Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

If nothing else this support for our privileges is worth the membership fee. I completed the CASA survey as well as this and lodged my own response with ASA. It is pleasing to see many of my concerns incorporated into the RA-Aus response and that a high percentage of the 255 members who also completed the survey have the same opinions. ASA needs to pull its head in preferably through its rear fundamental orifice.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
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

Yep agreed!


Reading it, I felt they were really fighting for what we need and want.

 

Good job!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much agree, did read they would be happy with 6,500 or 2,000 agl. Will need to read again next couple of days. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My submission to ASA stated that the level should remain at 8500 where peaks exceed 4000 so in theory the minimum height above terrain would be 2500 where the highest peak is 3999 feet. It is still a compromise that I would prefer not to have. They have this stupid box of 8500 feet around an area including Round Mountain which is 5204 high. Apart from that it is a pathetic small drawing with no detail. The purple is their proposed 6500, red 8500, blue 4500 & green is existing CTA.

 

image.thumb.png.71b83d6f8fa1e6bf0e0ba7d81d73eba1.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah a good response. Most organisations responded in similar way. The Gliding Federation had many of the same gripes. Gliders are exempt on transponders but we have to monitor the class E frequency on the radio. We are not allowed to talk unless a collision is imminent. By lowering class e this stupidity becomes a big problem. Tugs and motor gliders are not exempt from transponder either. The GFA would only buy 8500ft min. GFA assumed this is about providing traffic service to ifr flights specifically regional airlines. On the transponder costs, you can buy 10 ec devices for one tso’ed transponder. What is a better safety investment?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 says you believe there is a problem requiring immediate unsubstantiated action. Just what they want. The RAA approach demanding an overarching policy, real analysis and user review before any consideration is given is the only way forward.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only was there no justification. The mid air near Mangalore happened to two IFR aircraft. How can Airservices expect us to believe they can look after our safety by lowering class E level when that cannot look after what they had before. The fact that class E had nothing to do with that stuff up by Airservices shows that they don't know and they won't learn.

No matter what Airservices do, they do not have the final say and I am sure that CASA are keeping a close eye on what is happening. AS it is the overall safety of the Australian fleet would be badly affected.

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

ASA also have to take some responsibility for the Mooney crash near Coffs in Sept 19 when they refused class C access and there was no conflicting traffic anyway. I'm sure CASA will remember that as well.

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

Golly gee whizz....but it irritates me to tears, how CASA immediately copy cats everything the FAA does.......we are a different country and situation....seems they are incapable of independent thought. Amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, F10 said:

Golly gee whizz....but it irritates me to tears, how CASA immediately copy cats everything the FAA does.......we are a different country and situation....seems they are incapable of independent thought. Amazing.

They pick and choose which is worse. I would like us to just adopt the FAA reg's. Australia has a basket case of bad reg's would be much easier to just shift to FAA regs. They have problems to but way less than us.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SplitS said:

They pick and choose which is worse. I would like us to just adopt the FAA reg's. Australia has a basket case of bad reg's would be much easier to just shift to FAA regs. They have problems to but way less than us.

Just bear in mind, some of what people are unhappy with are changes to comply with ICAO standards, and when you check the current standards, as against what you might have seen on the internet or experienced in the US in the past, you would be surprised how much has changed.......to comply with the same ICAO standards.

 

It might be that the irritaion is with the ICAO standards themselves, and sometimes European based regulations are irrational.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, F10 said:

Golly gee whizz....but it irritates me to tears, how CASA immediately copy cats everything the FAA does.......we are a different country and situation....seems they are incapable of independent thought. Amazing.

This proposal has nothing to do with CASA. It is Air Services Australia. I spoke to some CASA people after the first attempt & they found out about the same way we all did. Also if they (ASA) were to copy the FAA neither transponders nor radios would be required below 10,000 feet AMSL.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

This proposal has nothing to do with CASA. It is Air Services Australia. I spoke to some CASA people after the first attempt & they found out about the same way we all did. Also if they (ASA) were to copy the FAA neither transponders nor radios would be required below 10,000 feet AMSL.

And in class G, would no radio, TXDR below 10 000ft, be a bad thing? Maybe if traffic grew to such an extent, but is that likely? Most pilots are happy to apply good radio procedures and lookout. If the airfield is not registered, (the old CTAFR), you don’t need radio anyway, but most pilots I know will still make calls anyway. I know this has nothing to do with CASA, but going to Part 61, has caused huge financial costs. Was that really necessary? Part 5 seemed to work fine in Australia? Also, CASA didn’t exactly leap to the defence in this case, of thousands of GA and RA aviators? 

Edited by F10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes....but again we are on the slippery slope of how much is enough....or how to get a perfect flight safety record...put the aircraft in the hangar and lock the doors....

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, F10 said:

Well yes....but again we are on the slippery slope of how much is enough....or how to get a perfect flight safety record...put the aircraft in the hangar and lock the doors....

Then crash your bicycle as you ride away from the hangar.....a small stone on the ground takes you out 😞

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This compliance with ICAO requirements is rubbish. Airservices will use that as a reason and then they will admit that it doesn't comply with ICAO but is purely Australian. Been there done that. Use any argument to bolster your aims, even if it is rubbish.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/05/2021 at 11:08 PM, kgwilson said:

ASA also have to take some responsibility for the Mooney crash near Coffs in Sept 19 when they refused class C access and there was no conflicting traffic anyway. I'm sure CASA will remember that as well.

As the Captain of an aircraft, if you think obeying an instruction from ATC, will endanger your aircraft, disregard it. What’s the ATC going to do, shoot you down? It is inexcusable for ATC to endanger an aircraft. ATC is there FOR aircraft operations, aircraft operations aren’t FOR ATC. I find it unfortunate a lot of pilots are fearful of speaking to class C or D controllers. They are there to HELP you......unfortunately CASA and Air Services have in a way, possibly unintentionally created this situation, of authoritarian ATC services. And no, of course you need to follow ATC instructions for safe traffic flow, you know that’s not what I’m saying.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2021 at 10:38 AM, F10 said:

Golly gee whizz....but it irritates me to tears, how CASA immediately copy cats everything the FAA does.......we are a different country and situation....seems they are incapable of independent thought. Amazing.

Actually the most common complaint is that CASA completely disregards things from the FAA even things that work well and has to reinvent the wheel in an Australian image. 
The frequently presented fact is that the YSA has many orders of magnitude more aircraft and pilots, has far worse extremes of weather, has more lax rules and regulations and ( I forget the exact amount so happy to be corrected on the exact ratios)  but something like half the rate of accidents. When CASA is presented with arguments like “why are we not following the FAA lead? “ CASAs response is always to the effect that everything is different here and we have to develop our own rules. But they are quick to state we have to adhere to ICAO rules when it suits them. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

Actually the most common complaint is that CASA completely disregards things from the FAA even things that work well and has to reinvent the wheel in an Australian image. 
The frequently presented fact is that the YSA has many orders of magnitude more aircraft and pilots, has far worse extremes of weather, has more lax rules and regulations and ( I forget the exact amount so happy to be corrected on the exact ratios)  but something like half the rate of accidents. When CASA is presented with arguments like “why are we not following the FAA lead? “ CASAs response is always to the effect that everything is different here and we have to develop our own rules. But they are quick to state we have to adhere to ICAO rules when it suits them. 

You want to see what the EAA wrote back to me about administration on FAR Part 103:-)

NO flying school, no CFIs, NOTHING.

Good luck in getting off the ground, hope you make it back in one piece!

Bend your plane?  Don’t sweat it......heaps more, from where the last one came from.......

Yourself?. Specify your chosen coffin to your relatives.....it might be the last choice you get in life!

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackc said:

You want to see what the EAA wrote back to me about administration on FAR Part 103:-)

NO flying school, no CFIs, NOTHING.

Good luck in getting off the ground, hope you make it back in one piece!

Bend your plane?  Don’t sweat it......heaps more, from where the last one came from.......

Yourself?. Specify your chosen coffin to your relatives.....it might be the last choice you get in life!

Sorry mate but I don’t follow what this has to do with the topic. Can you explain? 
FAR Part 103 is about Ultralights (but not ultralights as found in Australia) real ultralights of less than a few hundred pounds empty weight. Includes powered parachutes and some powered hang gliders. But can also include really true tiny fixed wings made of “rag and sticks.” No training requirements or licensing. Very restrictive capabilities and flying activities. Nothing like it exists in Australia.    
Not sure what this has to do with Class E, with EAA or FAA-CASA comparisons. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Other parts of the world administer Aviation in different ways.....I was just adding what others do and indicating that many ideas come from others good or bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love a FAR part 103 lets go old school. Duck (auto-corrected word) CASA they don't care about Rec aviation or my safety, they care about continuing to strengthen their bureaucracy. The further they are from my plane the safer I would be.

  • Like 2
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...