Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

Personal experience: I use SkyEcho2 and whilst I think it is useful technology, it is not bullet-proof.

My SkyEcho2 starts transmitting above 500ft, then I have seen the other aircrafts randomly poping up and disapearing off the screen, therefore I don't fully trust the device.

Regardless, still useful gadget, however VFR is VFR.

 

A certified ADSB assume Mode S transponder + "extended squitter", which is very costly exercise, many times more than $900 Skyecho 2.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 494
  • 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

'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

Lets put some real world numbers for the Sky Echo 2 out there, just to inform the debate a bit.   My SkyEcho is mounted on the top of my Jabiru windscreen, fyi.   This morning, at

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Bosi72 said:

Personal experience: I use SkyEcho2 and whilst I think it is useful technology, it is not bullet-proof.

My SkyEcho2 starts transmitting above 500ft, then I have seen the other aircrafts randomly poping up and disapearing off the screen, therefore I don't fully trust the device.

Regardless, still useful gadget, however VFR is VFR.

 

A certified ADSB assume Mode S transponder + "extended squitter", which is very costly exercise, many times more than $900 Skyecho 2.

 

 

Yeah, I have a SE2, as well, but haven't had a chance to use it properly yet.  So it's good to hear other user's impressions.

 

And yes, while VFR is VFR, I think what's worrying peeps here is more that Class E is Class E ... and if that descends upon our heads will SE2 into E be A-OK.  😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

To my understanding Mooney pilots were denied entering controlled airspace.. Existing class C will remain the same.

I thought the class E was going all the way down to the CTR at places like Coffs similar to what exists at Avalon now

 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

I can't see the transponder as any long term proposal It's obsolete. Nev

Mode S transponders using adsb are most definitely not obsolete. Mode C could become obsolete eventually. 

 

4 hours ago, SSCBD said:

I wonder if our leaders at RAA are going to pushback or do anything about it ? 

What could they do, an exemption from the transponder requirement, can't see it. 

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

Yeah, I have a SE2, as well, but haven't had a chance to use it properly yet.  So it's good to hear other user's impressions.

 

And yes, while VFR is VFR, I think what's worrying peeps here is more that Class E is Class E ... and if that descends upon our heads will SE2 into E be A-OK.  😉

 

I think many people think it will solve all their fears that ATC will somehow provide safety and separation.

According to AIP ENR 1.4-8, only IFR from IFR separation is provided.

Unfortunately there were recent accidents when separation wasn't provided even to IFR flights.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally they want everyone onto Mode S or beyond , it  frees up the number of available  / usable ping time slots in SSR airspace quite a bit. 

But I cant see they outlawing A/C for a while. There is of course the new/replacement mandate for GA for Mode S, now.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/lower-base-class-e-east-coast

 

In their paper CASA attempts to calm the horses with this soothing line:

  • Class E does not restrict access for VFR aircraft.

But they mean VFR aircraft with transponders (or, in detail, if you must, those poor-folk's EC thingies).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bosi72 said:

 

I think many people think it will solve all their fears that ATC will somehow provide safety and separation.

According to AIP ENR 1.4-8, only IFR from IFR separation is provided.

Unfortunately there were recent accidents when separation wasn't provided even to IFR flights.

 

Bosi, I guess some think that way - professionals and planners, say - but I think the burning issue for us rec. pilots will be whether (and on what conditions) we'll be allowed to climb above 1500' AGL in these vast swathes of sky.  (And, as someone said, what particular ground level might that be? Above yonder [10nm] peak? ;- )

Most flyers have flown in Class G for yonks without hitting anything so I doubt they'd be hanging out for the extra safety of surveillance.  (Although, as it is, those with transponders do get handy alerts from friendly controllers.)  

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the EC thingos  (like Skyecho) with the lower  SIL (Source Integrity Level )  are accepted into the boy's club, that will do a nice job of it at an affordable price.
They're keyed to an aircraft registration, so they cannot go in your pocket from aircraft to aircraft on the same day. not easily.

 

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

Agree that the acceptance of EC is useful  ... and a damn bit better than the cost of an installed and managed transponder.

 

Given very few are flying internationally or looking to get into actual controlled airspace then the additional functionality of a full transponder are not actually needed.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They dont have any excuse to say the low end GPS is no good. That excuse is just high  grade balony.

Unlike analog sensors like altitude encoders  that can drift (not much these days) 

The GPS does NOT drift, nor do the receivers, anything that matters is WHOLY contained within a silicon chip with firmware that doesnt change.

and if anything does change, the receiver is very much aware oif it because there are calculations that are done continuously that amount to a real life self test.

And if the GPS receiver has a poor fix, it knows about it with the dilution of precision output ! There is NO excuse.

 

Edited by RFguy
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RFguy said:

IF the EC thingos  (like Skyecho) with the lower  SIL (Source Integrity Level )  are accepted into the boy's club, that will do a nice job of it at an affordable price.
They're keyed to an aircraft registration, so they cannot go in your pocket from aircraft to aircraft on the same day. not easily.

 

 

I flyed in 3 aircrafts with SE2 in my pocket.

I entered ICAO HEX and a rego, then I saw myself and other traffic in EFB, FlightAware, etc...

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bosi72 said:

 

I flyed in 3 aircrafts with SE2 in my pocket.

I entered ICAO HEX and a rego, then I saw myself and other traffic in EFB, FlightAware, etc...

yes, if you want to change the hex address each time and rego on the setup page, yeah you can do that.  Just dont mess it up !

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RFguy said:

IF the EC thingos  (like Skyecho) with the lower  SIL (Source Integrity Level )  are accepted into the boy's club, that will do a nice job of it at an affordable price.
They're keyed to an aircraft registration, so they cannot go in your pocket from aircraft to aircraft on the same day. not easily.

 

Well, it seems that its SIL level is an acceptable one already, for our purposes, at least, in Class E.

And if your 'other' aircraft is also already in the database with its own Hex ID then it would only take seconds to change over the device ID for that one.  I believe it can even be done within OzRunways and probably other EFBs.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RFguy said:

They dont have any excuse to say the low end GPS is no good. That excuse is just high  grade balony.

Unlike analog sensors like altitude encoders  that can drift (not much these days) 

The GPS does NOT drift, nor do the receivers, anything that matters is WHOLY contained within a silicon chip with firmware that doesnt change.

and if anything does change, the receiver is very much aware oif it because there are calculations that are done continuously that amount to a real life self test.

And if the GPS receiver has a poor fix, it knows about it with the dilution of precision output ! There is NO excuse.

 

What 'low end' GPS would that be, RF?

 

From UAvionix website:

"SkyEcho2 is the world’s first commercially available portable ADS-B IN and OUT system. Complete with an integrated TSO certified SBAS GPS and barometric altimeter, SkyEcho2 transmits your aircraft location, altitude, and identification via 1090MHz ADS-B, enabling you to be seen by nearby aircraft equipped with an ADS-B receiver"

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

OK here is it 

AC 91-23 v1.0 - ADS-B for enhancing situational awareness (casa.gov.au)

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/advisory-circular-91-23-ads-b-enhancing-situational-awareness.pdf

 

8.1.2 The capability of the GNSS position source determines the usefulness of the configuration. If the manufacturer’s instructions allow a Source Integrity Level (SIL) setting of 2 or more, this enables the capability of a full IFR capable system, which includes the ability to receive ATC surveillance separation based on ADS-B. If the manufacturer’s instructions only allow a SIL of 1, this is useful for situational awareness and electronic conspicuity, but does not give the ability to receive ATC surveillance separation based on ADS-B.

 

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

Garfly

I do not know what the difference is between the SIL down and dirty differences

 

I can GUESS that it comes down to reliabity and redundancy .,

If ATC are actively separating you in IFR conditions, and your device goes faulty, I presume that is bad !

 

what do you think ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't know, RF ... but the passage you quote above seems to explain it well enough:

 

AC 91-23 v1.0 - ADS-B for enhancing situational awareness

 

 

"SIL means Source Integrity Limit. SIL is a numeric value between 0 and 3 that indicates the GNSS position source’s probability of exceeding the reported integrity value. It is one of the components of a standard ADS-B position message. A SIL number of 2 or 3 indicates that the GNSS position source information is suitable for ATC separation, while a SIL number of 1 indicates that the GNSS position source information is suitable for situational awareness only and is not suitable for ATC separation. SIL is a static (unchanging) value, normally specified by the equipment manufacturer and normally set by the installer at the time of equipment installation."

 

Anyway, Mark's thread last July guided us through a lot of this techno/legal labyrinth:

 

 

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

Looking through the history that led up to EC devices being OK , Yonks ago, CASA opposed SIL=1 saying their location fix  performance wasnt good enough, which was balony.  Well maybe for IFR separation true.

That did change following some comment and consultation. The thing is, if your portable device in the cockpit cannot see the GPS constellation well enough (wing in the way ?) , or perhaps the aircraft body is shielding your transmissions then that isnt going to work for IFR separation surveillance. Which makes sense. That's fine. That's IMC.
 

ASTRA came up with 

Proposal for the Adoption of Amended Standards for ADS-B Fitment in VFR Aircraft

this explains quite a lot.

 

http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/files/dmfile/ASTRA_VFR_ADS-B_proposal.pdf
 

The assumptions make interesting reading :

2. ASSUMPTIONS
This paper assumes that
a) Airservices Australia will successfully argue, and obtain CASA agreement, for the use of TSO
C199 transmissions with SIL=1 for ATC situational awareness, traffic awareness, alerting, and
as an aid in issuing procedural clearances.
Situational awareness does not require high integrity3 ADS-B positional data required for the
delivery of ATC separation services. In fact, positional data, “as-good-as” pilot voice reports,
provides safety equivalent to that provided today. ADS-B based GPS data without RAIM
(TSO C199 SIL=1 devices) achieves a probability of misleading data of 1x10-4
.
TSO C199 situational awareness would also allow provision of safety nets, further improving
safety.
b) The envisaged risk management detailed in Appendix 1 is adopted.
c) TSO C199 TABS with SIL=3 would be used for air-air surveillance, and delivery of ATC
separation services.
d) TSO C199 TABS with SIL=1 would be used for air-air surveillance, ATC situational awareness
and as an aid in issuing procedural clearances only.

 

 


here we go TSO-C199 Requirements :

geez any 50 cent  GPS can meet these specs. (yes, really) 

But the SIL>1 includes a design review of the whole device, not just the GPS performance.


• Cannot transmit false or misleading
information • SDA=1 (1x10-3 or better),• NACp=9 (30 meters or better)• NACv=1 (10 m/s or better)• NIC=6 (0.5 NM or better)• SIL=1 (1x10-3 or better)• Detect Step errors greater than 700 meters• Capable of using SBAS integrity .

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

While CASA say this

"6.4.2.3 Not visible to TCAS. EC devices are not currently visible to TCAS interrogations,
hence the importance or desirability to operate the aircraft's transponder at the same
time as the EC device."

That's probably true, but a little misleading - according to the Garmin books,  the onboard  (Garmin) TCAS systems WILL PRESENT the EC to the system as a collision object if the EC SIL is >=1 

So, while your EC device does not  respond to a TCAS  interrogrations, the ADSB IN device in the Rex plane will present your ADSB burst for 'pilot interaction'
(TCAS on a REX will still interact with your Mode A/C.)

"

To optimize situational awareness the GTX 345 correlates TCAD/TAS/TCAS with ADS-B In traffic, combining data from all sources. This creates the most accurate and comprehensive traffic picture. When a correlation is made the most relevant target is displayed. There are no duplicates. Any active traffic system, or ADS-B traffic that is not correlated, will also display. When a GTX 3X5 and TAS/TCAS system integrate, the GTX 3X5 controls the operating mode of the TAS/TCAS system. It does this by using both its own air/ground logic and the available mode controls from the interfaced display. The GTX 345 provides all traffic aural alerts."

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RF,

that's a key bit of information that I've found hard to get.  Will, in practice, the RPT guys be able to see us buzzing around the terminal area, sporting our SkyEchos? (Whether via TCAS or some other ADSB-in display in front of them.)  What about Qantas Link, et al?  

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it is key, isnt it.  I think the CASA document AC91-23 is awful and could do with a rewrite...

 

I ASSUME that all the RPT ACFT have ADSB-IN systems. They have all the cool stuff. They're probably mandated to.

* They will either see you on the ADSB-IN (from your SIL=1 Skyecho)(and know exactly where you are).
 and / or  your Mode A/C transponder (distance + maybe altitude if ModeC ) 

 

The way I see it (IMO !) caveat caveat caveat  It's possible you could get away with an EC SIL=1 device only.....

as the RPT will see your ADSB bursts (and know exactly where you are). 

and the ATC will see your ADSB burst . 

 

the GA GTX345 Garmin book goes onto say SIL=0 EC devices wont trigger a TCAS event by themselves but they will get passed up on the bluetooth etc to the map device for pilot interaction.

 

 

 

 

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

Thanks RF,

that's a key bit of information that I've found hard to get.  Will, in practice, the RPT guys be able to see us buzzing around the terminal area, sporting our SkyEchos? (Whether via TCAS or some other ADSB-in display in front of them.)  What about Qantas Link, et al?  

Yes they can see the skyecho at reduced range. We only broadcast at 20watts but we pop up on their ADSB in

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, horsefeathers said:

sooo, let me see if I have this correct.

 

I will only be able to fly my 19 reg Jabiru above 1500ft IF i have a TSO'd transponder?

Without a transponder, I would be limited to 1500ft for the majority of my flying around Gympie /Sunshine coast

A trip from Gympie to Bundaberg would be limited to max altitude of 1500 ft?

 

If so, this is an unbelievable proposal, and basically a nail in the coffin of RAA

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......

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...