>than working with an organisation run by would be Stasi informants and
>standover men trying desperately to protect the source of their funding.
>
>What a dumb question!
Au contr
At 20:42 04-06-02 +1000, you wrote:
>It's perfectly safe in Australia, Andrew. CASA said so.
>
>It's only dangerous in England and France. It's so safe in Australia they
>can even do it through clouds and in IMC. CASA's collision model says so.
Graeme - Nobody said anything was "perfectly sa
> So, to avoid all that, the army puts its Blackhawks track straight
over
> the
> top of the gliding field, with its odd winch cable reaching into the
sky.
> The air force are much more sensible, they put the Hercules along the
> South
> Eastern Freeway at 500' instead.
>
Yeah I know - I was scr
Simon
I TOTALLY agree.
I am trying to discipline myself (not an easy thing to do !) to
monitor the area freq. instead of 122.7 or 9 when X/C soaring.My recent
training in power flying has shown me the other side of the coin with
respect to airspace use. I think glider pilots
I guess this is just about the first post I've made to this list, having
being subscribed to it for the better part of 3 years now...
I'm a skydiver myself, as well as a glider pilot (and I've recently got a
PPL too!).
I was going to say something about what skydivers do in the air, but I see a
Where does it actually say in the article that the Parachutist was still
in free fall? ...
Graham
ANDREW WRIGHT wrote:
>>accident happened at about 2000 ft. How come the skydiver
>>was still in free fall at such a low altitude ?
>>
>
> I wondered the same thing myself. The report said
Another aspect of interest is liability insurance.
Looking at the policy for Nimbus 2C GAW, I note that there is a $250,000
excess, which is covered by a GFA policy. I would be surprised if the GFA's
insurance company would fork out for a claim against a non GFA member!
--
Brian Wade
Persona
It's perfectly safe in Australia, Andrew. CASA said so.
It's only dangerous in England and France. It's so safe in Australia they
can even do it through clouds and in IMC. CASA's collision model says so.
I'm not sure whether it was programmed with the average density of aircraft
and parachu
Reginald Moore wrote:
> I notice that some people are suggesting that members unhappy with
> flying under the GFA banner fly under CASA.
H'mm. Been thinking a bit about how this would function from the
airworthiness side - only because it is the airworthiness side of gliding
that I'm involved wi
The last time I checked it was not mandatory to carry a radio when flying a glider in the UK.
Best Regards,
John Haunton
> Remarkable isn't it how a little exposure to a professional training
> system opens your eyes to what's really going on?
Mike.
I agree and it may be of interest to note that the professional
training I received was provided by a very experienced glider pilot, ultra-light
pilot
33 matches
Mail list logo
