Each gate on the international concourse is isolated from the others.  The screening point is at the gate itself and the security personnel usually show up at the gate an hour or so before departure to screen everyone.  I have not transferred at EHAM before, so I am not 100% sure, but based on the layout, I do not see any way you could get through an int'l connection without an additional screen.

DeGaulle was that way, I had an inbound from Prague connecting through Paris and had to go through customs and recheck/rescreen for the flight to Newark.

That's interesting to know, because NZAA was not that way when I transferred through there, nor was YMML, YSSY, or CYVR when I went there. Especially at NZAA, where there were at least 9 gates around me that I could get to without being rescreened. The in-transit area was huge; lengthy, but huge. It was a good 5 - 6 minute walk from the duty-free shops and sitting area to the gate. No rescreening required to get to the gate, either.

This was a UAL flight, at that.

BL.

It's a Federal Government employee protecting their job.  If they didn't do anything to appear to take necessary precautions they would be fired.  A person tries to explode a shoe bomb on board an aircraft with a cigarette lighter so now you can't carry a lighter on board and you have to take off your shoes at the check point.  A person brings an explosive liquid on board and now you can't bring certain size containers of liquid on board.  If this keeps up we will be required to fly naked and won't be able to bring any luggage.

This is where common sense comes into play. If the American people know and have to deal with the hightened security we've had since 9/11, we already know how it would be hard for us to get any sort of incendiary device onboard a plane for a domestic flight. We already know that we won't, let alone aren't going to be able to do this. I say again, is it the fault of the TSA or DHS that this occurred? On top of that, were any DOMESTIC flights affected by this incident to force the TSA or DHS to implement this on all DOMESTIC flights as well?

If not, this is a bloody joke.

BL.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. There is a nice conversation that I am involved in over at FlightAware that someone posted a map of the area on.

The way I'm seeing it, I see 3 deals:

• Loss of horizontal separation between RPA and SKW.
• Loss of vertical separation between RPA and SKW.
• Loss of vertical separation between RPA and FFT.

This definitely earns the controller some retraining.

BL.

Brad,

One question, and I think that this topic has been debated before but, you give the instruction "maintain 5000".  How can an aircraft maintain 5000 when they are currently on the ground, don't they have to get there.  I wouldn't give that instruction like that as a radar controller it wouldn't make any sense.

Just wondering.

Bruce,

Have a look at 4-3-3.4.d:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]d. When no changes are required in the filed route, state the phrase: “Cleared to (destination) airport, (SID and SIDtransition, as appropriate); then, as filed.” If a SID is not assigned, follow with “As filed.” Specify the assigned altitude; and, if required, add any additional instructions or information, including final requested altitude if different than assigned
except if Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) is utilized.

PHRASEOLOGY
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT; and as appropriate,
(SID name and number) DEPARTURE, THEN AS FILED. MAINTAIN (altitude); (additional instructions or information).

If a SID is not assigned,
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT AS FILED. MAINTAIN (altitude); and if required, (additional instructions or information).

EXAMPLE-
“Cleared to Reynolds Airport; David Two RNAV Departure, Kingham Transition; then, as filed. Maintain niner thousand. Expect flight level four one zero, one zero minutes after departure.”[/quote]

Note 'maintain', not 'climb and maintain'. If you filed something like the COWBY2  departure out of KLAS, if you included 'climb and maintain 10000' in your clearance, not only have you killed the crossing restrictions at ROPPR, CEASR, NAPSE, and BAKRR, but you've also canceled the initial altitude depicted in the chart description, which is FL190. If you said 'climb and maintain FL190 in the clearance', you've then voided all of the crossing restrictions on the SID, in the clearance delivery. Using 'maintain' eliminates that confusion.

BL.

A couple of things.

with your above clearance to JBU1602, 'via radar vectors MERIT' gives ambiguity to what the pilot should do after wheels up. Obviously they will be given radar vectors, but what should they do before they receive those radar vectors? they could make any turns they want and be perfectly legal in doing so. Second, 'Departure on' is improper phraseology (see the 7110.65, 3-9-3).

So this clearance, with full CRAFT, using 3-9-3 and 4-3-2, should be:

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Jetblue 1602, cleared to the Boston Logan airport via runway heading, radar vectors direct MERIT, then as filed. Maintain 5000, expect FL230 10 minutes after departure. Departure frequency 120.4, squawk 1102.[/quote]

BL.

With the thread below about ZAK, and another one in the ZLA forums about giving Oceanic clearances, I got to wondering.. who controls Anchorage Oceanic, or does that fall under ZAN? One of the long haul flights I like to do is from somewhere in Japan to KLAS, and the route in question follows the A450 airway up through the Aleutians, then cuts over to Vancouver Island. Most of A450 appears to be under Anchorage Oceanic.

So, who runs it?

BL.

I stated this in the main VATSIM forums, and you were part of that very thread which I posted this, so here we have it again:

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=3...&highlight=

which I replied:

You're thinking too small.

In our case, VATSIM is to ICAO as VATUSA is to the FAA. If the ICAO handles things on a much more global level, the FAA handles things as far as the USA is concerned. VATUSA would be the equivalent of the FAA, as they only have jurisdiction over the United States and its outlying territories. Everywhere else would have its jurisdiction as well, but they have opted to not have any rule that supplements the global VATSIM rule.

So think of it like so:

VATUSA = FAA.
VATCAN = CAA.
VATUK = BAA.
VATEUR = Eurocontrol.
VATSIM = ICAO.

So on and so forth down the line. Does the FAA follow every single thing that the ICAO says to follow, even though other countries do? No, because the FAA has authority over its airspace.

Honestly, like I said, you're making this out to be way too much than it already is, and we've explained that to you a number of times in this thread.

That is why VATUSA can ban using Guard. They ban it within their airspace. VATSIM gives authority to their respective divisions for the airspace they control In this case, VATNA has divied up North America into 3 different regions: VATCAN, VATMEX, and VATUSA. VATUSA (our FAA) has decided to ban the use of Guard in its airspace.

You want to use Guard? Great. Do it outside US Airspace. just don't get upset if you get a SUP or higher down on you for using it and causing every pilot and controller logged in to see your message(s), regardless of where they are at.

BL.