Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns

[Jaba-who]

5 minutes ago, walrus said:

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"?

Yep. I agree entirely. Who ever came up with the idea is nuts. 

[kgwilson]

It is all very well to have instruments in your aircraft based on what the various GPS systems are telling you or what primary/secondary radar is telling ASA. The backup has to be something that you have in your aircraft that does not rely on such things.

 

When there is a massive solar flare it has the capacity to completely disrupt all GPS (among many) systems so that erroneous information or none at all is provided. The last big solar flare happened in 1859 & another of the same magnitude has the capacity to knock out electrical grids, satellites, communications and the internet instantly. 

 

It could affect magnetic compasses to a degree but won't have any effect on pressure based ASIs, VSIs or Altimeters so keeping a few steam instruments is not a silly idea.  

[Garfly]

 

 

48 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

It is all very well to have instruments in your aircraft based on what the various GPS systems are telling you ...  When there is a massive solar flare it has the capacity to completely disrupt all GPS (among many) systems so that erroneous information or none at all is provided. The last big solar flare happened in 1859 & another of the same magnitude has the capacity to knock out electrical grids, satellites, communications and the internet instantly. 

It could affect magnetic compasses to a degree but won't have any effect on pressure based ASIs, VSIs or Altimeters so keeping a few steam instruments is not a silly idea.  

I wish I flew so much these days that my chances of being caught out by Garmingeddon were higher.  Anyway, glass displays still get their air-info through little rubber tubes so maybe it'll be survivable even without steamies.

 

Regarding the HAG (height above ground) data in OZRWYs (et al), yes, I guess it's calculated by subtracting the current WGS84 elevation from GPS 'altitude'. But, for what it's worth (not much), they could, equally, use pressure altitude since iThings now have precision baro-sensors and can even access QNH.

 

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

Regarding the HAG (height above ground) data in OZRWYs (et al), yes, I guess it's calculated by subtracting the current WGS84 elevation from GPS 'altitude'. But, for what it's worth (not much), they could, equally, use pressure altitude since iThings now have precision baro-sensors and can even access QNH.

How would you display this on a map?

[Garfly]

In OZRWYs, you just long-press on one of the data display fields to bring up the parameter menu and scroll  to the HAG item.  Then, if you want that particular field to appear bigger just double tap it and an enlarged version will pop-out onto the main map.  (Unless I've misunderstood your question.)

As to having the display calculate from pressure altitude rather than GPS altitude, I guess that'd be a coding job and not, now, user configurable.

 

[kgwilson]

As Maps are set quarterly with all airspace changes it is just not possible so each area would have to be set at a specific height AMSL which if they get their way will have to be at least 1500 feet above the highest point in that designated Class E area.

[Garfly]

Ah, sorry, I did misunderstand your question. I guess I was over-thinking the passage you quoted.

 

But yes, you're right. It's totally impractical.  Imagine the roller coaster rides our pax will enjoy as we try to remain vertically OCTA. Next we will all need terrain following radar - and super snappy auto-pilots - to comply.  Not to mention IFR ratings to handle the new intimacy we'll have with clouds.

 

Visions of a future BFR exercise ....

 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Garfly

[gareth lacey]

53 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Ah, sorry, I did misunderstand your question. I guess I was over-thinking the passage you quoted.

 

But yes, you're right. It's totally impractical.  Imagine the roller coaster rides our pax will enjoy as we try to remain vertically OCTA. Next we will all need terrain following radar - and super snappy auto-pilots - to comply.  Not to mention IFR ratings to handle the new intimacy we'll have with clouds.

 

Visions of a future BFR exercise ....

 

 

I would fly with him anytime NOT!!!

[Yenn]

When all is said and done and we are stuck with class E at 1500' above GL. I will go flying in my non transponder equipped plane with a very small radar reflection. Who will know what height I am and who will even know I am there unless they are looking out for me,

Those RPTs coming into the nearby city will be sitting there dumb and happy, never expecting too se a small plane anywhere near their flight path. What if I am a bit high, I am still below 1500' above the ground a kilometer away to the West. The on;y way I could be convicted of being in the wrong place is if the RPT hit me and there was a record of its altitude at the moment of impact. I know they are not going to hit me because they want to keep up in the higher air to reduce he turbulence which upsets passengers.

There is absolutely no  possibility that any IFR flight wants to fly down at 2000' above GL.

It is all a stunt put up by Airservices to see what they can get away with. If they achieved their goal, they would not be able to control the area anyway, without increasing staff and radio frequencies.

[kgwilson]

At 1500 you will have to be in direct line of sight to the radar scanner dish for you to register at all. RAF Tornados & Typhoons are potent aircraft but they are not stealth aircraft, they just fly low under the radar, just like the Mosquitos used to do in WW2 but that was over water at 50 feet with no obstructions like hills and trees. Scared the crap out of the German coastal defence mob when they screamed overhead at 400mph & were gone before they could even get to their AA guns.

[Mike Borgelt]

With few exceptions the continental USA is Class E above 700 or 1200 feet and in some places down to the ground. It simply isn't a problem for VFR as there is no radio requirement nor a transponder requirement for VFR under 10,000 AMSL or below 3000 feet above ground. No listening to useless blather on the "area frequency" either for VFR. This was essentially what we had in 2004 but the ATC trade union managed to kill it politically. We did have a transponder and radio listening on area frequency in Class E but that was intended to be temporary and we would move to the US non requirement.

Here's the Wikipedia article on airspace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_E_airspace

In Class E traffic information is "Provided for all IFR and VFR flights where possible" . Note the "where possible".

All the problems with the Airservices Class E proposal go away if we simply follow the US non requirement.

I suspect the Airservices proposal has more to do with extra revenue from the high performance single and twin folks who fly IFR below 10,000 feet. I doubt it will be much. Their problem is cultural - if

they can see it they want to provide a "service". Some of us would rather not be "serviced".

What the Airservices people don't realise is that nobody wants or needs Air Traffic Control. What we want is not to hit other aircraft. This can be done by putting collision avoidance back in the cockpit.

Easy to do nowadays. FLARM as used in gliders was a good technology demonstration but it needs a more robust, longer ranging rf link. Best would have been to modify the VHF radio to have two

collision avoidance channels. Hook up a GNSS (GPS alone is old hat) and with the right design you would not notice the collision avoidance stuff working. Imagine being able to fly around anywhere

outside say 10nm of the major capital city aerodromes with NO controlled airspace and the vast majority of ATC personnel being made redundant..

[Ironpot]

Revised!

 

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

[RFguy]

well I dont see anything good.

 

They are squashing class G airspace down with a big boot. Nothing else. what have I missed ? 

[walrus]

I'm afraid this proposal must be rejected because you can't trust AsA, let alone CASA. The devil is in the detail. We could be totally shut out of the Airspace concerned. For example access is allowed, in theory, to "appropriately equipped" VFR aircraft. What does that actually mean? Who decides what is appropriate? At present for example, the use of ADSB for separation, which AsA is keen on, requires at least a $4000 TSO'd GPS source. Skyecho cant do it.

[Kyle Communications]

So mostly now to 4500 ft...Hey JackC...Rocky isnt even on the airport list they left you off

 

3500 here at Ycab..so no change except 4500 from Wamuran on past Kilcoy

[kgwilson]

Total horse manure with no actual chart detail & they finally realised that they have to express their base levels in AMSL as any student knows. 4500 at South Grafton but the ranges rise quickly all around so there will be a complex set of boundaries. The so called "appropriately equipped" aircraft is obviously based on existing procedures. The transponder requirement in lowered class E is still the killer issue. If they allow no transponder up to 8500 & push VFR ADSB in/out below this (i.e. Skyecho 2) & subsidise it like the UK that would seem acceptable but then why change it at all. Still no demonstrated or evidence based safety benefits.

[SplitS]

I don't get who would want to be flying IFR at 5500 feet. There is no reason to change the existing 8500 unless it is to increase it to 10,000 east coast class G.

Would be interesting to see how many IFR aircraft actually use the 8500 to 10,000 foot band. I am betting almost no one.

[Jim McDowall]

AsA is only trying to increase its revenue base ....... follow the money!

[jackc]

12 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

So mostly now to 4500 ft...Hey JackC...Rocky isnt even on the airport list they left you off

 

3500 here at Ycab..so no change except 4500 from Wamuran on past Kilcoy

They will read this forum and realise they left Rocky out, stand by for an immediate amendment 🙂

 

[Jaba-who]

46 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

AsA is only trying to increase its revenue base ....... follow the money!

That’s a point I hadn’t considered. 
Do air services send you a bill for any flights you do in Class E? 
You get bills for enroute services you use in class C but I rarely if ever have used Class E so have no experience about bills for that. 
 

anyone know if it will suddenly include charges? 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Jaba-who

[graham brown]

Why is it safer for AsA to monitor ads-b via a ground based system and relay on the information via VHF radio to an IFR pilot rather than the pilot having ads-b IN and seeing the traffic directly?

Jobs and $ ?

[Mike Borgelt]

"Why is it safer for AsA to monitor ads-b via a ground based system and relay on the information via VHF radio to an IFR pilot rather than the pilot having ads-b IN and seeing the traffic directly?

Jobs and $ ?"

You got it!

As always, follow the money!

ADSB is a system conceived in the late 80's early 90's using the tech of the day which is already obsolete. The REALLY bad decision was to use the transponder frequency for the rf link. This causes the system to be unable to handle more than about 100 aircraft in a given area and complicates the rf design as to comply the transmitter needs very high pulse power. Already a problem in the LA basin but at least the USA put light aircraft on 978 MHz for ADSB although you can fit the transponder type units.
A sensible system needs about 1 watt of power for ADSB out , ADSB in is simple and then everyone can do their own separation and no need for ATC "services". The IFR/VFR thing can then be thrown away as well, replaced by "able to fly in cloud and reduced visibility" or not.

Seriously put in your replies to the consultation and tell them to shove it.

The push for more Class E was a favourite project of Dick Smith but the driver was get ATC to tell IFR guys if they were going to run into terrain.(See Pier Cheyenne near Benalla, Qantas near Canberra one early morning where they went into holding so the controller could get to work and give them a landing clearance - they screwed up the holding and didn't have a moving map and damn near hit a mountain). I think this is now obsolete as if you fly IFR and don't have a moving map with terrain displays you are pretty silly. Who needs ATC?

[Jim McDowall]

53 minutes ago, Mike Borgelt said:

Who needs ATC?

Just like parking stations no longer need attendants we no longer have garbos. Technology replaces coal face jobs with code cutters.

[Ironpot]

15 hours ago, SplitS said:

 

Would be interesting to see how many IFR aircraft actually use the 8500 to 10,000 foot band. I am betting almost no one.

Quite a lot actually; 9000 & 10000.  AC50 D228 C208 etc  

[Mike Borgelt]

"Would be interesting to see how many IFR aircraft actually use the 8500 to 10,000 foot band. I am betting almost no one."

"Quite a lot actually; 9000 & 10000. AC50 D228 C208 etc"

At 9000 and 10000 they are already in the above 8500 Class E.