graham brown

New2 flying. I think you are asking is it good to learn gliding for power. In all aspects including landing the answer is YES! Flying the airframe is flying and leaving the engine out of it to start with teaches the pure concepts. Primacy will be ingrained to fly the airframe which will save your arse if it goes to worms. Spin recovery is taught in gliding as a matter of course and checked annually. If you have the opportunity to learn gliding before you learn power you will never regret it. You will probably glide forever too. Lots of airline pilots are glider pilots.

Sully was a glider pilot and outlander in the Hudson. All good.

Good luck with your learning

Yeah a good response. Most organisations responded in similar way. The Gliding Federation had many of the same gripes. Gliders are exempt on transponders but we have to monitor the class E frequency on the radio. We are not allowed to talk unless a collision is imminent. By lowering class e this stupidity becomes a big problem. Tugs and motor gliders are not exempt from transponder either. The GFA would only buy 8500ft min. GFA assumed this is about providing traffic service to ifr flights specifically regional airlines. On the transponder costs, you can buy 10 ec devices for one tso’ed transponder. What is a better safety investment?

Yeah that’s good. 

On windy select temperature, then hold you finger on the point of interest. A menu comes up with sounding as an option. Select that. The height of the thermals can be determined by the ground temperature.

GFA members get free access to sky sight. Dr Jack used to be used too, not sure if it’s still available. Windy has temp traces too.

Why is it safer for AsA to monitor ads-b via a ground based system and relay on the information via VHF radio to an IFR pilot rather than the pilot having ads-b IN and seeing the traffic directly?

Jobs and $ ?

The RPTs don’t want to spend the money for ads-b in. They want all of us to spend the money so they can keep what they have.

TABS is USA spec, TSO C199. This is in 2 parts. An S mode transponder  and a gps. The gps to c199 is available on the market but there is no s mode transponder to c199 nor an integrated device to c199 that I know of.

4 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

Wasnt there a mandate from CASA that all aircraft would have to be ADSB compliant by 2020. But about 2017 i think they bailed on enforcing that to some other date to be determined because the cost of everyone would be too high. So I think ADSB will be the norm eventualy anyway it is the cost factor. I know everyone was spewing about the cost back when it was first announced back around 2014/15

 

The mandate was for IFR aircraft and that has been implemented. VFR aircraft have various options depending on which airspace you want to use. The skyecho option was for air to air use to help see and avoid in class g airspace. It was not mandatory so the price would be low. It wasn’t meant for controlled airspace nor visibility to air traffic control. The problem is the RPTs in regional areas fly in class g airspace and do not have ADS-B IN so they can’t see them. They have tcas which need transponders. They probably whinged to ASA to increase class e airspace so they could see transponders. Obviously the alternate is the RPTs fit ADS-B IN. Modern tcas also have adsb in but the bog standard ones don’t. 

All this needs a lot of discussion with all in the industry to find a way forward. The ASA proposal has heightened the agro so finding a way forward for all in the industry, us included, is going to be difficult. Hope there is a way.

In the USA class e airspace there is no VFR requirement for a clearance, nor radio, nor transponder under 10000ft. 

38 minutes ago, horsefeathers said:

Yeah, I agree with the safety benefit, but...

 

1) The Airservices proposal (Q & A section --> https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/lower-base-class-e-east-coast?tool=qanda) states

   This change is proposed to proceed with the current equipage requirements as per the existing regulations. This change does not require an ADS-B mandate for VFR aircraft in order to proceed.

 

2) In the same document under "Benefits"

       "Delivery of the AMP will ensure closer alignment to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) system and proven United States practice of airspace management."

       The US requires Mode A transponders in Class E airspace

 

3) As per CASA advisory circular https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/advisory-circular-91-23-ads-b-enhancing-situational-awareness.pdf, page 18

         For an EC device, under Transponder modal interactions,  it has No transponder function

        Thus, an EC, by CASA's own  definition, is not a transponder (And no, I am not going to get into an argument re the technical stuff about Integrated TABS - this is just my reading of the regs etc)

 

Executive Summary?

• Airservices says there is no need to change ADS-B regs, and as per USA, assume they want (at least) Mode A transponders
• Sky Echo (EC device) is not recognised as a transponder
• Sky Echo thus does not meet the proposed changes to Class E

Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

 

If you leave the airspace class g to 8500ft. There is no problem. The problems come about by changing it to class e. RPT’s and the like can get their separation and situational awareness themselves. Just like all the others flying vfr. We have the devices to do this now and so do they. No changes o airspace required.

They don’t need to change the airspace classification for everyone to start using EC devices and to get the safety benefit. Just use them as an aid to see and avoid and this includes RPT and other IFR pilots when Flying VFR. CASA only change the regs last July. Give it a chance first and I’m sure the problem is solved. Imho

18 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

Fair enough Graham, but my attempt at reading the CASA tea-leaves suggests that they reckon air-to-air in regional terminal areas will be acceptable (better than what we've got now in G) if all VFR aircraft in the space have some kind of ADSB conspicuity and all RPTs in the space have some kind of CDTI tech working (cockpit traffic display).  So ATC visibility might not be the only - or the primary - consideration when they made the EC (Integrated TABS) concession. 

It’s too sensible to be adopted in the short term. 🤔

2 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

 

 

Graham, are you saying that CASA are lying to us with this "apart from" assurance?  (and accompanying chart)

 

 CASA ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-23 v1.0 

"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."

We have to ask CASA as Airservices say they don’t know. I was involved in the low powered adsb introduction through ASTRA and it was only intended for air to air surveillance so I doubt if CASA will approve. We can ask CASA but I would not expect an answer for a few years. It’s not already in the regulations so it’s not an easy change. Best to oppose this outright.

It is all 8500 LL on the charts to 1500agl which makes no sense and is not practical. Have a look at the charts!

No benefit to safety to RPTs except to reduce the sky’s of the vfr traffic.

Increased risk to all vfr traffic being sandwiched into 1500 agl in those areas which is most of eastern Australia.

Full tso’ed and certified equipment is required and Airservices says that’s a matter for CASA if we want changes. 

Airservices say they have been consulting on this but they haven’t. No presentation to ASTRA or RAPAC. No email to industry or those on their engagement email list.

Garfly. The service is vfr traffic to ifr flights. By making it class e they are saying to the rpt that they can give vfr traffic to them. They don’t know their coverage so an incident would raise the question of duty of care. Imho

We need info on this proposal ASAP.

This discussion should be about why Airservices are proposing to lower all 8500ft class E airspace to 1500ft without consultation and analysis of the impacts. You need a certified and tso’ed device to enter controlled airspace and an EC won’t cut it. Changes to airspace impacts our freedom to fly and this will deny us of lot of airspace. They suppose to do safety cases and cost benefit cases. None of this is available on this one. I don’t think they know the adsb coverage they have at 1500ft to provide this service. Duty of care case would be interesting. All class G airspace users will need to fight this one so there is a reasonable approach to this. A web meeting for those who want to know about it doesn’t cut it. We need documents, maps, safety cases, cost benefits studies and a debate.

Yep

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2010C00376

Good on ya Ken I wish we could.

Gaz, not sure how we get the Airservices received distances unless we know someone. I do have contacts but it may take a while.

merry christmas

Air to air the range is very good. 50 miles at least. Flight radar 24 it’s not very good, about 20 miles from towns with receivers. Not sure what Airservices range is but they saw me over the Barrington ranges which is remote. 

I have an instrument in a glider that says “drink” every 1/2 hour. I say yes please a beer will do but it doesn’t deliver! I’ll have to get it fixed.

ATC can see your skyecho. I have asked them and they can. I have also had 2 IFR flights advised of VFR traffic which was my sky echo. TCAS is another matter as they are designed to interact with transponders. ADSB IN is needed to see ADSB out. If the TCAS has ADSB IN capability they will see you.

Adventure tourism in NZ is worth 3 billion a year and exists because they addressed this issue of looking after those who were injured and not going through the blame game. Our system of determining blame before the help/ money is proved to those injured is not a great system IMHO. Insurance does not address this issue it avoids it.

Under pilots injury.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1761bcf1a49d5847a34354fe

A very sad read!

9 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I believe you are talking about two separate Cases, and earlier one between the Council and the Pilot, and then this one with the girl.

I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea what weighting or strategy might have been used in each case or what evidence was judged.

If you get the transcripst and study them, you'll get some idea of why each person received a different result. If these things were simple we wouldn't need lawyers.

The Judge made the statement in the same statement, so the difference stood out to me.

The Supreme Court has made the judgement in this case that the girl was injured psychologically and could not work or realise her potential. She has been awarded her wages for the rest of her life. The pilot was told by the Supreme Court that he may have had psychological issues as a result of the accident but his claim against the council was not upheld. The Supreme Court and the judge have the evidence and make decisions accordingly.  

Why is the pilot treated different from the girl?

The court makes decisions according to law and expectations of society. The law may not have changed but expectations are changing.

To change the system you have to react in some way.

Paying your insurance and doing no more won’t change anything.

Was the girls claim not worthy? We have trust the court.

Was the pilots claim turned down because he was older? 

Heaps of questions for me and how to react.