Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

They don't need to subsidize transponders just allow the Skyecho2 to be used as a minimum in class E and D. Most of us would be happy with this and except class E along the East Coast.  It would be a big step up in safety for very little cost. 

  • Agree 4
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 584
  • 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

Most may be happy but some would not. Why is there any need for change?

Don't forget it is only a couple of years or so since CASA brought in the big change of ADSB for all IFR. If change was so necessary it should have been done then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2021 at 6:59 PM, Thruster88 said:

You cannot legally fit a non ADS-B transponder into  an aircraft that currently has no transponder. All new installs must be ADS-B in VH land, RAus may or may not not have that requirement.  

I had heard that all new Tx have to be Mode-S, havent heard mandating ADSB for any VFR aircraft... source please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Hongie said:

I had heard that all new Tx have to be Mode-S, havent heard mandating ADSB for any VFR aircraft... source please?

Ok you are correct, a mode S transponder may not be required to be connected with an approved gps source and transmit ADS-B out.

 

After spending a reasonable sum on a mode S transponder, why not completed the package including the ADS-B in part. The IN part is what could save VFR pilots. SkyEcho2,  ADS-B out and in displayed on your choice of tablet, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Yenn said:

Most may be happy but some would not. Why is there any need for change?

Don't forget it is only a couple of years or so since CASA brought in the big change of ADSB for all IFR. If change was so necessary it should have been done then.

They have only just allowed us to use low cost ADSB transmitters (SkyEcho2) instead of being 10k it is a 1k expense. I think the regional airlines are pushing to be able to see Rec aviation in higher density traffic area's the SkyEcho fits this need without costing to much.

I to am on the fence about a need for change on one hand there does not seem to be a problem. On the other it is a small impost for a fairly large improvement in see and avoid.

What ever they decide someone won't be happy I think the best out come for recreational aviation is allowing the cheap ADSB's to be used in class D and E as the only "transponders". Then they can do what they like regarding the East Coast airspace without impacting on us to much.

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

Without a demonstrated need for this equipment I do not feel like paying out a fairly big sum of money for the small amount of flying I do.

I agree it would be safer if airlines could see us, but it would be much safer if we were not there. Every time we go along with these safety items that cost us money we are giving the powers that be encouragement to screw us more.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

and I got a communication from ASA/CASA , A standard  Mode S transponder (without ADSB OUT - that is  plain vanilla Mode S  not Mode S-ES)  is OK with Skyecho on same hex code.

(DO-260B says 'no' but in practice its has been found to be fine by CASA). 

 

Need to have a transponder so that the TCAS systems that do not have  ADSB IN  see you.... (although I have asked what the percentage  of TCAS systems out there that do not recognize ADSB-OUT and there is no knowledge ). I talked with the RAAus chief at the RAAus AGM about it , also, mentioned this need to understand just how many TCAS systems only see transponders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2021 at 6:59 PM, RFguy said:

and I got a communication from ASA/CASA , A standard  Mode S transponder (without ADSB OUT - that is  plain vanilla Mode S  not Mode S-ES)  is OK with Skyecho on same hex code.

(DO-260B says 'no' but in practice its has been found to be fine by CASA). 

 

Need to have a transponder so that the TCAS systems that do not have  ADSB IN  see you.... (although I have asked what the percentage  of TCAS systems out there that do not recognize ADSB-OUT and there is no knowledge ). I talked with the RAAus chief at the RAAus AGM about it , also, mentioned this need to understand just how many TCAS systems only see transponders.

The issue with TCAS is that it is now superseded technology just like Radar based Transponders it needs for it to work but as the cost of installation is between $US25,000 and $US125,000 airlines would not be keen to get rid of it even though its range is poor compared to ADSB.

 

They could always stick a Skyecho2 on the window & interface it with their phone for a better performing traffic alert system for a bit of loose change. A TIC option but it would work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2021 at 10:57 AM, Yenn said:

Without a demonstrated need for this equipment I do not feel like paying out a fairly big sum of money for the small amount of flying I do.

I agree it would be safer if airlines could see us, but it would be much safer if we were not there. Every time we go along with these safety items that cost us money we are giving the powers that be encouragement to screw us more.

That is the real issue here Yenn. 

here is a new rule carrying considerable cost ( In sorry SplitS but this is not negligible cost. It’s yet another imposition that adds to the other unnecessary costs like ASICs and  medicals, and the necessary costs like insurance, hangarage and fuel etc that gradually squeeze people out bit by bit.
To someone who is eg. on a pension, flying their beloved ol’ home built,  on cheapest fuel they can buy and paying for hangarage by doing odd jobs and mowing around the airport the requirement to spend a grand extra to fly is a major imposition.
 

Even more painful if they fly in an area with very little or no RPT (the area ASA are wanting to designate class E is not just around airports where the RPT descend but essentially the whole east coast between airports even where no RPT ever fly. 

This is not being nasty SplitS, and please take this with the non-judgemental spirit it’s meant,  but your sentiments also carries a bit of impression that it doesn’t affect yourself so as far as you see it doesn’t affect anyone else. This is  ASA/CASA’s modus operandi. Divide and conquer.  Recreational aviators need to always try to see things from everyone’s point of view, especially those who might be affected by something we personally are not. It’s amazing how quickly these things end up being turned on us after the original target is shot down!   
I don’t know where you are based but I see this potentially directly affecting a very large number of RAAus pilots who live on the east coast. (Doesn’t affect me at all (yet)  - I’m GA and have an allowable transponder set up and a disposable income to buy a new ADSB in or out so I’m not complaining on my own behalf (directly)  I’m not whinging for my own position rather for my fellow aviators who are impacted here in North Queensland and for the lead in issue this creates - see next bit!

 

The second really important part of it is, here is a new rule being instituted with no case made for its need apart from the hoary chestnut of “enhancing safety and if you question it you must be against safety and therefore you are dismissible”. No case for why it’s needed but it has restrictions placed on those with the least capacity to respond.


The real question is that this smacks of a lead in restriction that once established will be the precedent for something else. I don’t know what but I can see this being the pre-emptor further restrictive airspace rules - like suddenly Class E will see  RAAus  have same restrictions as current Class D and C. 
 

The rules about AGL ( vs MSL) clearly require more technology to establish AGL position. Once that’s in law there’s another cost that might get sprung into RAAus as well. 
 

This sounds like it’s part of an agenda. There’s no reasonable reason for it otherwise. 

 

  • Winner 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

With over 1000 submissions there will be some considerable change to the proposal and then the next round of submissions.

 

AGL cannot be legislated as no-one has the ability to determine this with current equipment. It will have to be expressed and specified on the VTC & VNC as AMSL.

 

They have determined it is to be implemented in the medium & high density areas & the next round they are going to provide proposed maps with these areas drawn in (so they say).

 

They have stated it is to enhance safety without providing any safety concerns at all or any historical safety related incidents and one of the latest fatals was very much an Airservices failure suitably swept under the carpet in the final ATSB report.

 

CASA is the authority that will have to legislate and implement any change and they found out about the proposal the same way that GA & RA pilots found out.

 

I could go on for another 3 or 4 pages but there is no point until the revised proposal is released with hopefully more detailed and sensible changes and a longer industry consultation period.

  • Like 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

With over 1000 submissions there will be some considerable change to the proposal and then the next round of submissions.

 

AGL cannot be legislated as no-one has the ability to determine this with current equipment. It will have to be expressed and specified on the VTC & VNC as AMSL.

 

They have determined it is to be implemented in the medium & high density areas & the next round they are going to provide proposed maps with these areas drawn in (so they say).

 

They have stated it is to enhance safety without providing any safety concerns at all or any historical safety related incidents and one of the latest fatals was very much an Airservices failure suitably swept under the carpet in the final ATSB report.

 

CASA is the authority that will have to legislate and implement any change and they found out about the proposal the same way that GA & RA pilots found out.

 

I could go on for another 3 or 4 pages but there is no point until the revised proposal is released with hopefully more detailed and sensible changes and a longer industry consultation period.

Broadly I agree with you.
 

Couple of points that I disagree.


AGL: I agree it should be AMSL but Currently anyone with an iPad and OzRunways can read AGL with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Radar AltImeters have been around for ages and are available but extremely expensive. But there’s  no need for a rad-alt if you are able to accept a small degree  of error in the GPS altimeter. GPS Altitudes are Probably within the limits required. ( with the ground elevation data loaded ) I’m not sure about Avplan but I’d be surprised if it didn’t have it either. 
 

The point of this though is that it’s another imposition of cost. A grand for an iPad that needs updating every say 4 years, a subscription to OzRunways, maybe they’ll dictate a backup iPad as well and an external GPS antenna. Maybe a SIM card etc for on the on the fly updates.  All a not insignificant cost. 
 

Step backs in negotiations as a result of the huge negative responses are not cast in stone. They have suggested they will look at modifications but at no point are they either required to look at less onerous proposals nor are they required to actually implement any less onerous versions. 
My  experience with bureaucracies is that the pushback must be maintained at the level of and against the first level of proposals all the way down to no change until the final proposal  is solidly cast in stone. The slightest relaxation of the defence position will be grasped and some intermediate level will be put forward as a compromise or a “win-win” position but will soon be used as stepping stone to re-approach the original proposal. That’s Negotiation 101! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

GPS altitude measures your absolute altitude off several satellites not the same as a rad alt that measures height above the ground below the a/c ie used during low visual approaches eg CAT2/CAT3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good point
that's of course where all the datums, ellipsoids get stuck in there.  I'll sort of glad we are all on WGS84, compared to 30 years ago.  although it is a compromise. Some areas have their own datums, because the standard ellipsoids and parameters are not good enough- like SNowy Hydro, they have their own datum so when drilling tunnels from different directions, and drain holes, and sumps underground, , they meet up (I am told) 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE THOUGHT Of THE DAY !.

It could all be, to get " Badgerys creek airport " covered , and to get Rid of all the sunday flyer.s. in Sydney..

How far is the Class E over Badgery's, from Bankstown to Richmond to Sydney, Vast area.

No more little airfields allowed under that monstrous, Monument to egomaniac's .

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bureaucrat's altered the 95-10  rules Already. SO !.  95-10 into VH experimental.

Just need More , brain cells, to get there.

spacesailor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bennyboy320 said:

GPS altitude measures your absolute altitude off several satellites not the same as a rad alt that measures height above the ground below the a/c ie used during low visual approaches eg CAT2/CAT3.

Yes and no. GPS altitude above ground is available here and now. 
 


The ability to give a GPS AGL requires three things.
1. An absolute altitude of the GPS device itself, as you correctly state. 

 

2.A lat/long GPS position derived by the native GPS unit in the device. 

3. Thirdly it requires an app containing a elevation data base that can tell what the known ground level is at the Lat/Long coordinate below the GPS device.

 

This is where the stated OzRunways or AvPlan ( if it has this) comes in. Speaking for OzRunways which I use, it has a whole of Australia ground elevation database which can be downloaded into the device. 
 

Calculating  AGL is a simple matter of subtracting the database elevation from the GPS device altitude. 
 

The problem is acceptance of the error margin. I have to admit, Inactually don’t know how detailed the data base is. I have the info box showing on my iPad and I have done some simple comparing to known nearby heights of mountain tops etc and it’s “sort of” accurate. There will be places where the elevation data is less accurate and thus  places where the calculated AGL is not as accurate. Not saying it’s ideal, I still reckon AMSL is what they should use if they get their way. But the degraded accuracy in some places would probably be Ok for the situation under discussion. I agree with you, it certainly  would not be suitable for Cat 3 landing but that’s not the scenario under consideration.  

But just saying, in response to someone’s previous statement that getting AGL is not practically possible, just saying in fact not only is it possible,  it’s actually available now. 

Edited by Jaba-who
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those AGL tiles are very large and based on the tops of hills, so there would be no space under Class E in many areas.

edit... so I had been told, but in thinking about it, the ground profile in the display looks pretty detailed and may be sufficient.

Edited by pmccarthy
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Those AGL tiles are very large and based on the tops of hills, so there would be no space under Class E in many areas.

edit... so I had been told, but in thinking about it, the ground profile in the display looks pretty detailed and may be sufficient.

Yeah. I agree with your last statement. I’ve flown around the Atherton tableland specifically for the exercise of looking at the AGL data.
It’s a very rapidly chAnging terrain level and the displayed AGL changes fairly frequently so  it’s not bad. Just how small the terrain areas are I don’t know but given the change rate they must be fairly small and probably usable.
But even if not now, the detail can be ramped up without much effort. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kgwilson said:

 

 

They have determined it is to be implemented in the medium & high density areas & the next round they are going to provide proposed maps with these areas drawn in (so they say).

 

 

We already have, called VTC etc. Just update with Jet lanes on regional RPT airports. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of using AGL as the floor of Class E is utter rubbish for one reason:

 

Because that Class E Floor is by definition, not a smooth continuous surface. It mirrors that landscape.

 

Think about that not from an RAA perspective but from an IFR, RPT or charter perspective - can you actually use the lower levels of such airspace? The answer is of course not because you need consistent altitudes or your navigation task is impossible.

 

Can you imagine a controller saying: "Maintain 2000 AGL till Doncaster"?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cosmick said:

We already have, called VTC etc. Just update with Jet lanes on regional RPT airports. 

These proposed maps are way, way before we get to the changing of VTCs etc. and anyway the problem is that regardless of RPT lanes the whole area is to converted to Class E. So the presence of a lane is irrelevant. 
The other issue is that while the claim is for perhaps (in the reviewed round of considerations) only high density areas may be affected once that’s set in place it will creep outward. 
Also there’s lots of small regional companies that operate into areas with no VTCs. Eg Hinterland Aviation operate out of Cairns and service islands, small communities etc south of Cairns-  south of the VTC. I have to assume there will be similar companies all along the coast.  If  the first stage comes along for near Class C airports along the coast it will get expanded because “passengers of eg. Of  Hinterland will deserve the same level of safety as passengers of QantasLink”.  

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...