dsam

I think the idea of a peak body has a lot going for it, if it achieves the aims you suggest. I am concerned, however, that such a body could be too easily dominated by the narrow interests of the most wealthy players (eg. Qantas, Virgin, etc,) and the other less wealthy interests get "left behind" in negotiations with the regulators, authorities, ministers, etc... If the wealthy can simply buy influence (and perhaps that is already the case), then the broader interests go unattended. There would need to be some levelling of the playing field, in the composition & direction of the proposed peak body. I'm not too sure how that might be accomplished. Suggestions, anyone?

David, I've kept silent (until now) about this event, preferring to let others assess and discuss the errors of others in comparison with one's own piloting skills - all part of improving one's own skills, long term. In my opinion, we are all able to learn from our own mistakes, and from those of others. What I take particular objection to is the assertion that because a pilot is "recreational" then they must necessarily be inadequate or less committed to safety - not true in my experience.... In any group of people, there are good and bad achievers. Let's not cast aspersions so casually. Instead, let's endeavour to learn from other people when they share incidents, and not focus on who to vilify. Yes, I agree completely, that the pilot has the ultimate responsibility for a safe outcome, and that a piloting mistake probably occurred in this incident. We are all human (professional or recreational). If we are reckless in finding blame, the sharing of incidents will stop, and the better long-term outcome of learning will be lost (to the detriment of all).

Now that Mr. Skidmore has left CASA, one wonders whether there is anybody left in that organisation that is worth RA-Aus engaging with in a rational conversation? There is probably more to be achieved by lobbying the Minister, and other Senators that have shown they understand the many problems. CASA itself, would seem to be the ultimate definition of an "unmovable object", sadly.

FYI, the formal RA-Aus response to CASA NPRM 1502SS is now on the member website for all to read. I've only scanned it quickly, but it looks like it highlights many valid concerns, and is highly critical of CASA (not very surprising...) Who knows whether CASA will take any notice of the numerous concerns, but I would hope that RA-Aus also give the Minister (Hon. Darren Chester) a personalised briefing on the matters at hand, rather than him just listening to the CASA mandarins advocating for their own warped view of things.

Thanks rhysmcc, that's a helpful explanation. So as I suspected, it isn't exactly true to say ATC can't find R1234 NAIPS flight notifications, but rather they don't/didn't know where to look. As I stated earlier in the thread, all organisations need to agree on a standard for this (RA-Aus, Airservices/NAIPS, CASA, ICAO etc.). As well, this agreed standard (R1234) needs to be widely promulgated amongst users (pilots, ATC staff, CFI's & training materials etc.). I wonder what is the best way to make sure this happens so broadly? It had better be in place before CASA allows CTA access to RA-Aus pilots with ADS-B, otherwise well-meaning RA-Aus pilots will come in for unfair criticism when they adhere to a standard that isn't widely recognised/understood. Dave

As a suggestion, perhaps the simplest solution would be for Airservices (or someone else) to develop a "patch" to the software that ATC uses, so that they CAN find my "plan in the system" in the format R1234. That would comply with the "official" advice for R1234 in my ADS-B broadcast signal, and for RA-Aus pilots, R1234 can be easily input as the Flight ID in NAIPS flight notifications. With a Flight ID format exactly the same in both, the radar trace should couple automatically to the plan, wouldn't it? Of course I have absolutely no first-hand experience of the user interface ATC uses when calling up my NAIPS flight notice while I'm airborne, so perhaps the software patch suggestion couldn't work? Any thoughts on this from our ATC forum contributors...? ...Just trying to minimise your workload Dave

Ok an RA-Aus official has just confirmed in correspondence that my ADS-B flight ID must be in the format R1234. Sorry Nathan but it looks like ATC will always have to manually couple my NAIPS flight notification (1234 format as you indicate) with my ADS-B transmitted ID in the R1234 format. Below is an excerpt of my correspondence from RA-Aus: The inclusion of R1234 rather than 241234 or any other variation is what Airservices operationally requires, with the letter R indicating the aircraft is recreational and the four digit number then correlating with the usual call sign based on the registration of the aircraft. Statistically, we have been led to understand the chances of 10-1234, 19-1234 and 24-1234 operating in the same locations in CTA to be quite remote, although the nature of statistics doesn’t preclude this from occurring. If this were to occur, the identification of the aircraft via call sign would include aircraft type, providing a means for differentiation. Trike 1234 versus Thruster 1234 versus Eurofox 1234, for example.

Ok, thanks Nathan, I'll accept your word that a submitted flight notification via NAIPS should just show 1234 in the flight ID field, to make it easy for you to find mine in the system. That being the case, I come to my next question: How vital is it for my ADS-B Flight ID to show just 1234 for you to link my transponder signal to my NAIPS flight notification that you've just found in the system? Some Airservices people on this thread say the transponder flight ID should broadcast 241234. Other info would suggest it should broadcast R1234 (though that could possibly create duplicate identity issues as pointed out earlier in this discussion). Or perhaps linking either of those broadcast Flight ID codes wouldn't be difficult, once you found my NAIPS flight notification in the system? Sorry if this is rather pedantic, but I'd like to get this bit right It makes me wonder why NAIPS flight notifications don't simply ask for my aircraft's unique hex code so there can be no confusion which aircraft is being tracked via ADS-B, particularly for recreational aircraft... perhaps it is a legacy issue related to existing tracking systems having to depend on squawk codes only?? Dave

I've just emailed RA-Aus for clarification of ADS-B transponder "tail number" vs. NAIPS "flight ID" protocol, vs. ATC airborne clearances & linking with lodged plans. If I get a coherent explanation & clarification of protocols, I'll post it here too.

Easy there colones... I'm on your side of this discussion, I would think. My Eurofox has been legally in and out of controlled airspace, but since my RA-Aus pilot certificate does not yet allow a CTA endorsement, I was forced to have a CASA PPL (+ RAA cert) in the left seat, as you've pointed out. My discussion above relates mainly to ensuring transponders in RA-Aus aircraft broadcast the correct hex code, and a "tail number" that agrees with lodged flight plans, and also that the authorities involved agree consistently on those protocols, specifically where RA-Aus aircraft are involved. Posts 188 and 190 would indicate some inconsistencies and uncertainty exists in transponder and flight ID protocols.

KRviator, perhaps that guru was only considering non - 24 registered RA-Aus aircraft that are remaining only in class G airspace (yours being 19 rego) where this transponder "extended squitter" info would be less critical to get right. I think the regulations (as they now stand pre - part 149 rules) prohibit all but factory built aircraft, with certificated engines in class C & over built up areas (ie. only some 24 registered aircraft depending on engine and avionics). I might guess that for the more critical CTA, the approved transponder hex code & tail number, must agree with the lodged flight plan "Flight ID". I hope all organisations manage to "get on the same page" with this!

Thanks KRviator, So.... how do we reconcile that guru's recommendation with this advice (citing Airservices advice for R1234). I remain concerned that we ought to get this right from the start, and am not sure that is happening right now. 1-standard-letter-modes-xpdr-programming-2015-2.pdf 1-standard-letter-modes-xpdr-programming-2015-2.pdf 1-standard-letter-modes-xpdr-programming-2015-2.pdf

Shags, I certainly hope someone at your end knows (and communicates down the line) the correct protocols. Many on this forum would know that RA-Aus has recently submitted to CASA their formal request for CTA access (for members wishing to train and equip for this new endorsement - like myself). One would hope that the new RA-Aus training program comprehensively details the appropriate flight plan submission protocols specifically for RA-Aus pilots to use. With RA-Aus soon to be added into the CTA traffic mix, they must make sure it is implemented in a way that doesn't make things difficult or troublesome for ATC/airservices at the coalface. I for one, want to be absolutely correct with all transmitted & submitted protocols right from the start, so as to not give anyone a chance to criticise us RA-Aus pilots in CTA.

On a related matter to this, my understanding is that firstly, one's Mode S (extended squitter) transponder must have the correct unique "hex code" for your specific aircraft, and that the transponder's broadcast "tail number" should be R1234 for all RA-Aus aircraft. For a submitted flight plan, my understanding is that the Flight ID should also be R1234 (the same as the transponder's broadcast "tail number". As well, in the submitted flight plan, the correct ICAO "aircraft type" should be stated - in my case it is EFOX (for Eurofox). Can anyone confirm this is all correct?

I say again.... we need an "affordable TCAS". It would include alerts for ALL intercepting ADS-B equipped aircraft, not just AvPlan/OzRunways users. My Raspberry Pi ADSB-in is "passive" on my iPad - I must remain vigilant on the screen, no audible collision alerts, (as are the norm for a TCAS system).

A few weeks ago I was established in a cruise with ideal VFR conditions, and OzRunways showed a "target" 500 feet below on an oncoming 45 degree intersecting path some 5 miles away. I decided to test my see-and-avoid capability & deliberately watched the area with visual scanning technique etc. I was astonished that even with this intense vigilance on the area, the "target" aircraft was nearly 30 seconds away before I saw it against the terrain below. It crossed directly underneath me. I consider my vision to be very good (and it tests this way too). Who knows what other traffic I've missed seeing over the years with less intense vigilance?? Human vision is well known to be imperfect! 30 seconds isn't much time if one has a tendency for too much "head-in-the-cockpit"... (definitely not recommended as we all know). Perhaps an affordable TCAS system is truly the best solution for our modern GPS & ADS-B equipped sky?

I suppose I'm guilty here as this thread was about "takeoff clearance" RT... Sorry...

Perhaps good.... But is that just for a base leg join (not recommended by regs)? I hate uncertainty In the end, common sense and simplicity should govern RT options.

Ok lots of opinions here... I agree with many, but... What is the absolute MANDATORY minimum calls inbound to landing at a basic CTAF? Given that a radio is optional, my pick is NONE! Obviously, that isn't very safe, so flexibility, (governed by traffic density) is the best choice, I would think... Keep it minimum when busy, moderate if nobody around, and LOOK OUT THE WINDOW at all times! Ok, flame me now...

I am inclined to agree that the accuracy of GPS combined with following "VFR recommended routes" adds to the risk of collision, making "see and avoid" plus "communicate" even more vital. ADS-B in, has also been a big help to me when finding traffic nearby. It seems a perverse outcome of advanced technology that an air-to-air collision is somewhat more likely these days!

I agree. Their website is poorly authored for phones & iPads. It is viewable on my Mac laptop with Safari, and that is the only way I can see their (still incomplete) information. It should be MUCH better than this if they claim to be the "premier aviation event" for Australia... 2 out of 10 for their website

Is there an AvPlan / Dynon Skyview user with this wifi connectivity on this forum? Has it worked well? My OzRunways subscription may not be renewed due to this issue...

I wonder whether the OzRunways effort on android code writing is taking resources away from development work on the iOS version... I hope not!

I hope that is the case. I contacted both OzRunways and Dynon about this a number of weeks ago. I was told by OzRunways that they asked Dynon for WiFi code access early on, and got a lukewarm reception from them. The response from Dynon implied there was an exclusive period with the American based ForeFlight EFB that now has expired, so Dynon's present response to OzRunways for access should now be more positive. It seems AvPlan got a jump on them I really do hope they catch up, as it is an important feature to me that may make me "jump ship" to AvPlan. How about it OzRunways.....?