Garfly

There are good reasons for saying only what's needed but RT minimalists can be as much to blame as maximalists for causing poor SA in busy circuits. Have standards declined? I don't know. Anyway, new tech ain't to blame (at least, not yet). The big difference I see is between pilots who practise circuitry every day and those who blunder on stage once in a blue moon. Hmmm ... time to find a circuit that's busy and an instructor that ain't. ;- )

I don't think cockpit traffic display systems are a part of basic training now, nor in the foreseeable future. Instructors would surely be teaching circuit situation awareness in the ordinary eyes-outside way. That only makes sense.

That's the beauty of the SkyEcho2 box, though. No cables needed. Just a little white thing wirelessly informing your tablet - and the world around. Also gives its GPS info to your EFB if needed. And, oh yeah, should tell those commercial flights - and Centre - all the who, what, where of you they need. ;- )

Yes, I think it's good practice to note down relevant callsigns when you can. It saves time - and grabs attention - if you need to talk directly to that aircraft. But, as mentioned by others, second best usually works out: " ... aircraft inbound from the west for overhead join, what's your current position? ... " Actually, the MGL radio I use now has a button for instant replay of the last transmission. I think that will be useful when I finally remember to use it. As to excessive chatter, well the goldilocks mean (neither too little, nor too much) has always been a bone of contention on here; many exhaustive threads can be found on it. It could be that the art of building mental images of circuit traffic will decline as new traffic awareness tech takes hold, but it wouldn't be the first aeronautical skill to fall to the might of the digital revolution ; -) I haven't, myself, observed overuse of 'dubious traffic awareness devices', though, I'm sure it exists. On the other hand, I've already had several close-calls near airports averted thanks to my (CASA approved ... nay, encouraged!) EC device. It's pictures are just soooo much better than my own, which are mental.

I think the best answer I can come up with is "as best one can." Actually, it's a difficult mental exercise to build an accurate (dynamic) picture of a busy circuit (even assuming incoming comms are clear, complete and accurate - quite a stretch.) And it's at a time when you're quite busy trying to avoid colliding with mother earth, yourself. The skill requires practice. Yet students are expected to get it right, right off the bat. And it's not only students; anyone used to a sleepy home-field can be caught short arriving at a fly-in, for example. So yes, special training could be called for. As has been suggested, hanging out at a busy strip with a handheld and observing the passing parade is a useful exercise. When I do this I'm often struck by how much chatter - and mind space - is wasted (re)assuring separation between aircraft who are actually miles apart and no factor at all. But up there, it's so easy to be spooked by the spectre of crashing into someone. After all, you're very aware of your many blind spots - and the other limits of see-and-be-seen. And radio talk doesn't always give us what we need for the job of building a traffic picture - relative to our own ship. That's why I'm puzzled by so much knee-jerk resistance to ADSB solutions. A screen, at the merest glance, gives us a pre-made picture (relative to us); hardly any processing - or training - needed. Of course, we await universal take-up but even now we can have first class separation info from all commercial flights, at a minimum. Maybe I shouldn't be puzzled, it took almost a generation for the obvious safety benefits of GPS to gain general acceptance. It took that long to overcome those early dire predictions of a descent into lazy GoTo nav practice. To me it's a form of ideology lag. Anyway, Roundsounds, you're an experienced instructor, right. Please tell us what you think. How do you think the question should be answered?

Yeah, good question. You can see better how Harry has set up his heaters in the cabin (one on each side) in this video posted in a Nynja thread.

Nicely set up panel by Harry from Iceland:

STOL

And electric trim, no less!

But I'm still wondering about the implications of that (new?) requirement that Roundsounds mentions ('should be operating on a regular basis from a security controlled airport'). Where, exactly, does that leave the rest? (AVIDs and the walk of shame? ;- )

And yet, that document linked to by Thruster opens with: (so what gives?) The Department of Home Affairs is Australia's security regulator for aviation. They also administer the Aviation Transport Security Regulations. Under these regulations, all current pilots must have an aviation security status check. You will also need an aviation security status check if you're applying for a flight crew licence. To get one of these checks you will need to apply for either an: Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) Aviation Identification (AVID).

Does this suggest that pilots who occasionally operate into security controlled airports will be banned from doing so ... or, that they will be able to do so without an ASIC? Or that they will need an AVID instead?

This is the Edge Performance (hot water) cabin heater for 165 Euros. https://shop.edgeperformance.no/produkt/service-parts/kabinvarme/varmere/2-2kw-cabin-heater Definitely handy in Iceland but breezy Rangers can do with one, even in an Aussie winter.):

And they seem to be promoting the mid-field Crosswind join lately presumably because it's less likely to conflict with departing traffic. Source: CASA's AC91-10 v1.1 from late last year. Click to expand.

Section 12.6 of the RAAus Tech Manual sets out the official position on all that. https://members.raa.asn.au/storage/raaus-technical-manual-issue-41.pdf This is the first page of the section. (Click to expand)

In the AvWeb video (original post) the TurbAero CEO mentioned a target price of 80-85K USD for the 200HP version. He also said the were planning a 120HP model.

A good idea, but more because of 'no iPad' than 'no Telstra'. Maps / docs would be on the device and GPS needs no network.

Yeah, there's an interesting discussion along those lines in the YouTube comments.

As far as I can tell, the Class-E proposal from ASA last year, on the one hand, and CASA's consultations/advisories regarding the 'voluntary fitment of ADSB' by VFR craft, on the other, are definitely related but they do sound like they're being sung from different hymn books. In any case, nobody wants the Ballina airprox event to repeat, on their watch, as air-tragedy. AirServices Australia seems - for all intents and purposes - willing to impose proper transponders on all flying machines whereas CASA seems reluctant to impose TSO'd ADSB equipment on bug-smashers (gear that could cost more than the aircraft is worth ;- ) But then, even charter businesses were very hostile to the cost imposition on them which came into effect a couple of years back. As to losing the plot; well, I reckon it's like an episode of Vera, the plot, by design, is not easy to figure out. The best we can do is pore over what's out there - official circulars et al - and try our best to read the tea leaves. For a start, these docs (AFAIK) remain the current (unresolved) thinking: SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION: Voluntary fitment of ADS-B technology in VFR aircraft Date September 2018 Project number AS 16/06 File ref D18/25714 https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/dp1701as/results/summaryofconsultationondiscussionpaper1701as.pdf ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-23v1.0: ADS-B for enhancing situational awareness Date July 2020 Project number AS 16/06 File ref D20/77240 https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/advisory-circular-91-23-ads-b-enhancing-situational-awareness.pdf Flight Safety Australia: Low-cost ADS-B Aug 7, 2020 https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2020/08/low-cost-ads-b/ One question that has come up here several times - with no clear answer yet - is whether low cost, non-TSO'd (but approved) ADSB IN-OUT gear like the SkyEcho2 might be deemed acceptable in Class E (current high or future low) or even, Class D. So I was interested in this part (see below) of the "Summary of Consultation" 09/18 (linked to above.) It shows that ideas like that have, at least, been discussed and may yet be under consideration. It seems to me that the feds want to get a feel of how the voluntary uptake of affordable ADSB for VFR goes in practice (especially after the government subsidy kicks in). [THIS TEXT IS A SCREENSHOT IMAGE SO NEEDS CLICKING TO SHOW FULL REZ.]

Well, if we can't rely on obeisance to Rules and Regulations to keep us safe, what can we rely on? Oh, wait ....