Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob L
#1861231
Three Bulldogs inbound right now:

Bulldog: "Three Bulldogs at Fond du Lac"
ATC: "Say type?"
Bulldog: "Scottish Aviation Bulldogs"

Makes me thing of Paul Sengupta!

Not showing on ADSB
Paul_Sengupta, kanga liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861240
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I bet you they haven't got a 29 page AIC which is out of date already and will be replaced with a NOTAM nearer the time!


Can't let this one go, because people might believe it.

Frank, as the LAA Rally AIC points out front and centre on page 1, in bold no less, on the day you only need the relevant appendices. (Having read and understood the detail in advance - just like is required for Oshkosh).

That is, just two pages for the particular approach in use - one for joining, one for the after landing taxy.

For departure, you need only 1 page.

Carp where criticism is due, sure, but I do think we should actually read the document first!
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861249
Dave W wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I bet you they haven't got a 29 page AIC which is out of date already and will be replaced with a NOTAM nearer the time!


Can't let this one go, because people might believe it.



1. Dave - it is 29 pages

2. And Cloudhound - who is pretty close to the fire in these matters referred to the Notam as the mother of all NOTAMs!:

Image

Which bit of my post is incorrect :?:
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861255
What is incorrect is your apparent expectation that an event the size of the LAA Rally won't have a detailed guidance document!

To make that detail easy to use, the LAA have chosen - just like the EAA have - to break out the useful stuff for clarity. That means much repetition, but this isn't a novel so in these cases repetition is good. You discard the stuff you don't want, and immediately know where to look for the stuff you do.

There are 4 possible arrival procedures (2 parallel runways, 2 directions) which inherently requires 3 pages each (inc. taxy diagram).
  • That is 12 pages straight away.
  • 2 pages are large, clear signs with a single letter on denoting Fuel required and Disabled Persons on Board. Those could have been left out, but they will be convenient fort those that need them so why not?
  • 2 pages comprise the airside safety leaflet. Wait until the pilot and pax get to the entry gate? Well, you could but that's hardly good practice.
  • 2 pages are a quick cross-reference to key subjects. Not a good idea to simplify? I'd say it is.
  • 2 pages are helicopter procedures. Well, you might not want those - but several people will. And actually, why not give the option for the FW people to know what to expect from the RW pilots? Sounds safe to me.
  • 1 page shows the dimensions of the RA(T). Yep, quite like that, thanks.
  • 2 page gives the National and Farnborough LARS coverage. Available elsewhere, sure - but given previous years' infringement experience, which wouldn't you help pilots out with that?

So that makes 23 pages of really quite valuable information.

The remaining 6 pages are a pithy description of the rescue facilities at Sywell, whether there will be a display (No), what to do if you have a radio failure or an emergency, what the operating hours are, where and how do you park, what if you need to go-around, IFR arrivals (hint: Don't); Booking In on Arrival.

There's a lot in those 6 pages; do you think any of it is useless or unhelpful?

Now take a look at the Oshkosh equivalent -oho, the layout doesn't look too different. Above a few hundred visitors, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there isn't a natural lower limit to the pages needed to impart key information once you have a simple arrival procedure (as both events do, standfast the traffic volumes). Or that the lower limit isn't a couple of sheets.

What would YOU leave out?
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861259
@Dave W What is the problem with someone making an off the cuff remark about the frankly ridiculous size of the AIC?

It is permissible to have a different opinion to you isn't it?

You think it is apt, fine; I think it is slightly bonkers, fine too?

And then at the time of publication already to know it needs to be changed before the event?

Straight from 'Yes, minister'
Mike Tango liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861271
But why do you think it is ridiculous?

I have explained, in some detail, why it seems reasonable to me given what contains. That's my opinion (which I, too, am allowed to have you know) and furthermore I have attempted to back up with facts.

An opinion that is not backed up with facts or explanation can sometimes be a prejudice.

Sadly we all have those, too.


PS Why does this annoy me so?

Well, it's because all of this effort is being done by volunteers - not just to keep us all safe but to facilitate us all having fun. And God knows we could all do with some fun after the past 18 months. So I do feel more than a little irritated when the efforts of those volunteers are carped at and publicly belittled for no apparent reason.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861275
Are we talking about me, or you?

If you didn't continually put the boot in to volunteers, or continually push at the clearly stated limits of the forum, you wouldn't get the pushback you do.

I do not post "at" you, I post at your sadly consistent behaviour. Of all people, coming from an ex-moderator it continues to disappoint.

That's it from me on this thread.