Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

This was always going to be on the cards..its been coming for years realistically. I actually think its a good idea except the original idea was expensive ADSB systems had big knobs on it. CASA did a discussion group about it and I was one of the 83 respondents. Saying it was a good idea but the objection is the cost.They would have to bring the costs down for it to be implemented in any fashion otherwise there wont be too many private aircraft whether GA or RAA flying due to another enormous cost.

 

I admit I did have a heads up a fair while before this discussion group became public with CASA talking to Air Services about allowing lower cost non certified ADSB onto their system. 

 

I was thinking they would allow non certified versions of the normal ADSB stuff as we all know its exactly the same but comes with a bit of paper that says its certified so it costs 3 times more than it actually should. I was expecting Garmin and Trigg units etc to be sold at reasonable prices so there would be a takeup of the systems by pretty much all aircraft. if you kept the cost to about the same or less than a radio then I could see it as a working scenario. I would buy one thats for sure

 

The EC devices took me by surprise totally. i wasnt even aware they existed

 

I believe they are a realistic way of getting everyone seen and will make flying safer...even if Ozrunways wont share their data with Avplan to make the sky a safer place. this is one way to overcome it..not totally but pretty close. 

 

  • Like 3
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

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

The discussion seems all about transponderish things, are there any other consequences of class E?

No other implications, as far as I know. AFAIK we are free to use Class E now, commonly LL8500, without clearance, as long as we are transponder equipped. What's new is CASA's (begrudging) approval of some EC devices as stand-ins for proper transponders in E. 

 

But this paper shows how long these moves have been in the pipeline:

 

From March 2005:

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/2005/ADSB_ADSB_TF3/ip10.pdf

 

excerpt:

1.1 Airservices Australia’s Research and Development Team is involved in a number of projects aimed at encouraging the development of ADS-B avionics for regional aircraft and the general aviation (GA) community.

1.2 In addition to providing surveillance for air traffic control (ATC), ADS-B also supports airborne applications such as enhanced traffic situational awareness through the display of other aircraft to pilots and flight crew.

1.3 Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) is a key element of the proposed Australian ADS-B Lower Airspace Program currently under consideration by the country’s aviation industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

 

 

The EC devices took me by surprise totally. i wasnt even aware they existed

 

I believe they are a realistic way of getting everyone seen and will make flying safer...even if Ozrunways wont share their data with Avplan to make the sky a safer place. this is one way to overcome it..not totally but pretty close. 

 

My SkyEcho2 died in today's hot sunny day. If SE2 had an external antenna jack, then it would be better.

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

My SkyEcho2 died in today's hot sunny day. If SE2 had an external antenna jack, then it would be better.

Needs 2 antennas, 1 for the GPS and another for the ADSB 🙂

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion should be about why Airservices are proposing to lower all 8500ft class E airspace to 1500ft without consultation and analysis of the impacts. You need a certified and tso’ed device to enter controlled airspace and an EC won’t cut it. Changes to airspace impacts our freedom to fly and this will deny us of lot of airspace. They suppose to do safety cases and cost benefit cases. None of this is available on this one. I don’t think they know the adsb coverage they have at 1500ft to provide this service. Duty of care case would be interesting. All class G airspace users will need to fight this one so there is a reasonable approach to this. A web meeting for those who want to know about it doesn’t cut it. We need documents, maps, safety cases, cost benefits studies and a debate.

  • Agree 3
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The skyecho2 does not need an external antenna 20 Nm is heaps. It is cheap and portable.

If they said class E is ok as long as you have a skyecho or equivalent I would be ok with changing the coastal class G to E. Under the current class E rule's it is to expensive, heavy and to much maintenance to have a transponder. 

Lets not forget the last Australian mid air was caused by ATC along with contributing to a crash around Coffs giving them more power is probably not a good idea based on their current form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked the question on the Air Services website re the maps. This proposal is useless without maps showing what "their" perceived medium and high density airspaces look like.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SplitS said:

The skyecho2 does not need an external antenna 20 Nm is heaps. It is cheap and portable.

 

In my case the gadget overheated, hence  suggestion for an external antenna option so that the gadget can be placed in shaded and ventilated space. 

 

7 hours ago, jackc said:

Needs 2 antennas, 1 for the GPS and another for the ADSB 🙂

 

There are multiband antennas on the market so 1 antenna can be sufficient.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pluessy said:

I have asked the question on the Air Services website re the maps. This proposal is useless without maps showing what "their" perceived medium and high density airspaces look like.

I think they were very specific. Wherever you see E LL 8500 on any chart, will become E LL 1500. Other E levels remain unchanged.

Edited by Bosi72
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to find out how many of the 3243 strong RA fleet have Transponders. I didn't install one mainly due to cost & I haven't needed it anyway & still transit CTR & always advise No transponder. If I put Airservices Email address into my Spot contacts I can press the check in button & they get my Lat/Long immediately & I can tell where I am from any number of devices like my phone and tablet. The perceived need to lower Class E is just that. It seems that they come up with some sort of dreamt up safety scale & decided that 8500 feet doesn't meet it even though they have zero evidence of any problems whatsoever.

 

The big problem at present is the Ballina MBZ which has now been extended to 15NM after a CASA review and a close encounter between a Jabiru and A320. The issue they should have but didn't address is the clogged up frequency as Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Evans Head share the same one and overtransmits are common and were partly the cause of the near miss. The excuse is it will interfere with a proposed instrument approach at Lismore which is just bollocks IMO.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When our regulator can’t get much right,  no wonder people lose faith as many of the basic things are not logically fixed.

That radio frequency stuff up is a good example, IF they can’t plan to fix that, what hope is there for other things?

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

You need a certified and tso’ed device to enter controlled airspace and an EC won’t cut it. Changes to airspace impacts our freedom to fly and this will deny us of lot of airspace. They suppose to do safety cases and cost benefit cases. None of this is available on this one. I don’t think they know the adsb coverage they have at 1500ft to provide this service. 

It seems to me that CASA /ASA are allowing cheaper EC devices to 'cut it' in Class E as a compromise between just leaving the airspace as G, on the one hand, and requiring fully TSO'd transponders for all ops in any class, on the other. I guess they hope to calm the rowdy herd this way - or at least divert the outcry: "They're killing VFR/GA." (And in the - politically persuasive - name of public safety.)

But yes, you're right the discussion should be out in the open.  I'm surprised that we haven't heard more from RAAus on it already. 

But looking at some of the published discussion papers, like the one I linked to above which goes back 15 years, it seems they've been imagining this kind of (protected) airspace for a long time.

Graham, when you say "provide this service" ... my own reading is that they don't necessarily propose to provide a 'service' to VFR aircraft, any more than they do now for Xponder users in G (as workload permits).  I think the reason they have been pushing CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information) for regional RPT is so that they can hand back some of the separation responsibility to the RPT crews.  I guess they think that in order to ask that of them they need to give them a fighting chance, like by reclassifying the airspace so that they can force recreational traffic to fly CDTI conspicuously. (Without needing to spend, say, half the value of their aeroplane in doing so).

Who knows?  The ridiculous part is that we stakeholders need to speculate on all this, to read the tea-leaves and search for meanings between the lines of the bureau-speak they put out.

 

What we sorely lack in this discussion is the perspective on working controllers.  It's tragic that shags and his controller colleagues on this forum are duty-bound to hold their tongues in public.

 

Edited by Garfly
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

HF please re-read this part of the thread and give us your thoughts on what you don't accept.  An EC device can be an 'Integrated TABS' device. The SE2 is both.

 

 

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

...Ballina MBZ which has now been extended to 15NM ...

Bugger! After years of research my mate bought a farm just outside that 10nm zone, so that I could land on his paddock. Now it’s inside the 15nm zone.                

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bosi72 said:

I think they were very specific. Wherever you see E LL 8500 on any chart, will become E LL 1500. Other E levels remain unchanged.

Does that mean 1500 AGL? Some inland E airspace is over ground higher than 1500.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what the real proposal is. Height classes are all expressed in feet above mean sea level.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

Does that mean 1500 AGL? Some inland E airspace is over ground higher than 1500.

The numbers on charts are corresponding to aircraft altimeter when QNH correctly set. Same as when instructed verbally by ATC, AWIS, i.e. no time for pilot to do calculations whilst in flight. So they are in feet AMSL.

 

However I think there are spelling mistakes in that proposal.

Edited by Bosi72
Link to post
Share on other sites

Garfly. The service is vfr traffic to ifr flights. By making it class e they are saying to the rpt that they can give vfr traffic to them. They don’t know their coverage so an incident would raise the question of duty of care. Imho

We need info on this proposal ASAP.

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

I think they were very specific. Wherever you see E LL 8500 on any chart, will become E LL 1500. Other E levels remain unchanged.

If you read between the lines of this proposal, you see that they are dividing the class G airpsace into 3 catergories: low, medium and high density:

As part of this program, Airservices is proposing to lower the base of Class E airspace to 1,500ft (AGL) in medium and high density enroute airspace between Cairns and Melbourne in December 2021.

 

It is not the whole area. More than likely, it will be some decent areas around every airport with RPT and other busy airports and low-level transit zones. Without Airservices providing a map, we simply don't know how much it will affect us (with no transponder).

Edited by pluessy
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jackc said:

Looks like a big purchase of new charts coming up?

Alot cheaper to get ozrunways and never be non current.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Bugger! After years of research my mate bought a farm just outside that 10nm zone, so that I could land on his paddock. Now it’s inside the 15nm zone.                

Old K, reading this, I think that maybe you won't be hindered by these new regs.  Or do you think only proper ALAs will be acceptable in the zone?

 

BALLINA B'CAST AREA.pdf

 

In the context of the current discussion I find the language used in this par a bit interesting; they talk about "ADSB-avionics".  That's a pretty broad term for AIP speak, no?  So the EC future is here?

 

 

"5.2 Usage of ADS-B and transponders

5.2.1 Aircraft are not required to be fitted with a transponder or ADS-B avionics to operate in the Broadcast Area. However, if an aircraft is fitted with a correctly functioning transponder and/or ADS-B avionics then it is required to be switched on and used. If the aircraft is fitted with a Mode C transponder (which is serviceable and approved for use), then it is to be selected to the Altitude position, unless otherwise directed by ATC."

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jackc said:

Looks like a big purchase of new charts coming up?

You can download all charts from Airservices as well as Ersa free. If you have an Ozrunways or Avplan subscription that software does it for you or if you have the free nav system, Airmate you tick the ones you want and the system downloads and installs them all.

  • 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...