Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
#1844737
@Rob L Great point, 'the airfield at which the LAA currently reside'.
Feel better now?
What was the point of that drama? showcasing formatting skills?
I took a linguistic shortcut, the meaning of which was perfectly clear and didn't pretend to accrue benefit that wasn't deserved. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? Be careful of what? I don't understand the threat, or it's potential consequences. Please explain.
#1844740
AeroDyn wrote:@Rob L Great point, 'the airfield at which the LAA currently reside'.
Feel better now?
What was the point of that drama? showcasing formatting skills?
I took a linguistic shortcut, the meaning of which was perfectly clear and didn't pretend to accrue benefit that wasn't deserved. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? Be careful of what? I don't understand the threat, or it's potential consequences. Please explain.


It's not the LAA airfield.
#1844750
@AeroDyn

Sooo, the LAA airfield have Pilotaware based ATOM GRID which isn't used for traffic advice but DID assist a successful Airprox resolution?


Another point of order in that sentence. This is what the UKAB summarised:

Finally, in determining the risk, the Board discussed the separation between the aircraft and the action taken by the pilots. Although the RV9 pilot had seen the Phenom late, the Phenom pilot had been visual for some time and so members quickly agreed that there had been no risk of collision, but assessed that safety had been degraded; Risk Category C.


My highlight. Would you like to amend your hyperbole about what the system did or didn’t contribute to the resolution?
#1844753
gaznav wrote:@AeroDyn

Sooo, the LAA airfield have Pilotaware based ATOM GRID which isn't used for traffic advice but DID assist a successful Airprox resolution?


Another point of order in that sentence. This is what the UKAB summarised:

Finally, in determining the risk, the Board discussed the separation between the aircraft and the action taken by the pilots. Although the RV9 pilot had seen the Phenom late, the Phenom pilot had been visual for some time and so members quickly agreed that there had been no risk of collision, but assessed that safety had been degraded; Risk Category C.


My highlight. Would you like to amend your hyperbole about what the system did or didn’t contribute to the resolution?
Circuit traffic were advised, GRID ATOM contributed. There is NO DOUBT that the warning enhanced the SA, the report says that as I recall..
So, NO hyperbole ('hi per boal', or 'hi per boleeeeee'?)
Apart from trying to diminish a successful resolution Gaz, are you just annoyed that aircraft should either avoid each other 'properly' or crash?
Seems a bit harsh.
And your point is transparent, expected, disappointing and wholly unhelpful. What a shame.
[edit]@Flyin'Dutch' really? you NEED to be that guy? S'ok[edit]
HansGruber liked this
#1844769
gaznav wrote:
TLRippon wrote:Now that radio operators can facilitate GPS derived non precision approaches with a 10 minute closure of the ATZ. Debating whether passing obvious collision risk information would seem inconsequential.


Are you sure? I am an Air Ground Radio Operator (AGRO) with a Radio Operators’ Certificate of Competence (ROCC) - this is not covered in CAP452 and looking at CAP413 it states this:

RNP instrument approach procedures (IAP) are available for use by suitably equipped aircraft and approved operators at certain aerodromes.


Looking at the phraseology for such approaches in CAP413 it uses words like “Report”, then to me the minimum would be Flight Information Service Officers (FISOs). Can you point me to where it says that AGROs can do this? It would help greatly if you could :thumleft:


Was looking at the paperwork the other day, in someone else’s hands, I’ll retrieve and report.
gaznav liked this
#1844825
AeroDyn wrote:..('hi per boal', or 'hi per boleeeeee'?)
..


The latter. My linguist geekery is my only qualification to comment on this thread :wink:

[ haɪˈpɜːrbəli, 4 syllables, in standard phonetics. From Greek ὑπερβολή, oxytone (stressed on last syllable, the eta ή ), meaning 'throwing above']
#1844883
Dear Friends
Thanks for not hanging me out to dry over the weekend chaps :-)
If I ever see something out of my window or on an application in my office that is a safety matter that may result in someone getting hurt I will pipe up because you are all important to someone at home and I don't want to have to attend any more accidents ;-) stay safe and enjoy life

Kindest Regards Chris Brown
leemoore1966, Rob P, exfirepro and 6 others liked this
#1845916
TLRippon wrote:
gaznav wrote:
TLRippon wrote:Now that radio operators can facilitate GPS derived non precision approaches with a 10 minute closure of the ATZ. Debating whether passing obvious collision risk information would seem inconsequential.


Are you sure? I am an Air Ground Radio Operator (AGRO) with a Radio Operators’ Certificate of Competence (ROCC) - this is not covered in CAP452 and looking at CAP413 it states this:

RNP instrument approach procedures (IAP) are available for use by suitably equipped aircraft and approved operators at certain aerodromes.


Looking at the phraseology for such approaches in CAP413 it uses words like “Report”, then to me the minimum would be Flight Information Service Officers (FISOs). Can you point me to where it says that AGROs can do this? It would help greatly if you could :thumleft:


Was looking at the paperwork the other day, in someone else’s hands, I’ll retrieve and report.


Gaznav

This looks like what you have missed:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplic ... l&id=10132

CAP413 Supplement 2021/01
gaznav liked this
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9