Say Again, Over!

According to the MET section of the AIM, Table 8-3 part of article 8.5.4 read: Currently, remarks are limited. When visibility is variable, the remark VIS VRB followed by the limits will appear, e.g. VIS VRB 1-2. When icing is detected, ICG, ICG INTMT or ICG PAST HR will appear. Remarks on precipitation amount, rapid changes in pressure and the location of lightning may also appear. We also know that it ICG has been changed to ICE according to the AIC. So the RMK sections speaks of variable visibility of 1 - 3 SM and a mention that icing was detected. Voilà!

Does make me feel old to realize I've been a member for almost half my life! Happy Birthyear, AEFers! Felix

Sorry Moeman, The way I wrote my comment made it seem as if it held no interest. What I meant to ask was why "Canadian" was in the airline name and I was waiting on some of you guys who were there to enlighten me. I would love to hear about how you ended up working in Africa.

I guess I did! Thanks Marshall!

Well, this doesn't help much. I had found the same info using my own Google skills. Can the guys who posted pictures enlighten us as to the "Canadian" aspect of a wholly owned and operated Congolese airline?

It might look nice from the center of the aircraft but, when sitting right next to a screen, you'll have an actual field of view of only 1 or 2 degrees. It's not like you'll be able look ahead towards the front of the aircraft if the pixels next to your window only show "9 o'clock" plus or minus a few seconds.

Thanks rudder, I wasn't sure if they had found out that it was pilot action or not.

Reminiscent of the Rostov crash?

Blues, We never really run out of candidates. The good ones, that have just the right amount of crazy, are however hard to find. We have increased our qualification rate (at least here, in Montreal) somewhat by reassigning some trainees to another sector when it looks like they might not make it in the initial sector they were assigned to. Even though they might be headed for a wall in a certain unit, their kind of crazy might work best in another type of control. Terminal is one thing, high level enroute another and low-level-non-radar is, as well, totally different. Having the trainees paid right from the start is good all around. Some thought that only those ready to do it for free would be motivated enough to do it but what we ended up with was often some kids living at home with mom and dad paying everything and packing them lunches or some having to have a job on the side to pay rent and washing out simply because they couldn't keep up. Either way, it wasn't working. We have worked and continue to work on our selection process since that is the key to finding the best candidates for the job.

j.k. That's awesome! That explains exactly what happens and I really think our "kids" need to understand this a bit better. Thanks a lot!!! Felix

conehead, True, but with this "overly specific" request, I thought I'd get something less generic from my "aviation family" on the AEF. ?

Hi everybody, In the process of explaining the RNAV-Y approaches into CYOW to our trainees, I'd like to be able to show them what you see on the FMC up to, and beyond, the beginning of the approaches. For example, what does the fix list on the FMC look like before and after we give you the approach? What does it look like before we advise you we're unable to give the RNP AR transition and after you punched in whatever it is you punch in? That would help us much! Any type of aircraft would be great. More than one, even better! Felix

Kip! Post your next reply in French and let me have at ya! ??

Can they do as many passes with biggers jets than a fleet of CL415s can? I understand they can clubber a fire with a huge load of water from the bigger jets but do they have enough airplanes to have a constant supply of drops? Maybe the CL415 is just not suited for this area because of the scarcity of nearby lakes or is it just the USA way of not using something because it's not "American"?

Ha ha!! Doesn't sound like me! We do have the luxury of airspace and lower aircraft density in both CYOW and CYQB so we do try and accomodate as best as we can. Having said that, we try, as the NY controller did, to get everybody to go in the same direction as the previous one went. It just makes sense, even though things evolve and you get the inevitable surprise. In this situation, everytime the NY controller takes EIN around, there's another departure for the same airway departing underneath that has to go on course otherwise it'll snowball and completely get away from him. Simplest thing is to keep EIN spinning. It sucks but he's "safe" away from the cell and the flow keeps moving. In such restricted airspace, the disruption to the flow also becomes a safety issue so the key is to minimize it by finding the one aircraft on which it hinges and "removing" him. My conclusion is that the pilot was not only within his right to request the deviations but required to do so by all principles of aviation safety (as in don't knowingly do something going beyond acceptable risk). The flip side is that the NY controller then handled the situation in a safe and orderly fashion to the best of his airspace and weather restrictions.