Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

In my opinion it was just an ambit claim, rather like a union wage claim. If it gets up then the bureaucrats have won and I wouldn't be surprised. Our politicians don't want, or are scared to argue with the bureaucrats and the bureaucrats are drunk on power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 604
  • 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

34 minutes ago, RFguy said:

If the D airspace (in the cone above a CTZ aerodrome)  above the class C in CTZ was simply changed to E airspace, and we could transit without a clearance, as long as we had EC and transponder, that would be cool.

 

The idea of extending class E space into the great divide inland is nonsense.

According to the ATSB report, it's the Class C above Coffs that would become Class E.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-052/

 

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.

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have submitted my personal 3 page submission. Much of the detail has been discussed in this thread so thanks to everyone who has contributed here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Garfly said:

The other big Q is: When can we expect E-approved low-cost "integrated TABS" devices being available?  If this point alone was cleared up, much of this the mayhem might be averted.  And there may then be no need to mess with the airspace so much.

Making mayhem might be fun for some; the down side being that it erodes constituent trust in the regulators.

Maybe they feel that it's only the politicians they have to play to.

But that can come back to bite them.

[Viz. the Senate enquiry into the CASA/ATSB response to the Pel-Air accident.]

When there is no clear direction, no Avionics manufacturer will take a chance.

Not to mention the long winded process to get approval and certification for equipment, when the final plan IS known.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that CASA have been talking to manufacturers for some time now about this issue. But, as you say, they need to be clear as to what they will require.  I don't think a "low-cost" TABS device would require full type certification.  But it would need to satisfy certain standards. 

It didn't take CASA long at all to approve the SkyEcho2 to be used within the present ADSB system - albeit, only as an enhancement to see-and-be-seen.

I believe CASA/ASA will be relying on low cost TABS devices to fill the gap, I only wish they weren't so cagey about what they're up to.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if part of the motivation is to develop a framework which will accommodate freight and passenger drones into the future. Sounds a bit Dick Tracey but considering watches receive phone calls these days as routine, possibly not! Who knows what airspace will look like 10 years from now. 

 

image.jpeg.4ce1cf81865c82df00c43fe1866da869.jpegImage result for future passenger drones

Edited by waraton
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Drones are the key to this.

 

From the uAvionix Australia SkyEcho2 website:

 

https://www.uavionix.com.au/skyecho2/

 

"SkyEcho2 brings the safety benefits of ADS-B to the cockpit without the high cost of installation. As unmanned systems are increasingly equipping with ADS-B receivers as a Detect and Avoid (DAA) technology – broadcasting your location via ADS-B enables the drone to remain well clear of your location, keeping the skies safer through cooperative communication."

 

If only we could have some more meaningful  "cooperative communication" between the regulators and the GA flying community.

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

Drone technology is a hot potato they don’t know how to deal with......

Who will get airspace priority?  
Drone licences will be like car licences,  many people will have varying degrees of hopelessness........same on the road as in the sky?

What a sobering thought.......

Drones?  Never gave them a thought in the whole grand scheme, either.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am disappointed to see technology in General aviation hasn't move much forward over the past 20-30 years compared to e.g. General boating. A $1000 boat radar can paint an another boat up to 24nm at ~12deg angle. I don't see why boat radars couldn't be used in aviation. 12deg angle at 24nm is plenty for detection and evasion. Sure we don't need military precision, nor technology inside radar guided missiles, but yeah it has to be TSO'd, Certified which translates into a lots of $$$..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The price of these units might come down if they are mass-produced  for drones.

The authorities might also decide to subsidize them, as discussed a decade ago...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the content in the air services proposal that say must be Mode S ?

Be sure not to get the ModeS requirement  from GA mixed up with RA. There is no such requirement. 

Now, it may be argued that for CTA ops, they might want new installs to be at the GA standard (Mode S-ES transponder) .

 

Unless the transponder is being pinged by an SSR (and there are few of them) , for TACS there is not a great deal of practical different between a Mode A and S interrogation by another aircraft.

 

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

The price of these units might come down if they are mass-produced  for drones.

The authorities might also decide to subsidize them, as discussed a decade ago...

I don't think there's anything to be subsidised. You can buy a good gps for $200, a good vhf radio for $200, yet they sell eg. old garmin 430 for $5000 onwards... Subsidising is in my opinion one of the reasons for increased price (eg. solar panels, batteries, etc...)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2021 at 7:38 PM, jackc said:

Soon you will need a low level endorsement if you want to fly anywhere 😞.  Will be interesting to see a press release from RAA on this proposal?  They should be all over this like the Black Plague......

Not true, there is plenty of good information in the above posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Not true, there is plenty of good information in the above posts.

Well, it’s been near 3 weeks since I made that comment and yet I have learnt a lot from subsequent posts on the subject and will no doubt learn more, from the more knowledgeable among us 🙂 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

I am disappointed to see technology in General aviation hasn't move much forward over the past 20-30 years compared to e.g. General boating. A $1000 boat radar can paint an another boat up to 24nm at ~12deg angle. I don't see why boat radars couldn't be used in aviation. 12deg angle at 24nm is plenty for detection and evasion. Sure we don't need military precision, nor technology inside radar guided missiles, but yeah it has to be TSO'd, Certified which translates into a lots of $$$..

Skyecho 2 is cheaper than a boat radar and has a range exceeding 50 NM.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So as my Foxbat is fitted with a mode S transponder & a dual frequency monitoring vhf (I have a valid PPL) I would have to maintain 1500’ till class C airspace, then legally enter & climb as requested to any altitude to below transition altitude but make then make sure I get a clearance prior to exiting class C to be at 1500’ to re enter class E, what well thought out concept, mmmmmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it (barely bankable ;- ) BB, if the new proposal went ahead,  as is (and your transponder was fully up to IFR snuff) you would be able to treat Class E (from 1500' up) more or less, as you treat Class G now.  No worries. No hurries.Too easy.

But if your transponder was not fully compliant, if you then threw a SkyEcho2 (with its own unique hex code) into the mix you might still be okay. But then, you can't have your two ADSB-out devices both transmitting at once so maybe you have to downgrade your proper transponder. So maybe just throw an old Mode A job into the mix and you're good to go, no? Oh, so there's no more room in your panel?  Well, you might just have to wait then for the magic "integrated TABS" low-cost-box solution to come along in due course.  But, anyway, all pretty simple, really. 

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bennyboy320 said:

I’m trying to get my head around the TWO independent VHF radios.😡

Like I said, maybe a handheld 2nd comm would satisfy this, but i cant see a possibility of the 2 Radio requirement getting up

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

Like I said, maybe a handheld 2nd comm would satisfy this, but i cant see a possibility of the 2 Radio requirement getting up

According to RAAUS news letter Airservices required TWO independent fitted vhf radios, hand held not acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably dual channel receive models would qualify. I think they figure they'll need this in the plan because if they can see these 'conspicuous' VFR targets then they want to be able to control them, especially around terminal areas with RPT in the mix. In this scenario, single channel radios would have switched from Area to CTAF which Centre can't get through on. 

Again, what a way to instigate industry-wide tech-culture change: throw cat among pigeons; standby for 'feedback'. 

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Presumably dual channel receive models would qualify. I think they figure they'll need this in the plan because if they can see these 'conspicuous' VFR targets then they want to be able to control them, especially around terminal areas with RPT in the mix. In this scenario, single channel radios would have switched from Area to CTAF which Centre can't get through on. 

Again, what a way to instigate industry-wide tech-culture change: throw cat among pigeons; standby for 'feedback'. 

In the RAA response to Airservices received today, it talks about Dual Monitor single VHF Radios not acceptable.

Dont know why ?

  • Agree 1
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...