[jhb_airlines] Re: PCI Wednesday 18th

  • From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:55:04 +0100

A lovely get out clause for ATC. If you have no controlled airspace around
you and cannot guarantee that any instruction won't result in the aircraft
encountering a bogey then "at your discretion" is a perfect solution.

Jurby is a good example because it is manned for the air shows - proper ATC
- but it has no zone around it. It leads to a problem in that we can clear
an aircraft for take off, rather than an AFISO call to "Report Airborne",
but the clearance is just to take off from the runway and does not imply the
airspace ahead is safe. If the aircraft gets to 500ft and then has an
airmiss with a Tornado thumping along low level then it's just bad luck.

In fact I take my hat off to any controller working at a none radar airfield
because they are blind to any nearby aircraft. Only pure Mk.1 Eyeball is
available and that only good if the weather is clear.

A comparison in FS is for the PCI controllers to turn their radar display
off and to work the traffic using VoiceClient only. I could do this but
that's because I have the knowledge and training to do so. It's not easy for
users who have no radar failure experience.

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 17 July 2007 20:14
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: PCI Wednesday 18th


Hence the classic caveat "At your discretion" ? Much used at the Jurby
airshows!

Gerry Winskill

>
>For the unmanned airfields it doesn't matter what you do because ATC
>will not get involved - it becomes your choice.
>
>bones
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Reynolds
>Sent: 17 July 2007 18:47
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: PCI Wednesday 18th
>
>
>Given the close proximity of the strips, I think we also need to plan a
>contingency for the inevitable "server" lag.  For most of the session
>we should all be withn the 40 mile range and that will probably cause a
>significant build up for some flyers.
>
>Do we:
>
>a) fly what we see - ie. if an aircraft is on finals / take-off ahead
>of us we go around.
>
>or
>
>b) fly what we know is current. ie. controllers know the aircraft has
>cleared the airspace but we are stil seeing it.
>
>My thoughts are for a combination.
>
>If the aircraft seen is likely to obstruct you in anyway, go around,
>otherwise ignore it.
>
>Paul
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
>To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:29 PM
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: PCI Wednesday 18th
>
>
>
>
>>The problem with this run is that we have six airfields to cover.
>>After some
>>thought I suggest that the three important airfields to man are St
>>Maartens,
>>St Barts and St Kitts. Frank has the first so I'd like volunteers for St
>>Barts and St Kitts. <g>
>>
>>The original plan to double up isn't feasible except for maybe the St
>>Kitts/Nevis pair. For Saba, St Eustatius and maybe Nevis they will be
>>unmanned but I'll provide traffic information from TTZP (Piarco FIR).
>>We can fine tune this on the night.
>>
>>bones
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of franklyn
>>fisher
>>Sent: 17 July 2007 13:49
>>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [jhb_airlines] PCI Wednesday 18th
>>
>>
>>Been very quite for this, I assume that after everyone has checked out
>>their
>>
>>scenery, and they want to do the session.
>>
>>Unless otherwise, I will be at TNCM_APP Princess Julianna.
>>
>>Frank F
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Other related posts: