+x

 

Tim Dawson - 9/3/2018 11:06:39 AM

Sorry, it simply isn't the same. It might seem a simple thing to make Switzerland work differently from all the other countries and include those low-level obstacles, but people would then (rightly) expect such coverage in other countries too (where information is not published) quite apart from what I have already described.

Is this request attempting to solve a problem many pilots are facing in Switzerland? I still don't think I am understanding the requirement for enroute obstacles that are less than 200ft high, as I don't understand why a significant number of pilots are flying at that height (in the enroute phase).

+x

 

Tim Dawson - 8/28/2018 1:35:40 PM

But then we'd still be loading all those obstacles into memory (for the many obstacle related calculations we do) just electing not to display them. There isn't an option to selectively load only a subset into memory, based upon this theoretical helicopter switch. And we'd be introducing yet another option, which we dislike and confuses people.

+x

 

Tim Dawson - 8/22/2018 4:18:36 PM

We would only do this if faced with significant demand to do so. The reason why obstacles over 300ft (typical value) are excluded from enroute charts is to reduce clutter, because there are a lot of them. Is it normal to fly a helicopter less than 500ft AGL when not taking off or landing where you operate?

+x

 

Tim Dawson - 8/22/2018 11:24:07 AM

We are given a "maximum height above ground level" datapoint, where the word "maximum" implies that includes the cable, in the event it crosses a valley. It's that value which we require to be at least 200ft.