Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

In some places 1500AGL will be 6500AMSL but then this is the entire area not areas of medium and high density traffic which have yet to be defined. 6500 over the Gibraltar range on the way to Armidale from South Grafton is insane unless it is a clear calm day. At 6500 with a good South Westerly the down draft on the lee side will better than many aircraft can outclimb.

But you will be so much safer smashing into a hill while watching ATC crash IFR aircraft into each other and denying clearance's to VFR GA forcing them to crash next you.  Happy days /s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

RF guy, RAA and other organisations HAVE to reject this proposal out of hand or otherwise they are conceding Airservices the right to make arbitrary decisions. We are then reduced to just being suppli

Dont fall into their trap. To consider any change before a complete justification statement can be proven true and correct gives them leverage. By suggesting other than the status quo at this time say

'Welcome to OneSky™ Australia, where we want everyone to be included.' To be included in 'OneSky'™ will cost you about ten thousand dollars per aircraft for initial installation, An annual f

Posted Images

'Welcome to OneSky Australia, where we want everyone to be included.'

To be included in 'OneSky' will cost you about ten thousand dollars per aircraft for initial installation,

An annual fee will be paid to 'OneSky'™ to register each of your required devices,

You will have to comply with all 'OneSky'™ decision changes as they come,

If you wish to leave your circuit area you will need a flightplan lodged with 'OneSky',

With 'OneSky'™, you will be safely integrated with;

•Military aircraft,

•International Airlines,

•Civilian Airlines,

•Regional freight aircraft,

•Military IFR traffic,

•Civilian IFR traffic,

•Private IFR trafic,

•Military UAVs,

•Civilian UAVs,

note: If you cannot comply with the integration of 'OneSky'™, you probably shouldn't be flying (it is for rich people after all).

 

WE hope you enjoy your 'OneSky'™ experience.♥

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading nav charts is a bit like reading the pages of exclusions in your home insurance policy; I would prefer to have a short list of the things that are covered.

With airspace changes, perhaps we should ask the regulator for a map of where our little aeroplanes can fly. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]we should ask the regulator for a map of where our little aeroplanes can fly.[/quote]

 

'You don't fit into our grand scheme boxes, we don't want you to fly, now go away...'

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, they love to play their cards close to their chests and to observe the punters getting all sweaty and excited. But I still reckon the key to their thinking is this part of the 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."

 

So they are considering low cost devices for Class E entry (no clearance required) but AFAIK there is, as yet, nothing available, that passes muster as an integrated TABS device.

 

I'd been convinced that the SkyEcho2 was qualified as an 'integrated TABS' device but now I'm persuaded otherwise. I believe that the SE2 is partly up to TABS standard (position integrity good enough at SIL=1) but its de-rated power output (20W and not 70W) - among other things, maybe - falls short.  

 

Why they are not upfront about all this is the real mystery here. They love to cause mayhem. It makes them feel powerful. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone use other than a transponder to be compliant. From what I see above a transponder would be cheaper.

If this airspace grab goes ahead I will be very surprised, it is poorly thought out and with a bit of luck even CASA will see it as a rubbish claim. I really cannot see that any RPT or IFR flight would want to be travelling at 2000' above GL. Too much turbulence and also high fuel burn.

I have had my say with Airservices and will shortly be contacting CASA  with my thoughts on this and other matters of stupidity with Airservices.

If you want an example of Airservices stupidity, look up the airport Facing Island in Qld  YFCI from memory and then look at Airservices policy on naming of airports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yenn said:

Why would anyone use other than a transponder to be compliant. From what I see above a transponder would be cheaper.

If this airspace grab goes ahead I will be very surprised, it is poorly thought out and with a bit of luck even CASA will see it as a rubbish claim. I really cannot see that any RPT or IFR flight would want to be travelling at 2000' above GL. Too much turbulence and also high fuel burn.

I have had my say with Airservices and will shortly be contacting CASA  with my thoughts on this and other matters of stupidity with Airservices.

If you want an example of Airservices stupidity, look up the airport Facing Island in Qld  YFCI from memory and then look at Airservices policy on naming of airports.

 

The overall trend is to ADSB transponders which, among other things, implies high integrity position reporting and conspicuity on RPT CDTI (cockpit display of traffic) which, I gather, is another part of the puzzle.  I'm guessing the difference between the 'low cost' solution to Class E entry - which CASA appears to be considering (integrated TABS) would be five to ten times cheaper than what is/will-be required in other controlled airspace.

 

There's no suggestion that RPT would be flying any lower, or differently, than they are now. I just assume that Regionals - and regulators - get nervy when they descend into terminal areas and have to mix it with invisible VFR types in G .

 

So maybe, as they see it, the lowering of Class E to circuit height will at least give them surveillance of the lower orders, given that within E, 'conspicuity' (of some kind) is a requirement whereas in G it ain't.

 

It seems to me that this issue is not really about VFR pilots being encouraged to have heads down in cockpits even more.  Sure, the low cost devices do have ADSB-IN (targets showing on EFBs). However this is more about cheap ADSB-OUT conspicuity; that is VFR aircraft being visible in the new E,  both by ATC (within range) and by regional RPT pilots on their CDTI (targets showing on the main NAV screen).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pylon500 said:

'You don't fit into our grand scheme boxes, we don't want you to fly, now go away...'

So any of the older ultralight flyers here have a big de ja vue feeling?

I recall my lived history ...

1. the AUF being created and

2. the move on ops from "not over 300ft and not across paved roads" to "Not under 500ft and up to 5000ft without radio" and

3. No.2 was a DIRECT result of HOSCOTS looking at the EVIDENCE that No.1 was actually dangerous to the health of pilots

 

Do we need to have another round of spike in deaths to get politicians to take a fig leaf of interest in private flying?

 

At least this time around its all private flying not just ultralights so at least there has been progress in thinking at airservices/CASA over the last 35 years - they feel like endangering everyone not just ultralights ... I feel SO included 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would laugh IF people just covered their rego numbers and flew out of bush strips......what then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a response to my question asking where are the medium and high traffic areas of the J Curve. Their answer copied from the response email

 

"Please see the charts outlining the extent of the airspace impacted by this proposal, that have now been added to the Engage page."

 

Total cop out and complete BS. This is the entire J Curve. What a waste of time. I don't think they have any idea at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost have say, they have made their plan anyway and submissions will be accepted but ignored and we as aviators will just have to put up with their final determination, like it or not 😞

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, facthunter said:

IF you give up waiting and decide to do another hobby, they are all the happier. Nev

Not a snowflake’s chance in hell 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/64795/widgets/323384/documents/191723/download

 

On page 10, Changes needed, item 4. "Increase use of low powered non-TSO ADS-B transponders to maximise infrastructure investment.

 

 If the SkyEcho2 or similar meets the requirements then I am all for the proposed changes.

 

Having flown with the SkyEcho2 for a couple of months now and reviewing the data after each flight it works flawlessly. I can see all ADS-B traffic and they can see me if they have ADS-B IN.

 

One sky where everyone has a SkyEcho or better would be wonderful.  Sense and avoid, yes please.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/64795/widgets/323384/documents/191723/download

 

On page 10, Changes needed, item 4. "Increase use of low powered non-TSO ADS-B transponders to maximise infrastructure investment.

 

 If the SkyEcho2 or similar meets the requirements then I am all for the proposed changes.

 

Having flown with the SkyEcho2 for a couple of months now and reviewing the data after each flight it works flawlessly. I can see all ADS-B traffic and they can see me if they have ADS-B IN.

 

One sky where everyone has a SkyEcho or better would be wonderful.  Sense and avoid, yes please.  

Totally agree Thruster.

Now, if only CASA would tell us what was the intention of allowing the use of SkyEchos.

Casa reps arent even aware of them

(And, I heard with my own 2 pink shell like ears, that CASA has been blindsided by the Airservices proposal - the CASA rep said 0 - as in zero/ nada/none of CASA staff had heard of this proposal prior to the webinar, and as well, they are not too happy about the very short public response time for such a huge change)

Edited by horsefeathers
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1500ft limit is useless, regardless of Transponders, EC devices etc.
The proposal is not safely workable the way they intend it to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jackc said:

The 1500ft limit is useless, regardless of Transponders, EC devices etc.
The proposal is not safely workable the way they intend it to be?

It's when you get down to the practicalities of this proposal, that it becomes apparent how totally nutty this proposal is - as well as totally unsafe.

They apparently think it's OK to fly over tiger country at 1500 ft (I suppose you have to  adjust your altitude for the various mountains and valleys), and then for example allow for clouds and fog.

Seriously nutty thinking.

  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, horsefeathers said:

It's when you get down to the practicalities of this proposal, that it becomes apparent how totally nutty this proposal is - as well as totally unsafe.

They apparently think it's OK to fly over tiger country at 1500 ft (I suppose you have to  adjust your altitude for the various mountains and valleys), and then for example allow for clouds and fog.

Seriously nutty thinking.

OK,  I know this may sound silly but I am getting a parachute, used to have them in gliders so what IF I have an engine fire or a major control system failure?

Need to make instantaneous decision to bail out at 1500ft, don’t see that working well for me?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jackc said:

The 1500ft limit is useless, regardless of Transponders, EC devices etc.
The proposal is not safely workable the way they intend it to be?

For a VFR pilot it make zero difference if you are flying in class E or class G airspace. It is only the transponder requirement that would be the sticking point, allow the SkyEcho2 and every pilot will be safer. 

 

Anyone want to explain why class E at 1500agl will be a problem for VFR pilots?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can stick ADSB and the skyecho up your proverbial. I spent over $15000 on avionics, I have a transponder and I STILL can't get a compliant ADSB installation without shelling out for a high accuracy GPS ($3000+). CASA killed the low cost option stone dead. Read CAO 20.18. Not only that, we STILL cant get access to class D or C airspace anyway.

 

I am NOT putting a box on the windscreen and fiddling with an iPad in flight for anyone. It is simply too dangerous in turbulence to have all this extra stuff floating around, nor do I want to be head down trying to find traffic on an iPad.

 

Sometimes I feel that CASA and AsA are doing their level best to kill Australian Aviation, in all its forms, stone dead. The Class E proposal is a step in that direction.

Edited by walrus
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this proposed Air Services plan is doing, is making everyone bitter and twisted in their happy pursuit of enjoyable aviation.

Whats the future?   That’s the trouble, we don’t know?

IF it comes to the crunch......I will make my own plans, and it won’t include AsA.

I am not far off EOL anyway 🙂

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we discussed in another thread, even the recent ATSB report on the Mooney crash near Coffs suggests that over-designed and/or over-serviced airspace (pilot error aside) can end up costing more lives than it's supposed to save. 

 

Selected Extracts:

 

What the ATSB found

The ATSB found that the pilot was not provided clearance to transit Class C airspace due to the trainee controller’s conservative assessment that workload would not allow it although there was no conflicting traffic, meteorological factor or limiting air traffic control instructions or procedures. //...  the information subsequently provided by air traffic control likely resulted in the pilot deciding to descend the aircraft from 6,500 ft instead of other available safe options ...  //

What has been done as a result:  Following the occurrence, Airservices Australia (Airservices) provided additional training for air traffic controllers focussing on clearance issues, workload assessments, and coordination with other traffic units where decisions affect the other unit. //

Safety message: The safety risks of visual pilots flying into non-visual conditions are well documented.  // ... The accident also illustrates the significant influence that air traffic control can have on the conduct of a flight./// ...

 

Future Coffs Harbour airspace reclassification:  Prior to the accident, Airservices commenced the Airspace Modernisation Program. This program will reclassify the Class C airspace above Coffs Harbour to Class E. At the time of writing, the timeframe for the completion of this program was not available. Undertaking a VFR transit of the Class E airspace will not require a clearance

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5779252/ao-2019-052-final.pdf ]

 

This rap over the knuckles from the ATSB for over-reach might, you'd think, have given ASA pause with their Airspace Modernisation Program.  But then ... Well, at least we gain some confidence that the various aviation bureaucracies are acting to check each other's use/abuse of power, as they're supposed to. Maybe we have Four Corners and a (subsequent) senate enquiry to thank for that:

 

[Wikipedia on 2009 Pel-Air ditching.]

Senate inquiry and controversy[edit]

On 23 May 2013 a report was released by the Australian Senate following an inquiry into the ATSB investigation of the ditching.[8] This inquiry was sparked by a Four Corners documentary that aired allegations of misconduct by the ATSB and CASA.[9] The Senate's report found that the ATSB accident report was deeply flawed and unfairly blamed the pilot wholly for the accident, and as a consequence the Senate recommended that the accident report be withdrawn and re-done.

"It is disappointing that CASA and the ATSB continue to assert, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the only part of the system with any effect on the accident sequence was the pilot.."

— Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee[10]

The Senate committee determined that the ATSB's decision not to retrieve the flight recorders was incongruous with its responsibilities under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Chicago Convention Annex 13.[11] It also found evidence of collusion between the agencies, that CASA deliberately withheld the Chambers Report from the ATSB, and that the heads of both agencies gave testimony that wasn't credible. The committee made a total of 26 recommendations covering the accident, the operations of the ATSB and the operations of CASA. The committee also passed evidence to the Australian Federal Police, pending the possibility of charges being laid against individuals from CASA who were involved in breaching the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.[12][13]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pel-Air_Westwind_ditching#Senate_inquiry_and_controversy

 

 

Moral: The price of freedom from bureaucratic over-reach and collusion is eternal vigilance.

 

 

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

For a VFR pilot it make zero difference if you are flying in class E or class G airspace. It is only the transponder requirement that would be the sticking point, allow the SkyEcho2 and every pilot will be safer. 

 

Anyone want to explain why class E at 1500agl will be a problem for VFR pilots?

It will be a problem if Transponders continue to be mandatory. There are around 2300 RA aircraft without transponders, mine included. When gliders are operating, overhead rejoin at our airfield is 2000 feet. Oh well we'll lower it to 1500 and try and miss the glider just launched. The highest points along the J curve are over 5600 feet AMSL, the lowest sea level. Airservices have no idea where the so called medium and high traffic areas are as noted in their response to my question. All airspace is specified as height in feet above mean sea level not in AGL as their proposal says which is not workable or legal. Therefore the only way to implement it will be to set the height AMSL 1500 feet above the highest point in any of the mythical high or medium traffic density areas none of which has yet been defined..

 

Now they seem to be promoting Skyecho2 as a "change needed" in their presentation is "— Increase use of low powered non-TSO ADS-B transponders to maximise infrastructure investment"  and that makes sense . Mind you they obviously have no idea that ADSB is not a Transponder. The requirement for a Transponder therefore has to disappear. At 1500 feet in rugged areas they won't even see the ping anyway.

 

So get rid of the requirement for 75 year old technology (invented by the British during WW2 & called Parrot hence the term Squawk (your Parrot)) and embrace the (Now) and allow as proposed, non TSOed ADSB in/out so everyone so equipped can see you and you can see them.

 

The odd thing is they say a main benefit is 

 

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

 

In the US neither a transponder or a radio is required in class E up to 10,000 feet.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...