OB431: Hot Chicken Bravo

what you're doing is having non-radar separation prior to them taking off, being airborne, tagging up. So now you need all of that time to radar identify and then be able to apply radar separation and what is a safe amount of time to be able to accomplish that, maintain your minima while this aircraft is on final, let's say. Ready. Welcome to a posing basis air traffic talk, an aviation podcast by two air traffic controllers and rated pilots who love to talk about flying, controlling and everything in between. The show is for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for your instructor, your supervisor, the FAA, the NTSB or your cat. The show will give you a better understanding of how things work in the national airspace system and maybe even make you laugh along the way. Please welcome retired Army pilot Alpha Golf and first officer at Penguin Airlines, Romeo Hotel. It's Wednesday, March 25th, 2026, Episode 431 on today's show. We'll share an update on a busy class Charlie upgrade, give our two cents on the new helicopter rules and answer more of your aviation questions. What's up, Baygie? Hello, hello, everyone. How have you been? Since 10 minutes ago. Happy doubleheader, second episode, episode day. So in between shows during the intermission, we had a very rare appearance from a controller who we referenced in the last show that worked at, what did we call it? Um, Rich People Airport. Rich People Airport. In the mountains, yes. The Colorado Rockies. And she kind of validated what we said. If you want to hear that, eventually it will be, well, it'll be on the video recording, right? Yep. Of this episode, yes. Yes. So don't skip, you'd have to wait in between or I'll try to pull that in to make it a separate either audio video or combined or just audio and pull that in. Because we didn't really show any pictures when we were talking about it. And a lot of what she said, she explained what was happening. So that could qualify as audio only also. Yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah, very cool. Thank you to MJ for doing that. Yeah, absolutely. We're doing a doubleheader because my schedule is a little bit funny in April. And I don't know how many Wednesdays I will have to record. That's our overlap day. That's why we've been recording on Wednesdays. It's usually a day we both share as quote unquote off. Right. Yeah, I watched you roll your eyes when I talked about the show, what we're going to do today. So you get to talk about the helicopter rolls. I wish I had had, I haven't had the official briefing yet at work on this change. But I've heard about it. I've heard enough about it, I think to. At least be irritated. I'm trying to think where I put this in here. Oh yeah, it's in timely feedback. So I think we should jump right in today. Okay, let's do it. I will say we did, we did a little snippet at the beginning of the last show. We're not going to repeat it, but anybody who's upset about the timing of this show, it keeps going, even though things are happening outside this show in the aviation world that are terrible and tragic. We're not minimizing that. We keep moving. We keep moving forward with this show. Please don't be offended by our timing. We're still recording. We're not stopping because of things that happened. Right. Is that fair? Yes. All right. I'm playing music. We're starting. Since OBE430, 10 minutes ago, we have some new supporters on the iceberg. Sierra Bravo, Sierra Lima, Mike Oscar and November Sierra. Welcome to Supercast. If you've been enjoying the show, you can take it to the next level by joining our premium feed on Supercast. Supporters get every episode on time with no delays. Our entire back catalog, access to our live stream where you can see our faces, bonus audio and a direct line to us to our supporter only email. Most importantly, you keep the show ad free and community supported. You can learn more at opposingbases.supercast.com. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Review and announcements. Review and announcements. That's just how I sound. I didn't edit that. Do you want the review? The review titled passive situational awareness, which I really like. I don't know what it means yet, but I love the idea of it. I can safely, the five stars, I can safely say one of the contributing factors to me earning my CF double I was opposing bases while I tuned in during my commute every day, OB pumped, plump penguins into my brain allowing me. That's a strange visual allowing me to walk into my FAA monitored CF double I check ride with a massively full iceberg. It was so full in fact that penguins came jumping out from all angles, nicely hitting examiner in all the right spots throughout the day. I have nothing but respect for our HNAG who have undoubtedly doubled my situational awareness when operating in the NAS. This show is a must listen for all IFR trainers, trainees from, I don't, I had no idea. You left out some important vowels in that name. So it's hard to say. I like the five out. Goldilocks. No, no, no. There's a weirdly placed H there. G-D-H-D-K-S. I probably just said some. It's completely inappropriate. It got me conned into saying. Let me get a letter from the FCC that we just violated some very vague rule. Yes. Thank you for the review. If you do have us a five star review and it's fun, we'll read it on the show. Yes. Send it. All right. Announcements. Number one, I would like to say thank you to Paul at My Layover Life for doing the fun interview on the streets of London when our paths crossed a couple of weeks ago. And thanks to our, we didn't say this on the video because it was a fun interview. We had a film crew for that. That's crazy. Well, I put it in quotes. It was another, we had three, all three pilots were there, me and Paul and the first officer who had his arms on our camera person so that she could walk backwards and he could guide her through these streets and not trip over or whatever and or bump into anything. So yeah, thank you to our film crew. Cool. If you haven't seen it, it's on our Instagram page or you can look up Paul. His channel is called My Layover Life on YouTube. He does an awesome job, great videos, some long forms, some short form. And you can tell by the video, I was not meant for video. He was. Oh boy. You want number two? Number two, Supercaster Papa Mike. It's been a busy 2026 year in January. I passed my fundamentals of instruction written in January. I passed FOI. Okay, congrats. Congrats. In February, I passed my FIA Flight Instructor airplane. And then last week, I passed my commercial multi-engine add-on. Wow. It has been busy. I won't be able to keep this pace up. But if I could, it might be fun to end year, end the year at ATP Men's with my seaplane single and multi glider balloon rotorcraft, power lift and maybe a sport and recreational just to say I caught them all. That would be, that would be a lot. But you know, let us know. We're moving back to the sourdough Bravo land this summer flying out of the fortunate sun Delta. And I plan to start working on my CFI with the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award winner and OB supporter Delta Kilo. Excellent. Cool. In the meantime, I'll be twiddling my thumbs patiently waiting for the next installment of the three mistakes. Come on, AG. The suspense is killing me. Cheers, Papa Mike. I know, I know. Here's what happened. I just, I made it too complicated, you know, to produce one of those. And so it takes a lot of time and I've just been kind of covered up lately. But it's the dialogue, the script is done. I just need to record it and put it out there. So just please be patient. I am sitting on one that I wrote also that's coming up soon. I haven't recorded it. It sat out there as a to-do item in my head to write something. But that extra step, it's everywhere. Just push record and just put it out. We also want it to sound good. And yeah, and I don't want to just kind of haphazardly throw it together. If you guys don't know what we're talking about, we do bonus audio segments for supporters. This particular one is a story I was telling that I left on a cliffhanger right at the decision point of what's going to happen in this story. So it's just hanging there right now. Now, obviously I'm still alive. The story was about me. It is a true story. Yeah. I thought about doing alternate endings and having you guys guess which one was true, but that's even like three times the amount of work that it would be just to make the one that I still haven't done. So what's the stick with that? All right. Cool. Nice little plug for the bonus audio. I'm moving on. Time, late feedback. Got late feedback. All right. You seem exhausted. I'll get number one from Emperor Captain Alpha Mike Mike, R.H.N.A.G. I suspect I'm not alone in this request. What do you guys think of the news that the FAA has suspended visual separation for helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in high traffic airspace changing the 7-1-10 and excluding a helicopter from visual separation in Bravo, Charlie and Tersa airspace? What are your initial thoughts, helicopter pilot AG? The first thing I said when somebody told me that this was going to be a rule or already is a rule, I don't, I'm not sure if it's been implemented officially yet or we've just had, we've started doing the briefings like, hey, this change is coming, but anyway, when somebody told me this, the first thing I said was, okay, so you've taken the group of aircraft who is most capable and most likely to be able to maintain visual separation and removed that as a possibility. Now, obviously, this is in response to some events, one being the crash at DCA, the other maybe was a more recent one, but I don't want to go super crazy on this, but it's a typical sort of reaction, right? Okay, so somebody made a mistake, so we've got to rule that mistake away. It is now no longer, you're no longer allowed to make that mistake. Okay. Okay, now I follow up question. I hear you, but and the timeliness of this change to the outside non-controller might make sense. Okay, just shut that off, separate them, do radar separation. That is a large shift from how you work helicopters. Yeah, a very large shift. This won't impact us too much. We don't do a ton of helicopter stuff. The part that's weird about this is there's not, there isn't a cutoff, a mileage cutoff. So yeah, I have radar separation, but the part about them crossing through final, and this is the part we still haven't really had a good interpretation of, I don't know, we're just going to kind of have to see how this shakes out before I really pass a judgment on it. Just initially, I, yeah, I get it. I get it. It's just taking a tool away that 99.9% of the time is useful, efficient, effective, and just sort of removing that. The part of adding, you know, now we need radar separation is increased workload. It was meant to reduce workload off of controllers by having pilots or by having controllers maintaining visual where it wasn't like a squeeze play. You didn't have, you didn't have radar separation, but these planes were not in a place where they were going to hit. You just were using visual to alleviate yourself from needing radar. So they've, they're already, they're already crossed out. They're going away from each other, but you don't have lateral or you haven't yet identified this helicopter because they're so low. Right. And so I can't even apply radar separation yet, but I can apply visual because I can see them out the window and they're not in a place where they can't hit. Well, that now is not, you can't do that anymore. Right. What this is going to result in is a lot of people sitting on the ground waiting. Right. And just a reminder to those that don't understand, most helicopters are VFR operating in these busy areas. So you're taking away a normal everyday use of VFR separation. The pilots can apply visual, the tower can apply visual. That's normal and used all over the place. It will essentially turn them into IFR separated aircraft that are VFR. You're, you're combining it in the, in a direction that's going to make it very awkward. Well, then what can I do? Can I say clear for takeoff, proceed southbound? No, because you don't have separation from this other airplane. Well, what's the separation standard? They have to be radar identified. Well, they can't be radar identified until I say go, take off. Someone has to identify them. I can't. So you're removing a tool that is functional, normal, and oftentimes very safely used in the NAS and creating confusion and intensifying the workload for a controller. It will, I agree with you. What it's going to result in is a lot of helicopters waiting and a big question mark over what, when can I do this? When can I say go? Yeah. Is it, is it after, let's say it's an arrival, you've got an arrival, you're waiting. Do they have to land? Right. They have to land and stop off the runway? Like, I don't know. That's the thing we're kind of hung up on right now is what is the cutoff for allowing this to happen for, because what's, what you're doing is having non-radar separation prior to them taking off, being airborne, tagging up. So now you need all of that time to radar identify and then be able to apply radar separation. And what is a safe amount of time to be able to accomplish that, maintain your minima while this aircraft is on final, let's say. I don't know. What is the distance? 10? Is 10 okay? Am I expected to have it accomplished in that amount of time? What if the transponder isn't on? You know, so there's like all these what ifs and unknowns. The DCA thing, the way that that visual separation was being applied is like the worst case scenario of maintaining visual. It's, it's night. It's hard to tell. Lights from lights, which ones am I looking at? I don't know. It's hard for the controller to have visual, which I don't think was being applied in this, in that scenario. That scenario is worst case, which is why it, part of why it resulted in what, in what it did. But these other cases that we've now just removed and said, nope, we're not doing those either, are not worst case. They're like best case. It's why visual separation is allowed because these planes are never a conflict. I just need a form of separation prior to having radar separation. And now we're not having that. Now, if somebody can explain how I'm wrong about that, I would love to hear it based on the wording of this thing. But we're not seeing a way around that right now. And, and I'm telling you, while we're in this period of, I'm not really sure, there's going to be huge delays for helicopters that never would have happened before. Because the idea that you could say, Hey, proceed on course, remain south of the center line until advised that that's gone. You're describing the part where they're not identified because they might not even ever be identified. Right. Can't do that anymore. Right. And you're going to have controllers looking at other controllers going, what am I, can I do this? Can I do this? Yeah. Can I do this? And am I allowed to launch this guy? And whoever made the rule change, like it looks like a really effective tool for removing risk. But you've created a whole slew of problems that you'll hopefully be introduced to over the next few months, when controllers try to apply this change. Stay tuned. Yeah. I, I, I like the idea. I like the initiative. I like the, let's try to figure something out here. What could we change to, and it's just, it's too much. It's taking too many tools off the table. All right. Okay. I did number one. You talked a lot. So I can do number two. Okay. From Supercaster Delta Alpha, hi Al and Romy. I recently purchased a VFR only Piper Cherokee. All right. VFR only. It's not certified for IFR flight with the intent to add a second com and two nav radios. My mission travel from the urban Delta under Malted Breverage Bravo to visit family north of the RH must have been here was triangle now swooped face Bravo. How you incorporated my initials into this, I may never figure out. They continue. My plan had to been, had been to use the antiquated navigation system known as VORs and Victor Airways. However, once I started planning a trip to the region, I realized there is no longer any VORs near my destination airport. West first professional baseball and every airport in the region aside from the Bravo only had our nav or DME required on every approach to sunken airport on the east side of the Bravo would have been an option, but the loan ILS in the region now has DME required as the NDB that used to serve as the initial approach fix has long since been removed and replaced with a roundabout for the that's a circle for those from New Jersey. With the new MON minimum operating network VOR service volumes of 5,000 feet HGL outside of 40 miles from the station, I would not be able to navigate in a lost comp scenario below 3,000 feet cloud deck to an airport legally. At this point, I've accepted that another $5,000 for an LNAV GPS will be required to make it into the swoop face Bravo region. Bottom line, slant useful isn't so useful when they remove all of the other assistant nav aids. See the empty hole of VOR coverage attached. I didn't put that picture up, but I can imagine it's happening on the east coast too. Yeah. Thanks for all your wisdom Delta Alpha, formerly of the broken heart golf near the transatlantic Delta. I alluded to this and I didn't mean to upset anybody. It sounds like you're doing a VFR experiment. Okay, let's see how much I can actually pull off without these GPS tools. And in your area, you're finding out or your mission area, you're finding not much. I can't do much without GPS. I alluded to it becoming a change that happens organically. And it's in 30 years, we may look back and say, well, of course, everybody has to have GPS like nothing else works. There is no other way. But right now, we still have airplanes that don't have it. It's not required to do some of these things. But they've taken away so many of the tools that they've removed it from being an option. And you're going to be forced to have an airplane that has the equipment. So, I know that's a cost benefit analysis. And a lot of planes make it into, have made it into this century that nobody ever thought they would make it this far. But we are very good about keeping airplanes in shape and up airworthy. I won't say up to date, but airworthy and legal and safe. And that's kind of the mix. How long do we keep adapting this older aircraft to new equipment? Or do we just abandon ship and say, I can't do that. It doesn't make any sense to put that kind of money into that airplane. I'm going to have to move on to something that has it. That's a sensitive topic for non-aircraft owners. You don't understand that. That is a very sensitive topic. And I don't know if I can make an analogy that fits cars or houses or it's specific to aviation. Yeah. Your thoughts? Yeah. It is specific to aviation. It does apply to some aspects of maybe car ownership or just the way that there isn't a direct regulation prohibiting or requiring something. But through attrition basically and through other things that the authorities in that field can control, that just going to eventually, like you're saying, you're going to be forced into changing your plane or getting a different plane. Like he's talking about here. Do I spend the $5,000 to put a GPS in? Which I would have thought it was more than that. Yeah. I mean, it's fun. Isn't how interesting we've been conditioned to believe that $5,000, a piece of a little screen that costs probably $12 to make, that $5,000 is cheap. I would have thought at least double that to add that type of in a certified airplane. Not experimental, but yeah. Yeah. I guess it's all just relative because maybe we don't think about that as very much in an airplane. But if you had a $5,000 repair on your car, going to get some attention in the household. Yes. Well, good luck with your experiment and let us know how that works out. If you decide to put in any equipment, maybe you don't have to add all the fancy newest G-Wiz stuff, but maybe find a way for it to fit into that aircraft and make sense on the financial side of the argument also. Right. Or you're just, you're limited to a very VFR kind of day. You're not going to run, you're not going to go out when it seems like, well, there could be a cloud deck. Maybe it comes down, maybe it doesn't, I don't know, or a thunderstorm that rolls through or something. But yeah, otherwise you're going to have to be pretty careful. Or you're going to be in a situation where you're going to have to get some kind of vectors. I wanted to mention that. Thank you for reminding me. Okay. In the feedback that inspired this follow-up, Badger Pilot talked about his airplane and the capabilities. What he said it was good at was VFR flying, what the occasional need for an ILS to get me into an airport, go through a shallow cloud layer, for example. That is probably similar to a lot of IFR flying. You spend most of your flying in VMC conditions and you either have to climb through it to get above it or you have to, and you eventually have to come back down. And if you only had an aircraft that had an ILS, that might be enough. It's going to meet the requirements for you to get through legally. I want to pop up IFR. I'm 10 miles from the airport. I got to get through this cloud deck and you might not even do the whole approach. I got through. I was on vectors, the airplane certified. I'm not saying the aircraft doesn't have to be IFR capable. But I guess what it comes down to is how often do you really need all of those fancy bells and whistles for the entire flight? Can some of it be VFR under VFR rules? That's what he made it sound like. His airplane is good. That's a great way to look at the capability of your airplane. It's not that you can't fly IFR. It's just you're limited in where you can use it. You should be selective in the places that you depend on it to be IFR. Good point. That's very important. Selective on the way you depend on it. Yes, good. I like that. What do I get for that? I feel like that was a very smart comment. It was you. You get the honor of reading the entire excellent show topic. I'm playing fancy jet music. Transitioning. All right. This week's show topic is an update on the Bachelorette Charlie, is so affectionately titled by our friend and fellow podcaster who came up with that, the Bachelorette Charlie, that is becoming a Bravo. We got feedback from Emperor Captain Delta Delta Charlie. Hey, A, G, and R, H. The intro meeting for the ad hoc committee was held at the beginning of the month and it was pretty interesting. I've attached the slides from the meeting and the staff study done to propose the Bravo. I suspect you'll find them interesting, although the slides don't include the videos they had of traffic flows. Here are some highlights. Well, they might have the videos, but you had pictures and we're going to talk about those today. That's where I want to put a lot of this focus, kind of explaining where this is kind of coming from. Okay. First off, the team that put this together deserves a lot of credit. There was a very broad representation of airspace users at the meeting and it's easy to see that they worked hard to get the word out outside of the alphabet agencies. There were various airlines, medivac, glider operators, flight schools, and airport managers at the meeting. This is good. You got everybody that needs to be in these type of discussions because they're all going to learn something from the other side of the table. I was very happy to hear them talk about this being designed based on where they see things in 10 years versus what it is and what's in front of them right now. Something I think you've mentioned on the show, but didn't really click until we were talking about it in this context, is that all of the 1200 codes flying around do not count as operations. Let me say that again. These 1200 codes that aren't getting services do not count as operations. For them, even though they are in the airspace, so of the 419,000 Traycon operations in 2025, only count someone that was on a code and talking to a controller. That's a lot. That's a lot. Do you have any idea what Triad runs in a year? I thought it was like half of that, but I may be. I could do some napkin math maybe. I mean, what do you think our average daily is? 500? No, it's higher than that. You think? Seven? Yeah, it's higher than that. Let's just call it 7800 times 365. That clearly is wrong. Yeah, about half, 255. I would say, well, yeah, averaged out. Yeah, I think that's probably. Okay. Before we go any further with this, when you're comparing a Charlie Traycon, it's a different conversation than comparing it to an arrival or departure operation at a Bravo that runs 90% of their operations to that primary airport. In a Triad, and that's what Charlie, there are other airports in question that run a considerable number of operations that contribute to that percentage. That's an important distinction here. Here are some numbers from the document. I thought we're interesting. BNA, I'll say the name, they expanded to 43 gates in 2019, 55 in 2023, and it's projected to be at 71 gates by 2028. Okay, so that's almost doubled in nine years. Wow. In addition, an additional terminal building is planned that will put Bachelet Charlie at around 140 gates. Timing isn't set, but it's generally referred to as in the next 10 years. All right, so that's 100 more gates than what they started with in 19. That's significant. Are you laughing? Yeah. I joke that at Metroplex, instead of adding a new terminal, they would just take the existing gates and divide them into sections to double the number of gates without actually adding any extra space in terminal as part of their strategy to make passengers very unhappy. We're actually thickening the walls of the terminal to narrow the passageway that you would normally pass through unimpeded, but so as to impede. Yes. We've also added extra vending machines and other paraphernalia that protrude into the walkway. Total growth since 2015 is 68%. That's huge. There's two Delta airports inside the airspace that account for 77% of the contract tower operations in the entire state. In 2023, they were up in the top 20% of contract towers in the country by volume. All right, adding a little context. So a busy surface Charlie airport getting busier is one thing, but adding to that is two very busy Delta airports in the vicinity that are contributing to the next line between August of 23 and June of 24, about a year. The Traycon logged 14 ASRS events, 60MORs and 230 safety events. The common issue that was legal but non-participating VFR traffic in the area. We need to pause there. These 1200 codes that aren't talking to anybody are the common thread of all these safety events. All those acronyms I just read all come down to one thing. There was some sort of loss in near midair, a violation going in and out of the airspace. Something happened and it has to do with aircraft that aren't talking to controllers. Now, in a Charlie, the perimeter that they can legally do this, or maybe I should say it the other way, the size of a Charlie airport airspace is much smaller than it would be if it were Bravo. So it's much less inhibiting for an aircraft to be on their own on a 1200 code. You want to add to that? Yeah, there's just less protected space. So that my guess, without reading ahead, is that if you took those events, you mapped them, and you superimposed a proposed Bravo, it would include the majority of these things because that's where they happen. The planes, as they get closer to these airports, these three which are relatively close together, I think, that's where all the planes are going and where they're coming from. So that is just statistically where these events are going to happen. When you allow nonparticipating aircraft to be close to where all of these other planes are going, you're going to increase the likelihood of these events happening. When you expand that out. And make it Bravo, which is much harder to get into via far. Right. You're going to reduce those events. So the battle then becomes between the protected and unprotected airspace and the balance that we try to strike in the country for freedom of movement and being allowed to just go fly around without talking to anybody, which we never advocate for here, and just being on total lockdown. So the balance of those two things. No, you're not going to fly anywhere without talking to anybody. Yeah, so that is what this is about. It is just about protecting busy airspace. It's why Bravos exist. It's why that's bigger. There's more planes. We're going to hear more about that today too. Okay, good. I like it. All right, I'm going to skip down to below the map here. The Bravo won't affect the number of controllers at the facility. I say that with a question mark reading into what they said. I think they have gotten a controller allotment based on traffic and this is trying to make the airspace match the traffic as well. I could be wrong about that. Well, over time, like a short period of time, that may be true. But as the facility grows and they become more, there's a higher percentage of operations going in and out of that main airport, you will get an uptick in the number of controllers. The index will change the complexity in text over time and that will naturally lead to you getting more bodies on paper. Is that fair? Yeah. I wouldn't exclude that from being a possibility, especially in the next five or 10 years. If they're looking out that far and saying, we're going to triple this operation here, that will result in more bodies. The proposed, they continue. The proposed airspace does allow them to break into more sectors, so controllers will have more manageable workloads. Well, H.G. and I have both run shifts before when you open more sectors. What do you need? You need more people. More bodies though. Yeah, because otherwise you're not getting breaks. Right. Which isn't allowed. This was brought up in discussion about allowing VFR traffic into the current Charlie and future Bravo as an indicator that it may be easier to get into the proposed Bravo than the current layout. And that could very well be a good side effect. Trying to convince the general aviation group in the room that that's going to happen is a different story. But don't look at Bravo if you're on the sidelines against this. Don't look at Bravo as a guaranteed barrier to entry. Right. It's going to require you to get a clearance in which should make the controller's life a little bit easier. And they may welcome you instead of hoping you come nowhere near this tiny little Charlie on your 1200 code. There's a big difference. So here's a, maybe I'm wrong. I could be totally wrong about this. But if you didn't have, if we go back and look at these numbers about all these incidents that happened and what I don't, we don't know what percent involve non-participating 1200 codes. Okay. A lot of them is what I was, what they're alluding to. So the majority, now if, see, the FAA has to, they have to do one or the other. They either have to convince the non-participatory aircraft to participate and reduce these incidents happening because, and they're happening because I don't know what you're doing and it's hard to separate from you when you're maneuvering and I have no idea what's going to happen. Or I have to convince you through regulation not to be in this airspace. It's not that I'm having to convince you, I'm requiring you now not to be here without permission. Without permission. That doesn't mean I'm not going to let them in. Right. It, absolutely. Go look at other places with Bravos. They are getting in. Metroplex does it all the time. But you didn't want to participate and this is what it leads to. And it isn't out of nowhere. It isn't happening in a vacuum. This airport is getting busy. This is very busy. It's way too busy to be a Charlie, even with this expansion that we're showing here on the screen, how they've extended it out. It isn't enough. So let that be a lesson to other places. Participate. He finishes up his feedback and then we'll look at some pictures there. They can't and very deliberately are not asking the committee to meet a specific timeline. However, there's a desire to have the Bachelor at Bravo in place by Q1 of 27, which is right around the corner. Thanks, Delta Delta. Charlie. All right. I pulled some of the slides here. And if you want to pull up the pictures of the departures while I'm reading some of these blurbs, I think this is an important part of the conversation that I'm not sure we've had yet. Class Charlie airspace is not, suffices on one of the slides, is not sufficient to protect the arrival departure areas at the airport. The driving force behind this is recognition that Charlie isn't doing the job. Something that we jokingly complain about. Charlie's were never designed to protect the way that Treycon controllers run finals or run departures. They're totally unrelated. Yeah. It's an arbitrary little circle around an airport. It has nothing to do with traffic flow. What Bachelor at Charlie did was amend theirs. They updated their Charlie to try to do that and it's still not working. Right. So they extended out these portions on the final to go out an extra five miles, I believe, compared to a standard Charlie. And when we look at these pictures, what you're seeing here is this 15, I think it's 15 mile ring. It is. Okay. On the Charlie is only encompassing half of the final. Half of the final is sticking out here into nothing where people can just be hanging out. It's crazy. Can you imagine flying through here, the afar at an altitude that all look at all these planes. Right. We talk about this all the time about protecting finals. This is this picture says it all these purple lines are flight paths and the circle you see there and the weird kind of shape inside of it is they're extended Charlie that isn't doing the trick. And those are where airplanes are below 5000 feet, just like the legal non participating airplanes, which present each of them presents as an obstacle that the controller has to mitigate with vectors and traffic calls 15 extra vectors sometimes to go around these airplanes that are not doing anything wrong. Right. On paper. There was another line on here while we have that set up air traffic is working class Bravo volume without the safety benefits that class Bravo provides increasing the likelihood of missed safety alerts in the current traffic saturated airspace. They're letting the real traffic determine what happens next and that's a and showing everybody why with these fancy pictures is going to be really helpful in making the argument to the crowd that does not want that because they think it's going to hurt them. I just wish that we you know the people listening could see this could see this area outside the Charlie and how busy it is and how you don't want to be right here. Here's what it looks like a 75 lane highway that extends 20 miles from the airport and is only protected about 15 miles of it. Yeah. The rest is just free for all and it's I mean if you look at how far that is compared to the size of their airspace the boundaries of their of that facilities airspace which I presume is the green line the big circle. Yes. Man they are working up into the boundary of their airspace which I know Metroplex has to do also that's why speed is a big deal when you get into that airspace. When you have finals that are extending that far you you're touching other facilities airspace too and the interaction between the two is an important piece of the puzzle. If it's chaos the controllers lives are probably miserable right now in this configuration. They probably cannot wait for it to be a Bravo. Right. Because we want to talk to all these 1200 codes so. The next slide if you want to pull up the departures. We've talked about how departures are significantly easier workload wise. But it's important to see that they kind of fan out. They don't fall in line and they don't all like spiral up into the NAS inside the vertical confines of a Charlie. They fan out they spread out. Right. I don't I'll give you a chance to comment on this. Does this departure picture look like what you would anticipate or. Yeah. Pretty much. Try it. Yeah. Yeah. You could see where they end up out here. They you know on these posts where they're going there's generally it looks like a heading a couple of headings that are used initial headings. And then they're getting peeled away based on see if you could see and if you could look how this has to interact with this. Mm hmm. These are getting peeled off based on where where these are coming in. Paul go back up to the departures the purple ones for a second. I'm sorry the arrivals. Uh huh. It's important. This is a good way to describe what we're seeing on the screen here for the for the audio listener. All all the arrivals are coming from four common posts. Four entry points on the corners of the airspace and they all end up getting scattered in vector world which is what Traycon's do to that's what they do all day. They got a vector you to get to the final they spread out but they all start in those four points and if you go to the departures they all end up on their own posts. They are typically 45 degrees off of the arrival post so they're they're naturally spread out on where they start and end if that makes sense. Yeah. But the but there's no wasted space in the way they've mapped this airspace. We've we've taken airplanes from various sectors of the world and de-conflicted them with the departures and the arrivals and departures are de-conflicted naturally on paper but that doesn't mean that there's not interaction when you have to turn around. Like if you have to go through final or above the finals airspace for example at Triad those you may have to get to a point that's very close to where that arrival came in. I don't want to get wrapped around the axle on that but I'm trying to explain how it's it's organized until they get within about 20 miles of the airport. Then it's just it's a hot mess. Then it's like this. Yes. And it's generally following a pattern. You know you could see downwinds and where they're getting peeled off. Zoom in on that amazing downwind. I mean look how common they are. They're all coming in on an arrival. Look there's only one line. They're right here. They're all on the same one and look where they turn downwinds. Look at that. How far is that from the airport would you say about five miles? Yeah a little maybe just a touch more. Like the perfect RH downwind that I used to like preach about. Do you see any of these like corner cutters? No. No. They wait till the common point and they turn them. And see here you could see from this corner up here they're coming in. Most of them get fed onto a base some kind of base and funneled in. But look at all the ones that had to go all the way down and get fed back into the downwind. What would West do if you were on South? They were on 5s okay. And you take a block arrival and you fed them all the way up towards cofactory before you turned them Southwest bound. Like you fed them on a downwind. They'd be like what are you doing? Or what do you think you? Oh I see what you mean. Our facility doesn't have enough traffic to justify this. Right. But if you're taking an arrival that came in on the arrival side of the airport and feeding them on a downwind. You're talking to that airplane for 50 more miles as a feeder. Right. Yeah so what RH is talking about if you can see this these guys are coming in from here and what we do a lot of the times is cut the corner instead of letting them run direct to the field. And turning on a nice structure downwind that having them on consistent downwinds really helps the final controller determine when to turn them off, when to turn their base for sequencing purposes. What we end up doing is cutting the corner from the arrival fix. As soon as they get into your airspace that you're allowed to touch them you do. And turn them to where excuse me and turn them to where they're going to turn base. Right. Right to this base turn because they're not going to be a conflict with anybody. But what happens is South does that. They cut the corner. They don't realize that West has three or four planes. And now you've committed this guy. You've committed him to the final and he's not sequenced properly. For a few extra flying miles having them in a nice consistent downwind is very helpful. It helps the final controller a ton. Because the final controller can take that downwind and decide when they're going to base them. When you base an aircraft you've decided their sequence because you only have one other move. It's turning them to final. When they're on downwind every mile that goes by and you have time to speed adjust, altitude adjust. You determine that base turn you have, you're making the problem. Instead of somebody force feeding you this corner cutter that's aimed right at your final. Sorry, I went on a rant there. But look also if you're cutting over the top of the Charlie 500 feet above it. I know these lines don't look as busy because they're all overlapped. You're talking about hundreds of planes a day that are descending right through here. And here you come cutting through. Totally legal. You're in a totally legal place. Maybe at 7,500. But you are right in the way. Yeah, those downwinds are, they mentioned that in one of the slides. They're basically treating the airspace now like they have the Bravo already done. They're climbing their departures higher than they used to. Sort of acting like a Bravo in terms of the way they control. Just not having the benefit of, you know, there's a barrier to entry. You have to call, you have to get approval to go into Bravo, but they're going to vet you. They're going to give you an altitude restriction. They're going to manage you. They're forcing the non-participating airplanes to make a decision. You talked about a decision. Now we're talking about, you guys can fly around the Bravo if you want, add 100 miles to your day. Or you can call up and ask to go through it at the risk of being vectored a little bit and altitude controlled a little bit. To me, I know that's a touchy subject, but I would rather have that than go all the way around. Right. Yep. What else about this map makes your air traffic heart sing? Well, you could see why the Bravo wants to go up to 10,000 because you don't want people in this downwind. It's not just the final out here. Yep. And if you look at the departures, it's going to be the same thing. If you get 10,000, they get to climb out of the airspace. My guess is somewhere around here-ish and around here is when they're entering the center's airspace. So they're not leaving the Traycon's airspace out here on the boundary. They're leaving it vertically. Yep. And if you have a Bravo that goes to 10, you're much more likely to leave the airspace within the confines of the Bravo, I guess. Or in the lateral confines of the Bravo. And without the risk of running into too many non-participating 1200 codes. Right. They should all be talking to somebody. Yes. Yeah. Hopefully this illustration helps. If you normally don't watch the video, we preach about airspace and downwinds. And that picture really, I think, brings it home. But hopefully you've got something out of the audio version of that. That next picture is for the audio that I want to play. This is a separate feedback, separate person, but timely when you're ready. It's the Sierra Lima audio that's relevant to this discussion. A little bit of background. We talked about Bravos and the design and not being perfect. And this is in response to that. And sort of some historical background on where, how we ended up in this position now where we have these wedding cake, upside down wedding cake shape airspaces when the rectangular Bravo of Atlanta that we've said how awesome it is. Why can't they all be like that? Right. Okay. I'm ready to hit play when you are. I am. One, two, three. Back in episode three, 24, a listener called in asking why class Bravos in the U.S. are circular upside down wedding cakes and not rectangular like they are in beautiful, perfect Europe. A.G. tried to look into the history of airspace, found some cool information about airfield design, but didn't find a specific answer to the Bravo thing. By the next episode, your inbox was bursting with listeners pilot explaining that the ancient peoples of the pre GPS era were only capable of measuring distance and would have been unable to navigate around anything but a circular airspace. I am doing research right now for a seminar on the history of airspace at the diamond shaped waterway. If anybody wants to join, I don't have the full answer to the question, but maybe I can dispense with the notion that people of olden times were dumb and bad at using the ors. By 1969, statistics showed that over half of midair is were happening at the 30 busiest airports in the U.S. The U.S. has 65 billion airports. So if most of your midair are happening at 30 specific airports, the obvious solution is positive control to the ground at just those airports. So in September 1969, the FAA publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for terminal control areas. Class Bravos used to be called terminal control areas. And the shape of this new airspace is going to be corridors to and from the runway. The flying public is familiar with that shape because they've been navigating around military climb corridors. See attached diagram. These are not strictly rectangular. They're sort of shaped like a slice of pie, but they're not circular. So then each of the 22 proposed airports, they publish the individual shape for that airport, the proposal for the shape. And as these start coming out, we see that they're not corridor shaped. They're upside down wedding cakes. And this is where things get spicy because each airport also gets a public hearing where users of the airspace can come and voice their opinions. According to reports of those hearings, everybody from trade groups to airlines to general aviation are like, whoa, what happened to the corridors? We hate these upside down wedding cakes. Reportedly, the FAA's response is kind of limp. And in May of 1970, the final rule gets published and terminal control areas are all basically upside down wedding cakes with some protrusions here and there. In the accompanying discussion, the FAA tries to talk their way into how they really found this perfect compromise and they threaded the needle between what everybody wanted and what nobody wanted. And it culminates in this statement that we should really think of this airspace shape as a corridor cake. Kind of cringy. The FAA is definitely not wasting your tax dollars on PR. But the question stands, why did they change their minds to adopt an objectively worse idea that made no one happy? This guy, Richard Collins, a future editor of AOPA Magazine, was following this pretty closely and claimed he had an informant who he could not name, who knew the real reason why they didn't do corridors. And it was because corridors would have required changing airways and that process would have taken too long. So that answer was boring enough that I believed it and kind of closed the book and moved on. But as I continued my research, I found the FAA brought this up again 18 years later. Apparently users continued to bug them about it. So in 1988, they conduct a study at Boston Airport where they do a simulation of three corridors. And unsurprisingly, they conclude it's not going to work. Quote, these corridors cannot provide the required airspace to vector sequence and meter the variety in numbers of aircraft that demand service at major terminal airports. It's like, yeah, if this was going to work, you probably would have had to start back in 1970 and maybe change some airways. Anyway, I hope that shed some light on the question or at least provide some entertainment. I love your podcast. I am definitely on team RH, but I got to get back to my job, work in the deep fire at Red Lobster. Great audio. Thank you for sending that in. I'm going to take a philosophical approach to this. Okay. We've created this mess and she explained sort of how we got into this. It was too expensive to do it another way. But now we have, you know, 50, 60, 70 years of using those shapes to work traffic. It may have been in influence the way we work traffic now, the shape that we were given. All right, we can work with this. So of course, 18, 20 years later, whenever they did that study in Boston might not work because this is what we were forced to use. This is how we run traffic now and it's increased in that 20 years, by the way. It will be very hard for us to go back to what we thought was a good idea back then. In other words, you forced us into this little upside down wedding cake and we're making it work. Don't ask us to change it now, but we're sort of in that spot where, and that's what Charlie becoming a Bravo will have different shapes and protrusions as you described. There are plenty of air spaces in the NAS that are now rectangular after acts of Congress literally to get it changed. So it served its purpose at the time, perhaps made some people mad. But as long as the system is open to changing them, which it sounds like they are with the right people in the right rooms, we could work the shape of airspace to meet the needs of today's aviation flow. Yeah. Am I being ultra optimistic there? Well, no, because we could do that for sure. We could. Will we? I don't know. This will tell the tale, I think, of the future of airspace redesign going forward. And I certainly think that there is room for, you know, because you're right, I think we work traffic. Now, at a Charlie, we don't. We don't really care about the Charlie at all. Makes no difference. Right. But at a Bravo, we work airplanes, I think, based on how the airspace is like you're saying. And what if there was some other way, a completely reimagined way of doing it that we, we, instead of putting the planes where the airspace is, let's think, how could this go better and put the airspace where the planes are? Exactly. Take your best controllers, put them in a room. Yes. We want to see your lines on the screen, not the guy that's the one who makes everybody mad. We're going to take your tracks, your perfect day. There's still some, there's weather, but it's normal flow traffic. We're going to watch what you do. And then we're going to match the airspace to protect what you do. I agree with that. Do what the opposite. And talking from the arrival procedures all the way down, how could this go better? From the ground up, disappear all the airspace, take away non-participating aircraft. Here's a blank slate and here's where these planes are coming from. How can we make this better and more efficient? And then let's put airspace because here's the things we have now that really help this whole process. Because I think she's right before some of the circular nature of it was a distance from a VOR. It's much easier to figure that out. It just makes way more sense navigation-wise when you don't have a GPS and you don't have all these tools. But we have all these tools now. We have three-dimensional tools where I don't know if this would make any sense, but you could have a tube of controlled airspace that would be avoidable that people could figure out three-dimensionally how to stay out of that thing. It might be more like a box instead of a tube. Yeah, but you get what I mean. Instead of these, it is, it's an upside-down wedding cake, a smushed one. Very smushed. We always picture it as being very funnel kind of shape, but it's really flat compared to its lateral dimensions. If it's 30 miles wide, it's only two miles high. Yeah. So maybe there is a better way. I mean, while we're talking philosophically. It sounds like they might be approaching it from that angle. You're at the very beginning stages of making a Bravo, which doesn't happen often. Someone please send that in. When was the last airspace to be converted to Bravo? It might have been in the 60s. This is what you get. We're not making any more Bravos. That could have been said. Who knows? Yeah. But for you to do this, that sounds like what they might actually be doing. We've got everybody in the same room. We're showing you how to work traffic. We're showing you where the tracks are. The arrival and the departure posts. How do we make airspace kind of encompass all of these activities that we're already doing? How do we make this safer? Yeah. I think there's going to be people that would say, oh, it's too complicated. It's too chunked up and, you know, well, okay, sure. When you were on a map, on a paper map and trying to avoid this airspace before and not talking to anybody, but if you have all these moving maps and fancy tools and EFBs and stuff, well, we're starting to lose excuses for making it a little more complicated and protecting these avenues. I mean, I don't know. It looks kind of like a spider, you know? It's not a wedding cake. It's a spider. It's kind of like a crab, maybe? I mean, the departures are like a spider. The arrival looks more like a four-legged crab. Here's what they're not doing. And I'm saying this broadly, not to offend anybody in Europe, but they have taken their boundaries of controlled airspace and extended them all the way to the ground. There's no opportunity for non-participating airplanes. There's just these big vertical tubes, silos, from surface all the way up. You can't fly here. They don't do that here. And you opened with this. Freedom to fly here is a big deal. Yeah. And airspace is a way you organize that. I'll stop talking after that. I don't want to, I don't really don't want to upset anybody that's against this. I'm just trying to get you to understand our point of view on it. You can make this safe and have it work for all the users. Yeah. When I set a tube, I think you thought that I meant from the airport up. Now, I pictured you like an arrival pose? Yeah, like this. Yeah, that's what I pictured. And the planes are, okay. And the planes are going inside of this. I just picture it shaped like a square, not circular. Okay. Yeah. But you can totally display it on an EFB or now with synthetic vision. What is that called? Where you're seeing the world on your... Yeah, I can't think of the name of it. I think you said it. It's some sort of synthetics in there. You could see this tube going through the sky. There's the tube. We can't. I can't find the tube. Don't go to the tube. All right. Any other closing remarks about the upgrade at the busy Bachelorette, Charlie? No. I just... Good luck. I hope it goes as well as it seems like it's going already. Agreed. Good luck. Keep it posted. Please share these. Yeah, they need it. Yeah. And if you prove this works and you could somehow quantify the metrics that you used, there are other air spaces in the NAS that may benefit from what you guys are doing. Absolutely. Don't dismiss that. I think there's so many places that could look at not only this, but their Charlie redesign. For us, I would love to be able to narrow it and pinch it out and extend it out the finals. I'd be happy to give up some space the other way to get protected space out to 15 or 20 miles on each side of the airport. You heard it from us. We want to give up airspace. I mean, the technology exists that... And I know there would be ways that this would get messed up, but to even have specific operation airspace, okay, we're on a south... We're departing two threes and arriving two threes. The airspace could change. It's heavier on the arrival side. It goes to the surface. It goes farther back and on the departure side. It doesn't have to be as all-encompassing. Dynamic airspace. We're starting to get data capabilities in every plane almost where we flip a switch. Okay, we're on two threes. Boom. It changes. It just updates across the NAS. And you're in real time. Boom. Your map just flipped around. Charlie's... I could see benefiting a lot more than Bravles on that because just a number of airplanes, but man, that's a great idea. Someone will steal it and I'll lose millions of dollars. It just flew out my wallet just right then. You're welcome. On that note, would you like to move on? Thank you for the awesome audio, Sierra Lima, and for Delta Charlie Charlie for keeping us updated. Keep us posted, please. We want to keep talking about this. All right, moving on. Moving on. Okay, back time. All right, there are two of these. The first one is audio. I did not do the transcript of this because it's very short, but I put some blues. Don't forget to say's down below. I'm ready to hit play. Uh, 431. PS. Okay. BAS. Yep. Sorry about that. One, two, three. Hello, AG and RH. Coach from the Office. Sierra here. I'm asking a question about what I think is the dumbest said that I've encountered in the Nass. I'm talking about the Stewart 9 departure at Stewart Airport. It's north of the Big Apple Bravo by a little bit. Go ahead and look at it. Scratch your head a little. You might be wondering, what is the point of this said? I'll give you an example. IFR clearance you might get at this airport. November 1, 2, 3. Queer destination via the Stewart 9, then Huguenot, then it's filed. Climb via the CID, expect 5,000, 10 minutes after, Squawk 1, 2, 3, 4. Now, if you look at the CID, you'll notice that it doesn't tell you where to go beyond what I already told you. And the only thing that I didn't tell you in the clearance that you find on the CID is the departure frequency and the initial altitude of 3,000. So again, what is the point of this CID? Thanks. You have the CID up on the screen. This is an older, there's not a lot of vertical or navigation laterally on this. It's an older standard. Looks like somebody got told everybody has to have a CID. Yeah, I just was going to say that. But there are some really good nuggets on here. And I'm going to list them. Okay, please. It shows a top altitude like you talked about and the departure frequency. It shows the altitude requirements prior to turns. They're depicted visually. It shows a restricted area that's off the southeast side of the airport. Probably not entirely known to IFR pilots that may not be looking at a VFR map or even pulled out a loan route. So that's good to have. It illustrates the locations of several navades. It's not to scale, but on a departure and we use one just like this out of my base for Penguin Airlines. It's pretty generic. There are some lateral paths, but it shows a bunch of VORs that you may not know tie into a fix that your company has filed for you. This does that. It shows the radials coming off of different VORs. Sometimes you get a controller who says fly heading, join this airway or join this radial to join the transition. This map would make that significantly easier. And we oftentimes have it pulled up to make sure we can do that. The takeoff minimums in the bottom right, they're all non-standard in terms of the climb gradient required. One of them is only 225 feet a minute per nautical mile, which isn't much more, but they increase a little bit. That's an important piece. It illustrates several intersections that may be part of a clearance, but are new to the pilot. So they said, you know, you filed off one of these VORs, say Chester from the northeast on there, but they want you to fly to one of these other RNAV fixes like Briss first that complies with an alloy that you know nothing about. Now it's on the chart. You don't have to go flopping around. Where is this fix they're talking about? It's there. What else? What am I missing? You see any other little nuggets in there? No. Yeah, I mean, it does kind of help, especially a jet crew kind of get set up oriented. It does give some information to kind of let you get ahead of the game. Yeah. Yeah. So a lot of SIDS now, if you're not a pilot or you've seen one like this, a lot of them now have lateral guidance. So I'll have you on a very specific path direct to a fix and it tells you which way to turn. After that, there's, it's something very defined. This is very broad. It's a huge overview of the northern Jersey and southern New York area. So it's not traditional in that sense, but there is a lot of good information on this sheet that the controllers may, they don't expect you to have it memorized, but when you accept that SID, you've kind of given yourself the requirement to go review some of this big picture stuff. Is that fair? Yeah. And thanks for recording that on the streets of New York City. Yeah. Where we'll get here the brakes of the bus. Did they ever change the brakes on these buses? No. No. Thank you for setting in audio Bravo Alpha Sierra and thank you for supporting the show. Yes, thank you. Did you have anything to add to that one? I kind of flew through that one. No, no, that's good. Yep. Okay, you get number two then. Number two from Supercaster Romeo Kilo. No politics here. I think it has been very interesting to learn about this man and to find out who out, wait a minute, to learn about this man and find out he is a Chinook pilot, made me instantly think of AG. I'd love to hear what AG has to say about it. Even it's just a brief clip in the episode certainly doesn't have to be a show topic. I had no idea Chinooks were used for missions like this. I always thought of them as a workhorse more of like a heavy duty tow truck of the sky. I didn't, I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard the drifted, I heard he drifted the Chinook around to complete the mission. Also the day in the life was such a cool episode. Thanks for taking the time to produce it. You two are the best from the woodchipper, Tersa. Oh, this is the metal of honor recipient. You know, a lot of the comments that I saw and it's true, typically a metal of honor is, it just takes much longer. So this was an expedited, I feel like maybe some people thought that meant it wasn't deserved. And a politics aside, I don't know why it was expedited. I'm not sure why it was quicker than normal. But to be sure this guy, one, is among the best Chinook pilots in the entire world. He wouldn't have been selected to do this high profile, super high risk. Think about what would happen if this fails, right? Again, politics aside. But an army, a US Army mission in a foreign country, not particularly friendly to the United States, fails, goes down, shoot down. They are something like that. Think about the consequences of that. So super high pressure. I don't know all the details of this mission, but for sure this is heroic action. And I cannot imagine, I just cannot imagine the amount of pressure that is on the flight lead. This guy is the flight lead of a super intense mission. Yes, the Chinook is used extensively for this kind of stuff because of the manpower that it can deliver instantly. It's not a flight of UH-60s. It is one, and boom, we're putting a bunch of people on the ground, on a rooftop, all at once, overwhelming force. There were times overseas where we would drop 120, 160 guys on a place at the same time. That's a great capability. Yes, it's used extensively for that. And if we heard about the mission and the subsequent award, it was high pressure and certainly high risk if we all heard about it. Yes. Yep. I have the highest respect for those guys. The highest respect because I have a small taste of it, of that world. Just a tiny little bit of the flavor of it. And the level that they're doing it is just unbelievable. You had a lot of missions. Yeah. I mean, would you, you're comfortable describing it as a small taste? Mine. So I flew 150 combat missions. That doesn't seem small to me. 40 of which were not cargo. Okay. 40 of which were, were putting people on an objective to kill, capture, destroy, you know, into not friendly places. 40, I guess a little more sporty kind of missions. And maybe half of those were super, were pretty intense, like extra intense. Okay. Not as bad as you would think, but nine non-dusty landings, not a lot of resistance. Pretty straightforward landing far from the objective and some, and half of them, 20 of them maybe were a lot closer to what was going on. Okay. But it was never in a place that we weren't supposed to be, you know, like it was never to this level. It was never to this amount of pressure. It was, you know, it just wasn't the same. But I got to take, I definitely have a taste of it, of what this kind of, you know, this style of mission, a deliberate, you know, direct action sort of mission. Everybody thinks like in this feedback that Chinook is a, an indirect support, which in a traditional sort of modern battlefield, it would be, it would be more, we're moving stuff around behind the forward line. Right. So, we're not the forward line or going so far beyond the forward line into just completely, you're on your own completely. You came off a ship presumably in the middle of the night into a foreign country that we are not operating in. You have no ground support. You have no supply line. There's no, you know, yeah, no, I never did anything like that. Okay. The mechanics of it I get. Sure. But that's aspect of it I don't get. Have you ever done a Chinook drift? Do you know what they're describing in this? I'm not sure, no. I don't know what that is. I don't, that's what I was saying. I don't know the details. Okay. I mean, for sure I've flown sideways in weird ways, in weird places for extended periods of time. But if that's what this is referring to, it's an incredibly maneuverable aircraft. Excellent. The sideward flight limit was 40 knots. It's capable of doing significantly more than that. Let's just tell you. Don't ask me. I know. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you for sending that link. I'll try to put a link in the show notes. For supporters, you can check it out. We're talking about my Medal of Honor Award recipient, very recent. And if you don't click on the link, you can look it up. It's available on many different sites. So. Yep. Anything to add before we close out this episode? I do not. All right. We do our best to respond to supportive feedback and let you know when you'll be on an upcoming show. Again, shout out to all the supporters for making this show happen. And for those that joined us in the live stream today, you can see us get through two episodes. Two longer ones too today. Yes, longer. Yep. Excellent. All right. We will see everybody in a few weeks. Closing out. Episode 431 of Opposing Bases, Air Traffic Talk. Romeo Hotel. And Alpha Golf. Goodbye, everyone. Drop. Yeah. Drop.