Jump to content

Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, John Robert said:

In less than 10 years we will have pilot less drones & possibly pilot less regional passenger airlines. The Defence Forces are already using remotely guided 

offensive weapons. They can operate safely but only if all aircraft broadcast their location.

The height reduction of E class airspace may well be part of the need to plan for the future. Drones could replace  trucks for example rural mail delivery &

the live export rock lobster trade in our remote areas in WA. They will not be flying above 8500 ft, they are more likely to be at 3000 ft..   Regardless, the future will demand that all aircraft be able to broadcast & receive their position.  It is a very small step  to have that information used to automate traffic avoidance in auto pilot that would benefit many more VFR pilots.

Just maybe  our regulators are looking ahead for once. If this is sensible future planning it would make it much more acceptable if we were  simply told this is going to happen in the future & we need your support & we need to start planning  now.

John

 

Maybe birds (both large and small) should be required to carry an adsb too?  Some high-tech drones can actually "see" birds without adsb/transponder which is technology designed primarily for >surveillance< purposes.

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

1 hour ago, John Robert said:

I. They will not be flying above 8500 ft, they are more likely to be at 3000 ft..   R

 

Why would aircraft drones fly at 3000f when pressurisation will not be required (except where freight /passenger need it) - seems to me the intercontinental freight drones will fly very high and courtesy of lighter non pressurised airframes carry greater loads.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2021 at 2:23 PM, horsefeathers said:

Well, I hope to be corrected, but I have always understood that the SkyEcho is only an EC device.

From things I'm hearing now from RAAus about all this I'm not sure anymore what I believe about the SE2 and CASA's plans for us all. From all my research online from various countries and from my reading of the CASA docs I was convinced that the SkyEcho was accepted both as an 'EC' and an 'Integrated TABS' for their purposes.  

 

But now I'm being persuaded otherwise and it seems that horsefeathers (among others) was right about that all along. 

 

Some more poring over their published material has me now believing that there are, in fact, no low cost Integrated TABS devices in existence.  So, so much for their generosity and consideration for the lower orders of aviators. More fool me.

 

So for a start I'd like to apologise for pushing apparently dodgy info. here on the forum.  Now I join the general throng of anxious aviators, Yes, it appears that they are proposing that we all equip with proper transponders if we expect to fly anywhere safely on the eastern seaboard from next year. 

 

Anyway, time to reassess this whole issue.  Let's hope that RAAus leads an effective opposition to this latest CASA extravaganza.  

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Skyecho 2 has its own certified internal GPS. If the current proposal is pushed further a less costly option would be to require ADBS out on all aircraft in Class E as a minimum. After all you can enter class E now without a Transponder if your aircraft does not have an electrical system capable of driving one, and you don't even need a radio..

 

This communication from Ra-Aus was received yesterday.

 

Airservices Australia ‘Lowering of Class E on the East Coast’ proposal


You may be aware that Airservices Australia (Airservices) is currently consulting on a proposal that would see a significant reduction in the lower limit for Class E airspace between Cairns and Melbourne. Released to industry last week, this proposal was communicated to industry via a Fact Sheet published on the Airservices Engagement and Consultation website and also publicised via the Aviation State Engagement Forum (AVSEF) website.

RAAus CEO, Matt Bouttell and Head of Flight Operations, Jill Bailey, attended a ‘webinar’ hosted by Airservices today to gain greater understanding of the proposal given the impact this would impose on our members that operate in affected areas. See here for the Airservices presentation.

In summary, this proposal is part of a broader Airspace Modernisation Program being developed by Airservices that seeks to lower the base of Class E controlled airspace between Cairns to Melbourne from a lower limit of 8500 FT AMSL to 1500 AGL and replace the existing Class G uncontrolled airspace. There are some key elements we need to be aware of:

  • Australian Class E airspace has the mandated requirement for a serviceable transponder to be fitted to any aircraft operating in the airspace unless the aircraft does not have an engine driven electrical system capable of powering a transponder, and a serviceable VHF radio capable of ‘Continuous two way’ communications. Members are encouraged to refer to CAO 20.18 and AIP ENR 1.4 for specific information.
  • Analysis of our aircraft fleet indicates less than 30% of aircraft operating in the affected geographic area are currently fitted with a transponder.
  • Should this proposal go ahead, there is likely to be insufficient equipment available in addition to a shortage of qualified personnel to fit this many transponders by December 2021.
  • This proposal introduces not only an inconvenience but significant risk to pilots who do not have a serviceable transponder or radio in their aircraft. Pilots will be required to ‘skirt’ under or around this newly classified Class E airspace.
  • Airservices do not know how many VH-registered aircraft this also affects as this data is unavailable. Likewise our sister organisations, Gliding Federation of Australia, who will possibly be required to fit equipment to towing aircraft (gliders are exempt from the requirements as noted above) and Sport Aviation Federation of Australia, who have a presence of aircraft in affected areas, who will also be required to fit equipment to operate in reduced lower limit Class E airspace.
  • CASA are responsible for regulating the airspace in Australia and therefore will need to take all consultation feedback into consideration prior to approving it. And it’s important to note that at this stage this is a consultation rather than fait de accompli.
  • RAAus is unaware of any safety case presented to industry to increase the amount of Class E airspace which effectively ‘shuts out’ a large percentage of RAAus operators and training schools – and an unknown number of pilots in GFA, SAFA and VH- registered aircraft, due to the equipment requirements.
  • RAAus is concerned the duration of consultation phase is not sufficient to provide assurance that equitable access to airspace for all users has been considered.
  • There has been no information communicated at this time that there is any awareness of the cost this proposal imposes on industry, nor recognition of the requirement for a Regulatory Impact Statement to be provided by Airservices and/or CASA to justify to Government that this proposal's cost to industry is reasonable. Members are encouraged to refer to the Office of Best Practice Regulation. for more information.

RAAus does not support this proposal at this time and we assure members that we will be working collaboratively with our members, Airservices, CASA, Government and other industry stakeholders to work through the issues and encourage the launch of a transparent airspace strategy development forum, or similar, so that Australia’s airspace is fit for purpose and does not ‘leave people behind’.

RAAus is encouraging members to respectfully provide your views on this proposal in two ways. Firstly, please provide an email to RAAus directly via [email protected] by 10 February 2021. Your feedback will assist us with developing an organisational response to the consultation. RAAus also encourages you to lodge your own constructive submission to the Airservices consultation which can be done by emailing [email protected] by 15 February 2021.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be making submissions to both RA-Aus & Airservices. AFAIK there have been no safety issues that have given rise to this brainfart, they have not even specified where the medium and high density Class G areas are, nor considered RA & GA operations at all especially arrivals at non controlled aerodromes which are a minimum circuit height of of 1500 feet is required for high performance aircraft & 1500 feet is the arrival height for everyone else except trikes, Gyros & powered chutes.

 

I will be happy with the proposal if they delete the transponder requirement and give every GA/RA aircraft owner in Australia a free Skyecho 2 or equivalent, otherwise it is just bollocks and will reduce safety heaps.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As usually happens. (Confusion & uncertainty) Something you don't want in aviation.  The needs of the non airline group is an afterthought. Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ASA presentation gives a map of the East Coast showing the airspace J Curve from Melbourne to Cairns that is being discussed.

52616D40-B407-4F0C-9E5B-C19B06A5715D.png

B38477E1-7E2D-4D74-B229-1420C82B28B2.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that CASA can't even produce a figure as to how many aircraft and of what type would be adversely affected by this proposed change, is typical of an underworked major bureaucracy trying to make more "oversight" work for themselves, without even running the basic numbers, and producing a benefits study.

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

Who came up with the 1500AGL idea.

So dumb on so many fronts. 

Over a lot of the East Coast terrain, there is no way your climb and decent rates could match the terrain,

Tracking that height, how do you do that accurately? From a map, not likely, so you need a GPS with terrain overlay with integrated altimeter.

Transiting airfields at circuit arrival height, what could possibly go wrong. 😧

1500AGL gives 90 seconds give or take, if the engine stops. Which depending on your best glide gives you 3km of range, give or take. Not a lot of time or area to pick a spot.

Why not pick an achievable figure, say 5000ft AMSL

I assume they know that 1500AGL isn't achievable and it's their way of making everyone get a transponder or EC device so they can fly in Class E, but they can claim that they have still left some Class G for those that don't have them, even though that Class G is mostly unworkable.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to get your transponder calibrated in regional areas, if the service is available nearby it is expensive, time consuming, and inconvenient and another level of compliance which impacts on recreational flying.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RossK said:

Who came up with the 1500AGL idea.

So dumb on so many fronts. 

Over a lot of the East Coast terrain, there is no way your climb and decent rates could match the terrain,

Tracking that height, how do you do that accurately? From a map, not likely, so you need a GPS with terrain overlay with integrated altimeter.

Transiting airfields at circuit arrival height, what could possibly go wrong. 😧

1500AGL gives 90 seconds give or take, if the engine stops. Which depending on your best glide gives you 3km of range, give or take. Not a lot of time or area to pick a spot.

Why not pick an achievable figure, say 5000ft AMSL

I assume they know that 1500AGL isn't achievable and it's their way of making everyone get a transponder or EC device so they can fly in Class E, but they can claim that they have still left some Class G for those that don't have them, even though that Class G is mostly unworkable.

 

Make a submission to RAA on your thoughts as I have, like many others.

We need to make a united effort to get CASAs plan junked.

They need to come up with something more logical and workable.

Submissions addressed to: [email protected]

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jackc said:

Make a submission to RAA on your thoughts as I have, like many others.

We need to make a united effort to get CASAs plan junked.

They need to come up with something more logical and workable.

Submissions addressed to: [email protected]

 

Have done so already. 👍

It doesn't really affect me, as we have a mode A/C transponder, but 1500AGL is just a dumb idea.

Edited by RossK
  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jackc said:

Make a submission to RAA on your thoughts as I have, like many others.

We need to make a united effort to get CASAs plan junked.

They need to come up with something more logical and workable.

Submissions addressed to: [email protected]

 

Jack,

 

This proposal is from Airservices, not CASA. AFAIK CASA have had no input yet but in the end they are the ones that have to approve and regulate this.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you report altitude as asked and it's out from what your transponder gives them  by more than the allowed margin you generally don't get onwards clearance, or if you do you will be required to have the  Transponder recalibrated before your next flight.. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If you report altitude as asked and it's out from what your transponder gives them  by more than the allowed margin you generally don't get onwards clearance, or if you do you will be required to have the  Transponder recalibrated before your next flight.. Nev

ATC is not going to ‘see’ many transponders at 1500ft.  You would need to be on top of them, due to poor range at the proposed height?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nono. plenty of SSRs have a good view of planes at 1500 feet.  Depends on the terrain of course

 

An SSR (rotating parabolic dish antenna ) will see a skyecho at 100nm (line of sight)  if it wants to...

 

AirServices  is establishing alot of receive-only ADSB ground stations using omni directional antennas, these are low gain and depending on their implementation performance, - 20nm line of sight  for a Skyecho would be a typical number for them. Pimped up, 40 to 80nm if the site was well sited.

Range limit is primarily due to line of sight.  An SSR will see a 200W transponder at 500nm if the earth didnt get in the way... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If you report altitude as asked and it's out from what your transponder gives them  by more than the allowed margin you generally don't get onwards clearance, or if you do you will be required to have the  Transponder recalibrated before your next flight.. Nev

 

If you have a ModeA/C transponder and a Skyecho, it might be less maintenance to use Mode A only (no altitude encoder required) and let ATC and or other aircraft get your altitude from your Skyecho GPS in the ADSB bursts....

That is how I run....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of transponders. You are supposed to be shielded from the aerial too, I believe.  Your altimeter readings are not accurate (based on a standard atmosphere and an AREA QNH but you are using the  same reference for separation from other aircraft, but not from  the terrain where the GPS is better. Nev

Edited by facthunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are well into an era where satellite-based navigation Is very inexpensive, accurate and incredibly reliable. Why then, would our regulator insist we all fly with old fashioned barometric-linked transponders which may cost more than our aeroplanes?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One day OK, it will be OK, OK? It's not primarily designed for altitudes..  WE change when the world changes.  ICAO and so on.  Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GPS is fine, in the era of multi constellation GNSS.....  Maybe dont use the Chinese system as one of the options...The Russian system is alright. The european system is not reliable.  US system is. 

 

It is heaps better than an altitude encoder. Those things are crap compared, especially with vagarities of static systems, cockpit pressures etc.... Nev says "but you are using the  same reference for separation from other aircraft," which is true,  if that's what others are using... or not.

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

nono. plenty of SSRs have a good view of planes at 1500 feet.  Depends on the terrain of course

 

An SSR (rotating parabolic dish antenna ) will see a skyecho at 100nm (line of sight)  if it wants to...

 

AirServices  is establishing alot of receive-only ADSB ground stations using omni directional antennas, these are low gain and depending on their implementation performance, - 20nm line of sight  for a Skyecho would be a typical number for them. Pimped up, 40 to 80nm if the site was well sited.

Range limit is primarily due to line of sight.  An SSR will see a 200W transponder at 500nm if the earth didnt get in the way... 

Sadly, the earth is not flat for our benefit!  IF there is an 1800ft high hill between me and an ATC or another aircraft, they won’t ‘see’ me.

None of us will know each other exist?  A dish needs to be on the correct azimuth and elevation to successful ‘scan’ me and pick up my transponder or EC.

Then there is the ‘Fresnel Zone’ that can stuff things up over terrain very close to 1500ft in our case.  Corrupted data comes to mind here.

http://afar.net/fresnel-zone-calculator/

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to mate about this just today (and sorry if it has been mentioned) but how does one quickly determine 1500ft AGL when navigating across the county for 5 hours?

  • Agree 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...