Garfly

Yeah, the the display of cell traffic is, after all, an added safety bonus on top of everything else the EFBs do. It's never claimed to be comprehensive. And all seem to agree that (affordable) ADSB IN-OUT is where it's at, anyway, so it's more and more a moot point. That said, I've often wondered what the actual reasons were behind OzRunways reluctance to share its user data with the competition, so I was interested in what PenName was able to elicit there. And, on the face of it, I've no reason to doubt the stress they put on the 'reliability' argument even if some comparative advantage reasoning is part of the blend. As to our EFBs being mainly a cheap and easy map pack, well, the thing is, it can be so clumsy trying to avoid your protractor sliding all over the iPad screen and the dividers tend to leave permanent marks. And the distance measuring is all over the place. So what the heck, we might as well cheat and use that little moving airplane that somehow knows where we are - and everything else. And yes, 'traffic' is not a priority for many pilots; it's mainly for those a little obsessed with trying "to avoid flying in front of the RPT😎" 😉

Of course, Recreational has merged with GA over the years. GA even have a recreational licence now. But so what? This is not about the past it's about the present and the future. As Thruster88 said earlier in this thread: "I will have adsb in and out in my $5k thruster tomorrow for the Parkes flyin, should be able to avoid flying in front of the RPT😎"

Turbs, I'm really interested in engaging you in discussion on this but your obscure one liners give me nothing to get hold of. Not a bad tactic, I guess ;- )

Ian, I agree that the EFB providers should be firmly encouraged (if not coerced) to share their participating users' data. On the other hand, I think that with affordable ADSB gear (soon to be govt. subsidised?) we're in the process of leap-frogging those various cell network solutions. After all, ADSB data is instantaneous, needs no network and operates aircraft to aircraft, anywhere. Even an IN-only set up will display all nearby commercial flights (and an ever growing number of amateur ones). But, yes, in the interim, a combination display (ADSB, plus cell etc. - which the EFBs already manage) is what we need. And that should be optimised, so OzRwys please pool your stuff with AvPlan, at least until ADSB is effectively universal. And that situation might eventually be enshrined as L.A.W - Law. Just, as now, drivers are required to have - and use - rear/side-view mirrors (whilst, at the same time, attending to the world outside the windscreen). Amazing what humans are capable of.

Okay, so you've nothing to say about the the contradiction between your 'maverick electronic gear' position and ATSB's 'strong encouragement' of the use of that gear, for safety's sake. And you scarcely acknowledge the obvious fact that ADSB gear is all about preventing accidents not the fascinating task of investigating what people had been "required to do" before they died. Just talk, eh? Yeah, right. Just talk.

Turbs, I don't know what "maverick" stuff you're referring to, but SkyEcho2 electronic gear - merely glanced at - would likely have prevented the Mangalore accident and averted the Ballina airprox incident. Which might be why they are not only approved for Australia but 'strongly encouraged' by the aviation authorities. Must we wait for it to become sanctified as a Rule for the obvious safety message to be accepted? From the ATSB Mangalore report: "The ATSB also strongly encourages the fitment of ADS-B transmitting, receiving and display devices as they significantly assist the identification and avoidance of conflicting traffic. The continuous positional information that ADS-B provides can highlight a developing situation many minutes before it becomes hazardous – a significant improvement on both point-in-time radio traffic advice and ‘see-and-avoid’. The ATSB also notes that ADS-B receivers, suitable for use on aircraft operating under both the instrument or visual flight rules, are currently available within Australia at low cost and can be used in aircraft without any additional regulatory approval or expense." ao-2020-012-final-3.pdf

LOL, if not greater minds (hardly) - nor humbler opinions (ditto) - we might, at least, expect that minds of experience; ones having an actual grasp of aviation realities, have thought about this. ;- )

Thanks for the info, Aro. I finally found this page on the AvPlan blog which explains the current EFB "traffic" display situation. It also urges us to lobby OzRwys to have them pool their user data so that both platforms' [cell based] info would be available to all. Anyway, the closer we get to universal ADSB IN-OUT, the more the cell based method will become obsolete. https://www.avplan-efb.com/avplan/traffic-displays/

Hi Aro, I found this just now on the AvPlan site, is there something I'm not getting? "AvPlan EFB supports pretty much every ADSB-in device, except those made by Garmin. With an attached ADSB-in receiver, AvPlan EFB will accurately depict every ADSB-out equipped aircraft within a wide radius of your location." https://www.avplan-efb.com/avplan/traffic-displays/#:~:text=AvPlan EFB supports pretty much,in Australia since February 2017.

Yes, sorry, I meant off their own bat (with nothing else needed).

AFAIK, AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own (participating) users. Although devices like SkyEcho2 can of course be set up to display on the EFB map screens.

But kg, wouldn't that be at the cost of RAAus aircraft being excluded from Ballina altogether? Would you be happy with that? What do you think about the official measures already taken to obviate repetition (The Ballina SFIS, 15 nm Broadcast Area etc.) See AIP SUP doc attached. BALLINA B'CAST ZONE.pdf

Indeed ... and better still, check on actual flight path conflicts with an ADSB-IN device. (Which, at a glance, shows all nearby commercial flights right on your EFB map - and many light a/c too, of course.) For those not ready for the $900 SkyEcho2 IN/OUT solution (until the govt. subsidy comes good?) the $300 IN-only Ping (for example) will, at least, let you see them. https://www.uavionix.com.au/pingusb/ Unless, that is, you remain confident in the eyes-always-outside / see-and-be-seen / no-fancy-toys, approach.

When I wrote above that it was the ATSB who backed off their proposal, of course, I meant to say ASA (AirServices Australia.) So my apologies to ATSB who had nothing to do with it. While I'm at it, I may as well re-link to that AusALPA (Australian Airline Pilots Association) submission on ASA's Class E proposal. It's a good read; an example of what a nuanced, well constructed argument on a complex issue really looks like. Posted April 1, 2021 (edited) https://www.ausalpa.org.au/Portals/5/Documents/Submissions/2021/210215 AusALPA Submission to Airservices re Lowering Class E on the East Coast V2.2.pdf?ver=2021-02-23-134706-453 This was my comment on it at the time: "My attention was caught by this bit where they're scathing of the Airservices 'Fact Sheet' "Class E does not restrict access for VFR aircraft” This Fact Sheet heading is completely misleading ... // ... The change in airspace classification will also change the VMC requirements (Class E has more restrictive requirements than much of Class G), materially reducing the number of flying opportunities and days available to VFR pilots. At first, I wondered what they were referring to but I guess it must be the less stringent 'clear of cloud' VMC requirement in Class G, not above 3000' (or 1000' AGL). That's what they must have meant by 'reducing flying opportunities and days available to VFR pilots'. ... It's interesting that it was the airline pilots who spotted this additional anomaly, basically on our behalf. Good on them."

That is an utterly different situation from what's being discussed here. Please read the report. We're talking of a very serious Airprox incident. Serious lessons need to be learned. Yes, you can fly your ultralight 500' below airliners landing at Sydney, too, on the Victor One coastal route. But you must remain in Class G while the commercial traffic above must keep to its Class C LL. That minimum separation is structured into the system. In this incident both aircraft - airliner and ultralight - were in Class G. They were depending basically on CTAF procedures to self separate and those failed for a variety of reasons. Their 600' of vertical separation was down to sheer luck. There is absolutely nothing "Normal situation. Nothing to see." about this. Sheesh!!

Your glib rhetorical question is scarcely deserving of a serious answer but I'll say "Yes, for sure". There was a very long, detailed and often well argued thread on the Class E issue here, last year. In the end ATSB backed off their proposal in the face of overwhelming opposition from all quarters. This included, by the way, a stinging rebuke from one airline pilot's organisation which argued, inter alia, that it would be unfair restriction to impose on recreational pilots. Mixing RPT and recreational traffic in Class G is a tricky airspace management problem where safety and equity (regarding free and safe access) needs to be delicately balanced. By the way, I'm not 'down on the Jab pilot' either; our habit here of going straight to pilot error risks missing the points being made by the writers of this report. It's about mixed traffic airspace management in Class G. Better procedures plus universal affordable ADSB - and yes, additional training for mixed traffic environments should see the system work well. As recreational users, maybe we should be relieved that the cost of setting up a Class D controlled airspace in such places as Ballina tends to be a brake on it happening. Otherwise we'd be excluded from heaps more horizontal space to add to the vertical threat to our G space from crazy Class E lowering proposals.

From the report: "What has been done as a result The Ballina Airport broadcast area was expanded to a radius of 15 NM in January 2021 and an Airservices Australia surveillance flight information service (SFIS) began operating in August 2021. The SFIS provided traffic information to aircraft operating within the broadcast area on the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised that the current Ballina Airport airspace review (due for release in February 2022) utilises data that includes transiting aircraft. Additionally, CASA has developed an airspace risk modelling system (ARMS) that should provide an enhanced capability to consider transiting aircraft. CASA also advised that an initiative by the Australian Government to increase the uptake of automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) equipment in general aviation would result in improved aircraft detection. While the proposed CASA actions have the potential to address the safety issue, this will largely depend on the conclusions of the current Ballina Airport airspace review and the effectiveness of the new ARMS. As such, the ATSB will monitor and assess their effect on the safety issue." I wonder if CASA's Ballina Airport airspace review (due for release in February 2022) has been released yet? I haven't been able to find it. Anyway, we now need urgent clarification as to whether a device such as the SkyEcho2 would have obviated this situation entirely. I suspect it would have but it's hard to get hard data as to whether any, or all, RPT cockpit displays/TCAS currently in service are capable of being triggered by these affordable transponders, which, by the way, are always transmitting accurate 3D position/trend data, and are one result of the initiative by the Australian Government to increase the uptake of automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) equipment in general aviation. Also, whether the proposed SFIS (surveillance flight information service) would be capable of detecting SkyEcho type targets. Final report here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5781013/ao-2020-062-final.pdf

You can also buy it online from: https://www.flightstore.com.au/aircraft-supplies/lubricants/

Regarding W&B calcs, this is a how-to-video from the BMAA (British Microlight Aircraft Association)

Perhaps this clip of that Richard Boyd Barrett speech in the Irish parliament can serve here in the role of peace-keeper (I'm sure he'd be willing). In this one he's shown, in a fuller context, railing against the Putin regime and the NATO alliance, equally. (However, the Ukrainian point-of-view, per se , is, again, given short shrift, so it's back to a degree of 'westsplaining' - scant regard for buffer-state agency ) This clip is posted by People Before Profit National. I think we can all agree, this is a far more congenial host for the likes of Barrett than BitChute.

For anyone interested, Wiki is reasonably short and sweet: Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky ... born 26 June 1963) is an exiled Russian businessman, philanthropist[6] and former oligarch,[7] now residing in London.[8] In 2003, Khodorkovsky was believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia, with a fortune estimated to be worth $15 billion, and was ranked 16th on Forbes list of billionaires.[9] He had worked his way up the Komsomol apparatus, during the Soviet years, and started several businesses during the period of glasnost and perestroika in the late 1980s. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in the mid-1990s, he accumulated considerable wealth by obtaining control of a number of Siberian oil fields unified under the name Yukos, one of the major companies to emerge from the privatization of state assets during the 1990s (a scheme known as "Loans for Shares"). In October 2003, he was arrested by Russian authorities and charged with fraud.[10] The government under Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, then froze shares of Yukos shortly thereafter on tax charges. Putin's government took further actions against Yukos, leading to a collapse of the company's share price and the evaporation of much of Khodorkovsky's wealth. In May 2005, he was found guilty and sentenced to nine years in prison. In December 2010, while he was still serving his sentence, Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev were further charged with and found guilty of embezzlement and money laundering, Khodorkovsky's prison sentence was extended to 2014. After Hans-Dietrich Genscher lobbied for his release, President Vladimir Putin pardoned Khodorkovsky, releasing him from jail on 20 December 2013.[11] There was widespread concern internationally that the trials and sentencing were politically motivated.[12][13] The trial was criticized abroad for the lack of due process. Khodorkovsky lodged several applications with the European Court of Human Rights, seeking redress for alleged violations by Russia of his human rights. In response to his first application, which concerned events from 2003 to 2005, the court found that several violations were committed by the Russian authorities in their treatment of Khodorkovsky.[14] Despite these findings, the court ultimately ruled that the trial was not politically motivated,[15][16][17] but rather "that the charges against him were grounded in 'reasonable suspicion'".[16] He was considered to be a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.[13] On being pardoned by Putin and released from prison at the end of 2013, Khodorkovsky immediately left Russia and was granted residency in Switzerland.[11][18] At the end of 2013, his personal estate was believed to be worth, as a rough estimate, $100–250 million.[19] At the end of 2014, he was said to be worth about $500 million.[20] In 2015, he moved to London.[21] In December 2016, the Dublin District Court unfroze $100m of Khodorkovsky's assets that had been held in the Republic of Ireland.[22] In 2014, Khodorkovsky re-launched Open Russia to promote several reforms to Russian civil society, including free and fair elections, political education, protection of journalists and activists, endorsing the rule of law, and ensuring media independence.[23][24] He has been described by The Economist as "the Kremlin's leading critic-in-exile".[25]

Oh, it behooves us to avoid confusing propaganda for information, all right. That BitChute link was interesting; a recent speech in the Irish parliament by Richard Boyd Barrett, a long-time, left leaning politician and tireless campaigner for world peace. In the speech he makes a fair point: that the liberal west, whilst rightly standing with Ukraine against "Putin and his thugs" remains strangely slow to support other nations unjustly threatened by powerful neighbours, like that of the Palestinians. From Wikipedia: "Richard Boyd Barrett (born 6 February 1967) is an Irish People Before Profit /Solidarity politician .... He is also chair of the Irish Anti-War Movement and has been cited on war issues in the Irish media. // [He] contested the Dún Laoghaire constituency at the 2011 general election as part of the United Left Alliance." And yet, his hair would surely catch fire if he knew his ideas were being hijacked by - and distributed by way of - BitChute, one of the most hateful, extreme-right havens of black propaganda on the world-wide-web. The only interest that mob would have in quoting someone like Barrett is that his pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist positions can be made to seem aligned with their disgusting anti-semitic ravings (among endless other execrable tendencies). From Wikipedia: BitChute is an alt-tech video hosting service launched by Ray Vahey in January 2017. It describes itself as offering freedom of expression. The service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech. Some creators who use BitChute have been banned from YouTube; some others crosspost content to both platforms or post more extreme content only to BitChute. Yep, you'll find no NYT or BBC style misinformation on good 'ol BigChute. Speaking of peace and the Palestinians, though, anyone willing to risk their purity might find this NYT piece by Michelle Goldberg instructive (and depressing): "Kushner's Absurd Peace Plan Has Failed" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/opinion/us-israel-palestine-jared-kushner.html I'm pretty sure Barrett would agree.

High-flyers can be filtered out in Prefs. Could that might explain it?

Well, that's exactly what Khodorkovsky reckons:

Sure, Don, I'm keen to learn more by having all sides of an issue aired by way of honestly held, contesting opinions - as we have here. Anyway, I think we can all agree that to be disgusted by Putin and his war is in no way to be disgusted with Russia or Russians; nor to imply that legitimate Russian interests and anxieties have not, to some extent, been trampled by the West since '89. This, indeed, could be compared to the unwise and unnecessary trampling of the reasonable fears of a defeated Germany at Versailles in 1919. And we know how that ended. But that did require - and/or gave rise to - a Hitler. In any case, for anyone interested, linked below are two smart, courageous and honest Russian voices (IMHO) that help us understand how Putin's grievances and interests and those of Russia, must not, at all, be seen as the same thing. And, free of 'westsplaining' tendencies (that is, viewing these events as mainly east-west geo-politics playing out on a field of ground that, itself, has no serious agency to consider) Russian journalist Yevgenia Albat points out (16:45 in the video below) that despite its historic cultural and linguistic links to Russia (and Belarus), Ukraine has, after all, been struggling to gain its own independent statehood for centuries. (And yes, it is way more complicated than that.)