Zone Infringements
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
DFC,
I don't really see the point you are trying to make. but if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do. It's simple enough.
If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio.
I don't really see the point you are trying to make. but if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do. It's simple enough.
If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
You really do have to get a grip on yourself.
Your conception of the real world of aviation is far removed from mine, and I have been in it for many many years.
You are giving the impression of someone who likes to think that since you have the book of words you must be right. You are not and I am not going to justify that. Others have already done very well in telling you how it is.
If you just like to talk to ATC you are wasting their time. I know Vintage ATCO and to tell him that he not complying with ANYTHING connnected with his job is downright stupid. But then maybe you think that VFR, IFR this and that ATC is there just for your convenience. As I said before, it ain't, it never was and it never will be.
Now, maybe Flyin' Dutch has it right. You live in the M.Mouse world. Tellya what, don't ever go to him for a medical, when he tells you to cough you could be in big trouble.
Now give it a rest. Your pedantic views are out of place in the real world of ATC. They are brilliant at the job they do. Are you a brilliant pilot? I doubt it.
You really do have to get a grip on yourself.
Your conception of the real world of aviation is far removed from mine, and I have been in it for many many years.
You are giving the impression of someone who likes to think that since you have the book of words you must be right. You are not and I am not going to justify that. Others have already done very well in telling you how it is.
If you just like to talk to ATC you are wasting their time. I know Vintage ATCO and to tell him that he not complying with ANYTHING connnected with his job is downright stupid. But then maybe you think that VFR, IFR this and that ATC is there just for your convenience. As I said before, it ain't, it never was and it never will be.
Now, maybe Flyin' Dutch has it right. You live in the M.Mouse world. Tellya what, don't ever go to him for a medical, when he tells you to cough you could be in big trouble.
Now give it a rest. Your pedantic views are out of place in the real world of ATC. They are brilliant at the job they do. Are you a brilliant pilot? I doubt it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And the amount of money units get for LARS doesn't even cover the cost of 1 ATCO (I know - I've just seen the letter from DAP that tells us how much we'll be getting!).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chilli
I'm not trying to start an argument, but your position is quite wrong on state aid, so I'll post a reply that you may find helpful in understanding the position. Note that I am not a lawyer, but I do work as a consultant pan Europe and believe that I have a reasonable grasp of the law.
This info is purely about tax incentives aka state aid, not about the rights and wrongs of who pays for the system or GA users being badly done to
Also, you may feel that the laws are more often observed in the breach!
Let's have another go. CAA, NATS et al exist because the UK government lets them act as franchises and like most franchises, they pay their own way.
However, the UK government chooses to collect no duty or tax on AVTUR and this provides an incentive to the airlines who pay the nav charges that pay for the services provided.
Other forms of transport, e.g. road hauliers, do pay tax and/or duty, so there is asymmetric treatment in place.
Taxing one group of people and not another is considered to be potentially providing unlawful state aid under EU rules, because an incentive is being offered.
I know from reading your posts on many threads that you understand the ATC rules and regs very well, but you don't know very much about the Free and Fair trade laws in the EU by the content of your replies, which I guess is understandable given your job.
Here's an extract from an official Maltese publication that states things simply, I have capitalised the key words.
"State Aid
State aid is financial support that is granted by governments to certain companies. We usually speak of “subsidies” which are direct grants. But there are other forms of state aid, such as TAX INCENTIVES, subsidised interest rates on loans or loan guarantees. EU law prohibits state aid because it gives an unfair competitive advantage to assisted companies over companies that are not assisted. However, not all types of state aid are prohibited. State aid is allowed if it is granted for justifiable reasons such as, to help small businesses, for restructuring, training, job creation or to help regional development. State aid which is limited in amount is also exempted from EU rules. "
I'm not trying to start an argument, but your position is quite wrong on state aid, so I'll post a reply that you may find helpful in understanding the position. Note that I am not a lawyer, but I do work as a consultant pan Europe and believe that I have a reasonable grasp of the law.
This info is purely about tax incentives aka state aid, not about the rights and wrongs of who pays for the system or GA users being badly done to
Also, you may feel that the laws are more often observed in the breach!
Sorry, but seeing as the CAA, NATS and all other sides of the aviation industry are self funded (no government assistance / subsidies) and haven't been since NATS was sold off your logic is flawed to put it mildly. My comprehension of your post was, therefore, correct.
However, the UK government chooses to collect no duty or tax on AVTUR and this provides an incentive to the airlines who pay the nav charges that pay for the services provided.
Other forms of transport, e.g. road hauliers, do pay tax and/or duty, so there is asymmetric treatment in place.
(AVTUR tax free is just that, it's not a subsidy, therefore it just means the government is looking elsewhere for financial input).
I know from reading your posts on many threads that you understand the ATC rules and regs very well, but you don't know very much about the Free and Fair trade laws in the EU by the content of your replies, which I guess is understandable given your job.
Here's an extract from an official Maltese publication that states things simply, I have capitalised the key words.
"State Aid
State aid is financial support that is granted by governments to certain companies. We usually speak of “subsidies” which are direct grants. But there are other forms of state aid, such as TAX INCENTIVES, subsidised interest rates on loans or loan guarantees. EU law prohibits state aid because it gives an unfair competitive advantage to assisted companies over companies that are not assisted. However, not all types of state aid are prohibited. State aid is allowed if it is granted for justifiable reasons such as, to help small businesses, for restructuring, training, job creation or to help regional development. State aid which is limited in amount is also exempted from EU rules. "
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G
I see your point - now. That's the danger with specialised knowledge. Often it's not readily apparent that 95% of the population won't have it and therefore won't think the same way.
Just think how simple it would have been to have pointed out such things beforehand
I see your point - now. That's the danger with specialised knowledge. Often it's not readily apparent that 95% of the population won't have it and therefore won't think the same way.
Just think how simple it would have been to have pointed out such things beforehand
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli,
Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application..............often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill
No Sj1t.
---
Shy Thorque,
You have missed my points.
if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do
That is what we do when we can. However, have you ever had any problem getting through to London info on a sunny summer Sunday Morning when the South of the UK leaves for France. Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination.
However, if we will transit a zone enroute then provided we don't change our flight plan, we will have to call that zone and as the top reason for suspecting an emergency is failure to call when expected, any ATC unit meeting CAA requirements will be in a position to make that alert if we don't call with 30 minutes of the expected time.
If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio
It isn't "my" system. It is the UK CAA system.
I never said that written flight plans should be required for anything more than they are required already.
Keep the freedoms.......show me where they are written down
Look at it like this;
1. If I am going to stick to my route and transit a zone then as per the AIP, it makes sense to file in advance.
2. If on the otherhand, I intend to simply have a bimble and perchance call for a zone transit then it would be better to simply file an abreviated plan in flight ( again as per the AIP).
In 1 above, I am already known to the ATC system and the ATC unit concerned is responsible for initiating overdue action if I fail to turn up (They have no get out clause because it is in the AIP and MATS 1). I in turn am required to notify any changes to my flight plan to avoid unnecessary overdue action.
In 2, I can't really predict exactly what I am going to do so it would be too cumbersome to file a written plan (although I could but it isn't worth while addressing various zones that may or may not be transited) and because of the random nature of my flight it would be unreasonable to expect ATC to provide any form of alerting other than when I am in contact with that unit.
Thus I hope you can see that I am not trying to change any requirement for flight plans, I am merely trying to make the point that since pilots are legally required to comply with the AIP then ATC should coinsidder themselves under the same legal requirement...........not to mention duty of care.
You still have the opotion to simply call on the radio.
---
CaptainFillosan,
If you could counter the argument then perhaps you would have. In the absence of any counter argument you resort to the personal attack. Feel free to say that what the AIP says is wrong.
At least Chilli had the balls to say that!
ATC is there just for your convenience
Close - see the objectives of ATC............all of which are about providing services to flights.
There are only two services provided to every flight regardless of what ATS unit they talk to..........Flight Information and Alerting.
There is only one service provided by ATS units to flights in which they have no contact - Alerting Service.
Are you a brilliant pilot?
I doubt it to.............but I have survived thus far.
As I said previously - 75% of UK pilots can not file a written flight plan without help. A similar percentage of active pilots when asked admitt to not haing read the AIP in the last year................does that not tell the CAA something about the standard of the UK GA pilot?
Let's all take your line.
The AIP and the ANO are far too pedantic.........forget licences and medicals and calling ATC......simply fly for the hell of it.........and see how we get on.
I await the moaning about European regulations when the one sky enforces filed plans for everything above 3000ft!
regards,
DFC
Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application..............often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill
No Sj1t.
---
Shy Thorque,
You have missed my points.
if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do
That is what we do when we can. However, have you ever had any problem getting through to London info on a sunny summer Sunday Morning when the South of the UK leaves for France. Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination.
However, if we will transit a zone enroute then provided we don't change our flight plan, we will have to call that zone and as the top reason for suspecting an emergency is failure to call when expected, any ATC unit meeting CAA requirements will be in a position to make that alert if we don't call with 30 minutes of the expected time.
If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio
It isn't "my" system. It is the UK CAA system.
I never said that written flight plans should be required for anything more than they are required already.
Keep the freedoms.......show me where they are written down
Look at it like this;
1. If I am going to stick to my route and transit a zone then as per the AIP, it makes sense to file in advance.
2. If on the otherhand, I intend to simply have a bimble and perchance call for a zone transit then it would be better to simply file an abreviated plan in flight ( again as per the AIP).
In 1 above, I am already known to the ATC system and the ATC unit concerned is responsible for initiating overdue action if I fail to turn up (They have no get out clause because it is in the AIP and MATS 1). I in turn am required to notify any changes to my flight plan to avoid unnecessary overdue action.
In 2, I can't really predict exactly what I am going to do so it would be too cumbersome to file a written plan (although I could but it isn't worth while addressing various zones that may or may not be transited) and because of the random nature of my flight it would be unreasonable to expect ATC to provide any form of alerting other than when I am in contact with that unit.
Thus I hope you can see that I am not trying to change any requirement for flight plans, I am merely trying to make the point that since pilots are legally required to comply with the AIP then ATC should coinsidder themselves under the same legal requirement...........not to mention duty of care.
You still have the opotion to simply call on the radio.
---
CaptainFillosan,
If you could counter the argument then perhaps you would have. In the absence of any counter argument you resort to the personal attack. Feel free to say that what the AIP says is wrong.
At least Chilli had the balls to say that!
ATC is there just for your convenience
Close - see the objectives of ATC............all of which are about providing services to flights.
There are only two services provided to every flight regardless of what ATS unit they talk to..........Flight Information and Alerting.
There is only one service provided by ATS units to flights in which they have no contact - Alerting Service.
Are you a brilliant pilot?
I doubt it to.............but I have survived thus far.
As I said previously - 75% of UK pilots can not file a written flight plan without help. A similar percentage of active pilots when asked admitt to not haing read the AIP in the last year................does that not tell the CAA something about the standard of the UK GA pilot?
Let's all take your line.
The AIP and the ANO are far too pedantic.........forget licences and medicals and calling ATC......simply fly for the hell of it.........and see how we get on.
I await the moaning about European regulations when the one sky enforces filed plans for everything above 3000ft!
regards,
DFC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
DFC,
"Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination."
Are you saying that you would rather file a paper flight plan before you go and rely solely on that, rather than make en route radio calls? I must have missed your point again because I can't believe anyone would. Far better to be in real time r/t contact with a ground unit if you have an emergency, rather than rely on a filed piece of paper when you aren't. It doesn't have to be London, just the nearest airfield.
Or are you just angry because in practice ATC doesn't work like you think it ought to?
"Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination."
Are you saying that you would rather file a paper flight plan before you go and rely solely on that, rather than make en route radio calls? I must have missed your point again because I can't believe anyone would. Far better to be in real time r/t contact with a ground unit if you have an emergency, rather than rely on a filed piece of paper when you aren't. It doesn't have to be London, just the nearest airfield.
Or are you just angry because in practice ATC doesn't work like you think it ought to?
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC, your persistent view - despite being repeatedly told otherwise by those who intimately aware of the practical application of the rules that you quote - appears, on the face of it, to be a matter of differing interpretations of the rules. In reality, filed flight plans are normally addressed by ATS/AIS staff and not by pilots. Things are changing because pilots, for a variety of reasons, can now have access to the ATN messaging systems. ATS /AIS staff address FPL messages according to well defined rules and pilots should do the same. These rules DO NOT include addressing FPLs to units that you may just happen to be passing by.
In years gone by these rules were included in CAP493 MATS Part 1 but for some reason they were removed a long time ago. I guess if they were still there you'd be able to read them and quote them in forums like Pprune. As it is, I dont think they're published in any UK document and the only place you'll find them is in an ICAO doc - the reference for which escapes me at this time on a Sunday morning. But I'm sure you'll be able to find it!
If, after you've read it, you still think you're right, please tell us all why.
If you're right and I'm wrong, I apologise. If I'm right and you're wrong, don't worry about apologising, just learn that despite what you think, if everyone else who know what they're talking about is telling you you're wrong - then you probably are!
In years gone by these rules were included in CAP493 MATS Part 1 but for some reason they were removed a long time ago. I guess if they were still there you'd be able to read them and quote them in forums like Pprune. As it is, I dont think they're published in any UK document and the only place you'll find them is in an ICAO doc - the reference for which escapes me at this time on a Sunday morning. But I'm sure you'll be able to find it!
If, after you've read it, you still think you're right, please tell us all why.
If you're right and I'm wrong, I apologise. If I'm right and you're wrong, don't worry about apologising, just learn that despite what you think, if everyone else who know what they're talking about is telling you you're wrong - then you probably are!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid that as with any 'rule', there is never black and white, even if asserted as so by DFC.
In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established (which negates point [a] above). The interpretation of many ATC units (and mine) is that radio contact would only be expected if the pilot had made an initial call and a follow up call had not been made when expected (asked to report passing a position, for example), or if the aircraft had been subject to a co-ordination message from another ATSU and then did not call on the frequency at the expected time. If it was otherwise, then the chasing around of people who didn't turn up (and were not obliged to in any case) would keep the Rescue Co-ordination Centres very busy indeed. Mmmm, now there's a thought. Bring that in and charge them all for wasted time. We could probably fund the whole ATC system .. and the NHS
If we do follow DFCs interpretation however, then there is also an onus placed on the pilot to contact each and every ATC unit on their Flight Plan every time their estimate changes by -/+ 3 minutes. These are the tolerances. Is that really what pilots (not to mention ATC) want ??
Again, this down to interpretation. When do ATC expect a pilot to make a position report ?
Well, one scenario is 'when requested'. But you'd need to be in contact already for that, or asked to do so by another ATC unit. So in that case we already know you are in the system and have a firm idea of what you are actually doing.
Another is if it is a mandatory reporting point. But then you'd be on a published ATS route .. and have a clearance, and be in contact, etc, etc.
Bottom line is that for aircraft outside CAS, position reports are only expected by ATC in a limited set of circumstances. Hence our wide held interpretation that a pilot who simply files a flight plan for a transit and then is not subject to any communication with ATC (either directly or through another ATSU) is not expected to make a position report and thus cannot be overdue in making said report. That's why we as a system take no action on flight planned aircraft which don't turn up for a transit.
The entire responsibility in this case lies with the arrival airfield or the 'responsible person'.
3 Recognising an Emergency Situation
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............
If we do follow DFCs interpretation however, then there is also an onus placed on the pilot to contact each and every ATC unit on their Flight Plan every time their estimate changes by -/+ 3 minutes. These are the tolerances. Is that really what pilots (not to mention ATC) want ??
2 Aerodrome Procedure
2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.
2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.
Well, one scenario is 'when requested'. But you'd need to be in contact already for that, or asked to do so by another ATC unit. So in that case we already know you are in the system and have a firm idea of what you are actually doing.
Another is if it is a mandatory reporting point. But then you'd be on a published ATS route .. and have a clearance, and be in contact, etc, etc.
Bottom line is that for aircraft outside CAS, position reports are only expected by ATC in a limited set of circumstances. Hence our wide held interpretation that a pilot who simply files a flight plan for a transit and then is not subject to any communication with ATC (either directly or through another ATSU) is not expected to make a position report and thus cannot be overdue in making said report. That's why we as a system take no action on flight planned aircraft which don't turn up for a transit.
The entire responsibility in this case lies with the arrival airfield or the 'responsible person'.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all that Guys.
So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.
Furthermore to Quote PPrune Radar;
In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established
So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?
If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.
Have you cake and eat it!
Regards,
DFC
PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.
Spitoon - Random address book (can remember the CAP) and AIP....only limit is on the likes of BAWYWY company addresses.
Shy Torque,
Yes you got it all wrong again!
Dutch,
Sorry did you make an input? - No?
So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.
Furthermore to Quote PPrune Radar;
In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established
So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?
If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.
Have you cake and eat it!
Regards,
DFC
PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.
Spitoon - Random address book (can remember the CAP) and AIP....only limit is on the likes of BAWYWY company addresses.
Shy Torque,
Yes you got it all wrong again!
Dutch,
Sorry did you make an input? - No?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.
So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?
If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.
ENR 1.1.2 Paragraph 1.4 covers it nicely.Acceptance of a request for clearance does not imply that a clearance to enter Controlled Airspace has been given or will be granted.
PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.
A Flight Plan is of course only a statement of intent, and may not be adhered to, as we all know. In terms of transit ATSUs, I think the following AIP entry also lends support to the fact that there is no onus on them to take any action if an aircraft doesn't appear looking to transit their zone. In this specific case it is talking about diversions.
If a pilot lands at an aerodrome other than the destination specified in the flight plan, he must ensure that the ATSU at the original destination is informed within 30 minutes of his flight planned ETA, to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services.
Now if your interpretation is correct .... don't you think it would also place an onus on the pilot to make sure that each transit ATSU was also informed within 30 minutes of the expected transit time to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services. ??????
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar,
The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP
That is exactly my point.........when is it OK for ATC to ignore the AIP and not for the pilot to do the same?
You are quite correct, radio equipped aircraft are required to inform ATS of changes to a flight plan to avoid unnecessary alerting action. That is why radio equipped aircraft are treated differently to non-radio in the MATS 1.
Put yourself in somewhere like Alaska with the UK AIP and ATS system. Would you treat flight plans in the same way?........ignoring flights wo depart but don't turn up?
Regards,
DFC
The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP
That is exactly my point.........when is it OK for ATC to ignore the AIP and not for the pilot to do the same?
You are quite correct, radio equipped aircraft are required to inform ATS of changes to a flight plan to avoid unnecessary alerting action. That is why radio equipped aircraft are treated differently to non-radio in the MATS 1.
Put yourself in somewhere like Alaska with the UK AIP and ATS system. Would you treat flight plans in the same way?........ignoring flights wo depart but don't turn up?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
No sh1t sherlock! We're not in Alaska, we're in the UK. The procedures work in the UK, they wouldn't in Alaska.
I believe that's why they're published as NATIONAL procedures
Much as you love hammering on about the 'interpreted' fallacies of the UK may I suggest a look across the water at a certain gallic country twice as large. Much of what you say over there would be greeted by the delightful phrase "fous le camp"
Arrange these two words in a well known saying - "life" and "get".
Put yourself in somewhere like Alaska with the UK AIP and ATS system.
I believe that's why they're published as NATIONAL procedures
Much as you love hammering on about the 'interpreted' fallacies of the UK may I suggest a look across the water at a certain gallic country twice as large. Much of what you say over there would be greeted by the delightful phrase "fous le camp"
Arrange these two words in a well known saying - "life" and "get".
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
DFC,
UK AIP in Alaska? WTHAYOA?
Now I understand your problem. Seen it before in the military when everyone on parade was out of step except one bloke....
P.S. Suggest you contact the CAA immediately.
UK AIP in Alaska? WTHAYOA?
Now I understand your problem. Seen it before in the military when everyone on parade was out of step except one bloke....
P.S. Suggest you contact the CAA immediately.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow.
This is what PPRUNE is all about - A topic called Zone Infringements with someone who lives in dream world bitching on about overdue action, FPL's and All things Alaskan!
Way to go DFC. I am with ShyTorque and others here. Come and live in the real world.
(P.S. It also says in the Highway Code that the motorway speed limit is 70mph, that people must always indicate at roundabouts and people shouldn't drive in the bus lane.
How do you survive day to day life when you have your head stuck up your ar$e>?)
This is what PPRUNE is all about - A topic called Zone Infringements with someone who lives in dream world bitching on about overdue action, FPL's and All things Alaskan!
Way to go DFC. I am with ShyTorque and others here. Come and live in the real world.
(P.S. It also says in the Highway Code that the motorway speed limit is 70mph, that people must always indicate at roundabouts and people shouldn't drive in the bus lane.
How do you survive day to day life when you have your head stuck up your ar$e>?)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too right Englishal. Pilots navigating for themselves would be too horrible to imagine
Perhaps Pprune should be rebranded as thed Twilight Zone.... and here is your host..... DFC
Perhaps Pprune should be rebranded as thed Twilight Zone.... and here is your host..... DFC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Slagging episodes over matters like this are just counter productive.
DFC, seriously, I think you do have a point BUT the written word obviously leaves some ambiguity in your mind. If the CAA were unhappy with it, they have had many years to do something about it and they haven't. I don't think you will ever change it and there is no reason to do so because the system works! Your best option is to just accept the way it is.
DFC, seriously, I think you do have a point BUT the written word obviously leaves some ambiguity in your mind. If the CAA were unhappy with it, they have had many years to do something about it and they haven't. I don't think you will ever change it and there is no reason to do so because the system works! Your best option is to just accept the way it is.