At 09:51 05-06-02 +0930, Simon wrote: >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 flown in the USA I've had one available).
WAC is a worldwide ICAO (international Civil Aviation Organisation) format but does not show airspace. That is too volatile for cost-effective print runs in Australia - the other National charts put out by Airservices (and the Jeppesen versions that use the same database) show that information in a cheaper format and the VNCs and VTCs show more detail on a local scale for populous areas. Can't remember whether the US Sectionals are 1:1 mill or 1: 500,000 but are far more cluttered than anything in AUS - and take a look at the UK 1/2 mill for a cluttered chart. I have one and used it to look at the airspace around the accident site. Incidentally the BBC today were saying a 24 year old parachutist from Alton, Hampshire and a 59 year old glider pilot from Oxfordshire - names as yet not released, but would not surprise me if the glider pilot were not the one from Alton as it is 5km from Lasham, one of the larger clubs and a reasonable Sunday afternoon X/C away. Nobody has said yet if the glider was flying local or was on a X/C and a lack of local knowledge may have contributed. >It is those US maps which are the most telling reminder of how much >simpler a life we have here. The map for the San Francisco Bay area is >truly a mind-boggling thing. > >Amazingly, actually flying in that area isn't all that hard, because >underlying all that complexity are some pragmatic improvements in the >management of such complex airspace that haven't yet made it to Australia > >(The simple example: flying over the top of a major airport at 5000 feet >in the 'Bay Area' is not a problem, unlike Australia where the 'wedding >cake' over major airports extends, quite uselessly IMHO, to infinity. So >you just fly straight over the top of most of the complexity if you are >transiting the area, and you are nowhere near the landing and departing >jets, and vice versa) Actually there is a closely-defined transit corridor for VFRs in the LA Basin and a requirement for radio contact and transponder, plus other traffic is routed elsewhere to avoid conflicts. The LA and SFO Class B airspace extends to 10,000 ft. Clearance through Class C to overfly Sydney or Brisbane above 7000 is likewise no hassle apart from some Aussies' pathological fear of talking to an Air Traffic Controller. Only the USA has this peculiar setup of a lower level of service directly over the major airports, but it does have very good radar coverage around them to detect 'silent' traffic and a requirement for transponders almost universally, except in the more remote areas. UK also has a very good low level radar system but is run by the military and shuts down 4pm Friday till 9 am Monday. There, they transfer VFRs from one unit to the next and even give traffic information - or did last time I used it 4 years ago. >Cheers, >Simon > >At 10:02 AM +1000 5/6/02, John Giddy 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 features. ERC charts are mainly for controlled >>traffic, Not really John, but they are no use for in-flight use if you are navigating visually. You need the navaids to benefit. >>Cheers, John G. Keep the useful and educational discussion going - I will have less to do at work if you guys carry on passing some of this vital information around and get ahead of the "official" GFA system. Wombat -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
