Garfly

They can't be persuaded to at least go for Electronic Conspicuity (SE2) at $500 a pop (subsidised)?

Yeah, a busy circuit is more akin to city motor traffic conditions than any chunk of big-sky. Everyone is, by design, on the same level, which is both good and bad. (Visibility is often less reliable in the air.) TCAS doesn't apply either. It'd be screaming spurious Resolution Advisories at you constantly. Some kind of ADSB CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) doesn't need to be cluttered to show you any converging threats. And contrary to the straw-man objections you don't need to be staring at it any more than you stare into your mirrors on the road. In Glen's case a mere glance would have picked up that other aircraft on a wide circuit - if only it had been equipped. (After all, he was expecting it to be ahead of him but already on base. Your MkI eyeball can't 'look' at the whole scene like a CDTI can.)

My takeaway from Glen's story was that the old MkI Ball needs EVERY BIT of help it can get, when it comes to avoiding midairs. Which is what the safety authorities have been on about for yonks; most recently by way of urging (subsidising) voluntary VFR ADSB uptake. And, yes, luck is in large part self-made. (Though, in these cases, universal uptake would be the greatest luck of all.)

"What happened to Jim Tweto? Possible explanation." Video about everyday performance issues faced by Alaskan bush pilots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0JFm3Z38M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SROxT8jX2P0

Yeah, well, I'm full of curiosity as to the colour of my BRS. Will I ever see it!? Imagine buying a $9000 dollar item and never getting to post an unboxing video on YouTube.

If hearsay carries any weight at all, I did speak to a guy who spoke to a guy in Germany who services and disposes of them. He said that he said that he's never had one yet that failed when the handle was pulled - even many years out of date. Both rocket and 'chute. So ... for what it's worth. It gave me a little comfort. But, in any case, as has been discussed here before, anyone who has one might be better off firing it off sooner rather than later, when pressed by fate. (Maybe after a bit of manoeuvring towards some nice-ish looking drop zone.) If you pull early and it's a total fizzer, you could still have time to set up a conventional forced arrival. Also, pulling and being done with it, means you're no longer carrying dangerous cargo and you have time to call mother. And explain to your erstwhile friend beside you that ... well, these things happen. What's the point of being the hero who gets it into the football field in the conventional manner but then shoots the sheriff who comes to help. ;- )

She was a CFI ... so maybe she just wanted a realistic demo vid. ;- )

And yet, it seems he was an experienced company test pilot.

This time an AOPA video with CFI Alyssa Cobb:

This is an interesting case in point. We get to ride along as the pilot talks herself through the final 10 minutes of the flight; her dawning realisation that given the J4 engine's poor performance (turns out to be a stuck-valve) she's not gonna make it to the nearest airstrip.

I think I've seen some consumer emergency start packs designed to plug into a car's cigar lighter socket. That seems a bit dodgy, no?

This wasn't you, was it Spacey?

True! But then, if you're in a spin (or you have a lot of friends) you might have your work cut out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTJEnUr-jFU In which case, it might be back to the BRS idea ;- )

Saying 'Seeya!' to your pax [and erstwhile friend] might be an awkward moment. ;- )

Yeah, that's what I thought. That email exchange was not about whether a SkyEcho2 was a substitute for a TSO'd transponder, per se. Clearly not the case. It was about trying to get clarity on the meaning of the following limited exception: AC 91-23 v1.0 "Apart from an integrated TABS device able to substitute for a transponder in Class E & G airspace Thus the issue came down to the definition of "integrated TABS devices" and it turns out that I had misread part of the CASA docs in that regard. That is what Matt from RAAus corrected me on. But even in that exchange we did canvass the related issue of whether IFR cockpits had to have ADSB-IN CDTI (cockpit display of traffic information) which, I believe, they (still) don't and whether ATC filters out EC devices, which, I gather, they don't anymore, necessarily. Those are what seemed to be the sticking points for ECs in E, rather than any perceived inadequacy of the SE2 to do its job as advertised. However, I thought maybe things had moved on when you were suggesting that a SE2 might be okay as a 'tail-light' in Class E. (I think I might have missed your drift ;- ) Anyway, seems we all agree that the great unwashed need to stay well clear of the upper E classes unless carrying a transponder that will definitely trigger TCAS and definitely be seen by ATC. At least until ADSB-IN CDTI is mandated for all IFR flights (as is already the case for ADSB-OUT).

Who is saying "I read Somewhere"? But for sure, anyone who does fly with a BRS has had to think through that question: under which circumstances would I pull? (And that includes all ultralight pilots in countries where BRS is mandated). Nobody is not accepting that a pilot must make the decision based on a multiple contingencies. Not even Cirrus. Nobody is saying that the particular facts of this incident, on their face, invalidate anyone's pre-existing position regarding airframe parachutes, in general. This is sounding like deja vu all over again.

You seem determined, Skip, to steer clear of any suggestion that one of the morals of this story might be "If you've got one, it might be better to use it". There's nothing in the story that suggests that if you don't have one, and you could have one, that you should have one.

Who's talking about jumping?

And don't get me started on the dangers of airbags.

No, of course not. Anyway, in a Cirrus you don't really have that choice. What the story has to do with, among other things, is if you have one do you pull the handle or go for the field. That dilemma is a little bit like whether to install or not ... except that decision time is now. 🙂

Glen, are you're saying that you think the clarification I got from RAAus (as quoted above - and, in more detail, below) is wrong - have things changed?: From: Gary .......................... Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 6:31 AM To: RAAus Policy <[email protected]> Subject: Update on lowering of Class E airspace Dear RAAus team, your update today regarding the proposal to lower Class E made no mention of what seems to be a relevant implication; the CASA ‘concession’ to recreational craft to substitute relatively cheap EC (Integrated TABS) devices for TSO’d transponders in Class E. CASA ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-23 v1.0 Excerpt: "Apart from an integrated TABS device able to substitute for a transponder in Class E & G airspace, lower cost options are not intended to overcome any existing requirement to carry a transponder, in any class of airspace.” I’m not saying that this makes the proposal okay, not at all; but it does appear to be part of the grand CASA strategy (and a way to dampen resistance from the VFR crowd). Anyway I’d have thought that at least some engagement wit this gambit ought to be part of any response. The SkyEcho2 device, for example, seems to qualify under this concession. As you know, it's stand-alone portable unit that can even be moved between (uniquely registered) aircraft. So carrying one may indeed overcome many of the objections we, as a group, might otherwise raise. It might even make some things better for our sector, such as clearance-free transit overhead Class D at Coffs. However, if, indeed, mandating this kind of device (at a minimum) is what CASA (in their obfuscating way) is intending, then why don’t they come out and say so? They should reveal their hand if they really want ‘consultation’. BTW, this issue has been heavily canvassed in recent days on Recreational Flying forums but it seems nobody knows for sure what’s going on. https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/37213-lowering-class-e-between-melbourne-and-cairns/ all the best, Gary ..... (RAAus pilot/member) On 27 Jan 2021, at 6:22 pm, RAAus Policy <[email protected]> wrote: G'day Gary, Thanks so much for your email. It totally agree with your notion that as an industry, and I mean all stakeholders including the regulator, need to work together to come up with solutions that work for all, with little or no impact. Of course the EC devices are a terrific situational awareness tool however, as you'll find in CAO 20.18, these are not able to be used by ATC and therefore do not meet the requirements of transponder fitment in Class E. The safety benefits of EC devices are real for us pilots, but because of the technical standards we're told by the regulator and Airservices that the integrity of the positional source information and because of the low wattage of the SkyEcho2, for example, it's not suitable for use by ATC and therefore it's filtered out of their radar picture. Happy to discuss further. Cheers Matt Bouttell CEO RAAus From: Gary ........... Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 7:45 AM To: RAAus Policy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Update on lowering of Class E airspace Hi Matt, Thanks for getting back. So what do you make of the quote from the CASA circular that I included in my mail? They clearly say that Integrated TABS (SIL<=1) - such as a SE2 - can be substituted in Class E. Is it false? Has it been rescinded? What gives? If you have clear info that contradicts the CASA statement above then it’s urgent that we know about it. Even right now for ops in Class E. Please refer to the Rec Flying forum I mentioned. https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/37213-lowering-class-e-between-melbourne-and-cairns/ I gather, from various CASA documents that it’s not only ATC visibility that’s in their thinking but also CDTI tech being aboard all regional RPT craft. I reckon they figure that if RPT all have ADSB-in info displayed they can take over some of their own separation responsibility in E (as they do now in G) as long as everyone in the space has some kind of conspicuity going. And, in any case, a SkyEcho2 type device is likely, in practice, to be visible to ATC in terminal areas low power notwithstanding. What say you? gary. From: RAAus Policy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Update on lowering of Class E airspace Date: 27 January 2021 at 7:04:59 pm AEDT To: Gary ....... Hey Gary, An integrated TABS device is not an EC device, such as the SE2. These are two different things. If you take a look at CAO 20.18 Appendix XIII (for integrated TABS) or Appendix XIV (for EC device) you'll see that an integrated TABS device must meet the technical specifications for (E)TSO-C199. and have a SIL of 1. I think this raised the issue of how complex this matter is. People are confused as to the proposal but also the requirements as they stand today. We'll make mention of this to Airservices (whom I'm meeting tomorrow) and CASA at the earliest opportunity to ensure the current requirements are made clear. I hope this helps. Cheers Matt

This is just a single - very nicely done - shot of a good looking RV-7A landing (leaving only light work for the little wheel).

Yeah, apart from the ASIC issue, as far as I know, you can still access YTWB remaining OCTA, and avoiding the Military Romeo's most of the time. Maybe some locals could fill us in on that. I'd be interested anyway.