good commentary on blancolirio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G62sSwC4t_g as usual
blancolirio is not a good, nor trust worthy, source.
Nearly every word from this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mampv8DdHlU - is, some would argue, stolen, word for word, from an article by The Air Current
The importance of being on top of licenses and other paperwork is that if you can't get the paperwork right, how can you get the rest right?
Some other notables:
- India has identical fake license problems as Pakistan
- South Korea has CRM and sim evaluation issues with ex-military crews (resulting in the SFO crash)
- SFO has struggled with ILS maintenance in the past decade. (Foreign air crews expect to do ILS approaches, not visuals. See SK SFO accident above.)
- African operators have problems with cabin crews opening doors after landing during taxi to let thieves steal luggage, etc. as the airliner is moving!
- Australia had an issue with drug smugglers accessing luggage. Hope that's resolved.
- Philippines had an issue with airport staff inserting bullets into luggage, then extorting tourists. Resolved after numerous news reports.
I know a few European airlines that encourage their crews not to accept visual approaches in the US and request an ILS approach instead, because it's safer.
Europe has solved the same "we need more planes per hour" problem by allowing a reduced 2.5nm separation when both planes are established in the localizer and are radar monitored by the controller.
As a pilot I prefer the European way, because it's more structured and has a few more safeguards. The US method puts the problem with the pilot, who has far worse means to judge separation than the controller
Those cockpit windows don't seem like they provide the best view... Out of curiosity, do civilian aircraft have onboard radar? If so, what directions can it see (up/down/front/back/sides)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...
In particular we're talking here about aeroplanes on an approach to a major airport (if they aren't on approach then by definition they aren't choosing between ILS and a visual clearance, and if it isn't a major airport why are we trying to bunch them up more?).
All US major airports have a "Mode C veil" which means there's a regulation requiring aircraft near those airports to have transponders ("Mode C" is a transponder mode in which the aircraft reports its own assessment of its altitude based on air pressure as well as a four octal identifier).
But it's weather radar, so it mostly sees water droplets (rainshowers, thunderstorms etc), not other planes.
The TCAS system scans for transponders from other planes in all directions, checks their path and altitude and will play audible alerts (it shouts "traffic, traffic!") when there is a potential collision risk. You can use it to see other planes on the navigation display, but you cannot legally call that "visual separation".
If a controller asks you whether you have traffic in sight (they must ask that before they can tell you to follow it for example), you cannot say you have it on the screen. That doesn't count, you have to see it out the window.
Rather alarming to read that as nano-meters briefly!
Aviation is terrible at any kind of SI or even any kind of sane standardization of units at all. Distance is commonly measured in nautical miles (1852 meters), but visibility in the US is in statute miles (1600ish meter?) or feet, while Europe uses km or meters for visibility. Both US and Europe use feet for altitude, but China/Russia use meters for altitude.
Today it's just defined as 1852 metres.
I cannot imagine what a sour taste it will leave if you cannot board a plane. In any case what reason will the authorities have to detain you ? I am assuming you are talking about some official fees and not bribes.
apparently the problem is IDENTICAL
Can you provide a source for this?