Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, kgwilson said:

This whole issue seems to be a resolution in search of a problem

Hit the nail on the head right there. Dictators survive by creating "problems" then purporting to "solve" same problem that didn't even exist. Same as big company safety departments trying to justify their existence. I feel this erroneous try at lowering E Class airspace will just "magically go away".

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 593
  • 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

OK. according to CASA official advice, plain vanilla Mode S transponder and an EC device  (Skyecho) co exist OK on the same hex code, EC device can have ADSB-OUT enabled.. 

 

Footnote- if using ModeS-ES (extended squitter/ADSB capable Mode S transponder) the EC device tranmission must be inhibited (that is  no  ADSB-OUT- disabled) ... (otherwise there will be two ADSB-OUT bursts coming out of the one airframe) 

 

so there you go, ok to buy cheaper Mode S transponders that dont have ES /ADSB-OUT. 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now after all this above  - we need to have transit lanes for all raa aircraft.

 Then ATC just have to adjust Commercial aircraft around these lanes that we RAA don't need clearance  - and don't tell me it cant be done coastal at 500 ft  in these zones with all the airports all the way up to cairns. 

Edited by SSCBD
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SSCBD said:

Now after all this above  - we need to have transit lanes for all raa aircraft.

 Then ATC just have to adjust Commercial aircraft around these lanes that we RAA don't need clearance  - and don't tell me it cant be done coastal at 500 ft  in these zones with all the airports all the way up to cairns. 

One solution - however the transit lanes (Sydney Basin, William Town) & other access points (Brisbane, Amberly, Oakey) that I have used, are so darn narrow and have you down scrapping the tree tops - NOT SAFE and very uncomfortable in turbulence. 

 

Unless they make these air lanes with a great deal more consideration for terrain clearance and two way traffic, this solution will not get my vote.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution that gets my vote is the status quo with VHF pilots encouraged to install ADSB in/out with CASA/ASA providing a cashback subsidy as per UK CAA.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should be pushing for the same standards as the US, if that's considered the standard they want to meet.

So, Class E down to 1500 AMSL, but remove the requirement for transponders and radios in Class E as they do in the US.

This would actually open up more airspace to RAA aircraft, like the proposed Class E over Coffs Harbour, the lane of Class E over Avalon etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

One solution - however the transit lanes (Sydney Basin, William Town) & other access points (Brisbane, Amberly, Oakey) that I have used, are so darn narrow and have you down scrapping the tree tops - NOT SAFE and very uncomfortable in turbulence. 

 

Unless they make these air lanes with a great deal more consideration for terrain clearance and two way traffic, this solution will not get my vote.

Skipppy - Well we have got no real transit lanes into CTA besides what you mentioned. All CTA should have no clearance VFR for GA and RAA. With that attitude of not getting your vote what is the answer, we get no where and go backwards.

RAA just are not doing anything for the members form my stand point except safety this safety that. WHERE IS THE OPERATIONAL PROGRESS which is called freedom.   

And another point is that any ex GA PPL pilots and up now only flying RAA should have automatic approval to transit CTA. Let RAA think on that one. I never - ever had a GA BFR once i got my GA license to go into CTA. So being current GA means nothing to currency in CTA.  Think about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying in CTA is one of the easiest things you can do. Contact the tower or centre with normal callsign, position, height, request entry & advise intentions. Contact made, readback instructions and carry them out. In 40 years I've never had a problem. If you get off track they will guide you back, same with altitude. Doesn't need much practice.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RFguy said:

OK. according to CASA official advice, plain vanilla Mode S transponder and an EC device  (Skyecho) co exist OK on the same hex code, EC device can have ADSB-OUT enabled.. 

 

Footnote- if using ModeS-ES (extended squitter/ADSB capable Mode S transponder) the EC device tranmission must be inhibited (that is  no  ADSB-OUT- disabled) ... (otherwise there will be two ADSB-OUT bursts coming out of the one airframe) 

 

so there you go, ok to buy cheaper Mode S transponders that dont have ES /ADSB-OUT. 

 

I wonder, then, if this would be an acceptable combo if RAAus ever was to get CTA approval.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got this email from airservice's  I assume everyone who submitted feed back on their proposal got the same.

"

Good Morning

Airservices would like to thank all airspace users and aviation industry stakeholders that provided feedback on our initial proposal to lower the base of Class E airspace along the East Coast.

For the initial consultation period from 20 January to 15 February 2021, we received over 1,000 responses from all aspects of industry, including airlines, industry associations such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), Gliding Federation, Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Civil Air and various general aviation (GA) operators.

Your feedback is absolutely critical in deeply understanding the potential impacts on our industry. As previously communicated, we are assessing all feedback received to input into our detailed design process. In particular, the industry has highlighted the following key issues and we are revising our proposal to address the feedback:  

•        facilitate continued access to Class G airspace by VFR aircraft that do not meet the current transponder and radio communications fitment requirements in Class E airspace

•        cater for the operational context and desired safety outcomes in Class G and Class E airspace, considering factors such as traffic mix, operational needs and characteristics of different types of airspace users and controls against threats such as terrain, engine failure or inclement weather

•        avoid potential for confusion in relation to the airspace boundary reference to above-ground-level (AGL) versus above-mean-sea-level (AMSL)

•        effectively manage the human factors aspect of the change, including operational complexity, workload, communication/coordination, training and education implications from both air traffic controllers and pilots’ perspectives

•        reduce surveillance and communications coverage gaps within controlled airspace

•        reduce the likelihood of delays on departures and arrivals  

•        clarify the safety case for change, with consideration to cost/benefit implications to stakeholders impacted by the proposal

•        allow industry sufficient opportunity to consider and provide feedback on the details of the proposal.

We will provide an update to industry in the week starting 22 February 2021 with supporting information via our Engage platform, email communications and additional industry meetings. We will continue to consult with industry and take on board any further industry feedback on the revised proposal before proceeding with the formal Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to be assessed by our regulator and airspace administrator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).  

We are committed to listening to the needs of all airspace users and working with industry to develop an optimal solution to modernise our airspace architecture. We are acutely conscious of the need to minimise adverse impacts on airspace safety, access, efficiency and environmental outcomes, while being able to deliver service enhancements to operators that can already benefit from today’s modern surveillance capabilities.

 

Regards

SCOTT MITCHELL 
A/CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT SENIOR ADVISOR "

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like they are still intending to go ahead.

No answers to questions and no definition of terms. One I note is that e still have access to class g airspace, but they don't say where class g starts and finishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't done anything except receive all the submissions and formulate this response which says nothing. CASA makes the rules as they have said and after discussing this with a CASA representative today they were as surprised us the rest of us when this was proposed on 20 January & they found out about it the same way as we did..

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a positive note, I’m impressed that we have a response from this government authority only a day or two after the last submissions were received; not months later like we’re accustomed to.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thinking ahead:

 

If we are forced into "Transit Lanes" we need to fight very hard for:

 

Left/right lanes with plenty of space for passing  slower traffic (not one narrow lane with two way traffic)

 

Each lane must have significant/safe horizontal separation between apposing traffic lane.

 

Hight above terrain must allow for engine out, glide to open space, with no terrain generated turbulence/rotors (eg Maitland/Gloucester/ Wirradgurine - Williamtown NSW absolutely HORRIBLE!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next, they will publish some crazy plan making a heap of waypoints that you must successively fly to, in the course of any trip. Altitudes between waypoints would be specified.

Places in ‘their’ high density areas could have this system?

Nothing would surprise me.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what you get if you plan IFR. You'll get specified separations applied also and other traffic advice including "unidentified  aircraft" known to ATC . Any change of track or level requires a new clearance as do in and out of control  areas. Nev 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that the new CEO of RAA is engaging with this process and I like the RAA response so far.

 

Being an optimist, I think this discussion could end up in a win/win situation if we think about it.

 

RAA: - wants access to controlled airspace and airports for suitably trained and equipped pilots and aircraft. The GA licence and BFR requirement is a PITA.

 

- All RAA and GA aircraft want an end to these lethal roadblock airspaces on the East Coast,  Sydney, WIlliamtown, Coffs, East Sale, Melbourne etc., etc.

 

Airservices wants economies and safer skies through the employment of ADSB and that technology is getting cheaper.

 

RPT wants shorter tracks and reduced fuel costs while maintaining safety.

 

If the cost of a solution was fitting ADSB and radios in exchange for access to controlled airspace and more airports, at least in class D, and assuming all else is equal, then I think it would be worth it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me that you are already falling for what Airservices want. That is you are now saying that it may be better and it will make skies safer. just what Airservices want. Scare us into being thankfull that they change to a less onerous position.

I cannot see what safety will be provided by bringing Class E down to anywhere near 1500'. What IMC traffic is going to want to fly below 5000' except for landing and departure. It is just too turbulent and also more fule guzzling down at the heights we fly.

Don't sit back and say OK let them bring class E down to 3000' we still have space to fly. That is what they want.

I have asked CASA for their thoughts on the subject, but it is too early for any reply yet.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, CASA and ASA are all in the one canoe although they claim otherwise.

Don't ever expect regulators to tell the truth.  Sadly I even suspect submissions were a waste of time but they still had to go through the consultancy motions to try and convince people they would listen to input......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yenn, I am assuming that we will all be flying in class E with ADSB Sky Echo or better, and a radio. Once we decide that, then the floor of Class E can be fifteen inches for all I care.

 

Needless to say, I already have most of the gear.

Edited by walrus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, walrus said:

Yenn, I am assuming that we will all be flying in class E with ADSB Sky Echo or better, and a radio. Once we decide that, then the floor of Class E can be fifteen inches for all I care.

 

Needless to say, I already have most of the gear.

Some of us fly little aeroplanes that are worth less than all that nav stuff

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The CASA rep I spoke to is dead against the class E lowering. Transponders below 5000 feet are 30% or less visible, 2-3000 aircraft without transponders will have to fly at dangerous levels. The safety aspect alone blows this out of the water. Recent GA fatalities are partly attributable to failings at Airservices. I will only accept class E at 1500feet (how do they implement this anyway when the base must specify AMSL) IF the requirement for Transponders is raised to 10,000 feet as it is in the US for a good reason. That is that they are not seen by radar at low level so legislate them where they can be seen, always.

 

Continue the CASA initiative for installation of ADSB in/out for GA/RA with the approval of SE2. I would probably cost less for ASA to provide a UK style cashback for SE2 purchases by the GA/RA community than all the costs to try and make these inane airspace mods.

  • Like 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...