If you are using a VPN set to countries outside of Australia you may have problems accessing the Forums Due to a spam attack from TEMU.
We have locked down the IP addresses from offending countries.
×
Welcome to the IREX question and answer forum. Please feel free to post your questions but more importantly also suggest answers for your forum colleagues. Bob himself or one of the other tutors will get to your question as soon as we can.
Gerard71 created the topic: Page 155 of online text alternate aid Corryong
I am completely confused by this question. The original printed version made no sense at all and this revised online question still makes no sense.
We are an IFR air transport flight by day. We have a TSO129 and a TSO146. Therefore we are already illegal as we are required to carry two 146 GPS or one 146 GPS and a nav aid. There is no mention of aircraft nav aid equipment in the question.
The answer then states that an alternate is required with a ground based procedure.
Can we please have this question reviewed so that it makes sense? I notice that in the summary of poorly answered questions CASA flags nav aid requirements as being on the list. I’m not surprised given how confusing the text and example questions are on this issue
Regards
Gerard
bobtait replied the topic: Page 155 of online text alternate aid Corryong
Gerard
Thanks for your feed-back concerning the question on page 155 of the IREX book. It would not be illegal to fly to Corryong in that aeroplane providing you nominated an alternate. That's the point of the question. Also, there is nothing to stop you flying the RNAV/GNSS approach at Corryong using either the 146 or 129. (once again, not illegal, providing you are carrying the alternate). However, if you do have to proceed to the alternate because the 146 GPS has failed, you must be able to navigate to the alternate by a means other than GPS. That is, either visually or by using a ground based aid. (You can never assume that the 129 will be available).
I do agree that the wording of that question has fallen victim to constant procedural changes and it is overdue for a rewording. We will reword the question. Once again, thanks for your feed back. It is most appreciated.
