Jump to content

Proposed lowering of Class E airspace.


WayneL

Recommended Posts

Airservices is proposing to lower Class E space to 1500 feet from the current 8500 foot segments from Cairns to Melbourne. This has many implementations for all off us recreational pilots and aircraft owners. Please follow this link to read about the proposal and get your comments into airservices as soon as possible.

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

Edited by WayneL
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm surprised there's not a raging debate going on here?

I guess that since ultralights all died off, we;re all happily flying around in our $200K sport planes, with dual coms, dual nav, ADSB transponders , FLARM (for good measure) and Avmaps/Ozrunways flight following.

Who needs to bother looking outside anymore...?

 

*Please refer to this thread;*

 

Oops, removes foot from mouth and moves on...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

The other thread is where most chat is on

 

Which is weird because that thread is General Aviation, while the discussion is obviously a Governing Bodies topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thread started earlier and some of us also fly GA. Not all GA planes have transponders. Helicopters may have transponders, but they seem to be the only ones who want to fly around in the lower levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This will start of course the shift to make everyone who flys to have ADSB fitted. I have always liked the system and do believe it will make flying safer. There those out there of course that dont want to spend any money at all...just listen to the amount of crap radios out there. The 6500 proposal seems to indicate that everyone eventually will be compelled to fit ADSB....The subsidy program is a great is=dea but it shouldnt be limited in volume/time like proposed. It should be subsidized all the time...lets face it ...its all about safety ...isnt it?

 

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

 

So I wonder if Electronic Conspicuity (EC) devices - duly registered with CASA - will be deemed 'transponders' for the purposes of these proposals.  I think they could be/should be, as most traffic displays used by IFR/RPT flights ought to be able to 'see' them, nowadays.  And they were deemed eligible for the government subsidy and thus are part of this overall plan for reducing collision risk.  I also wonder if the devices are conspicuous to ATC yet.  There was talk, a couple of years back, of ground facilities soon being able to show EC targets (within range, of course, which in practice seems to be up 40nm or so, line of sight).  We don't seem to hear much about it, for some reason.

Edited by Garfly
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, graham brown said:

I doubt they will be acceptable for class e airspace access but a good idea for vfr separation.

I fear you're right, but the reasons they put forward will probably not be based on actual efficacy as established by in-service trials.

It will be more about the fact that they're not plugged into ship's power and their sub-normal power output etc. 

Even though it's been admitted that Mangalore would almost surely have been prevented by either or both aircraft being so equipped.

Edited by Garfly
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they went from 1500 to 4500 and different steps & now to 6500, 2000 below the existing level so why change at all. Again I ask the question is there any evidence to suggest that this will improve safety. I think not. This is a solution in search of a problem perceived in a few bureaucrats minds.

 

Interesting to note that the ADSB rebate scheme introduced by Barnaby is currently under review. Will it be extended or scrapped? I am happy to go with ADSB in/out but I am not fitting a Mode S transponder as well. I like to see and be seen by aircraft in a 40 NM radius but not by some Airservices nerd sitting in front of a screen making decisions for me. If mode S was compulsory there would be another 3500 aircraft have to be fitted with 1940s technology & an increased workload on Airservices for no benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

So they went from 1500 to 4500 and different steps & now to 6500, 2000 below the existing level so why change at all. Again I ask the question is there any evidence to suggest that this will improve safety. I think not. This is a solution in search of a problem perceived in a few bureaucrats minds.

 

Interesting to note that the ADSB rebate scheme introduced by Barnaby is currently under review. Will it be extended or scrapped? I am happy to go with ADSB in/out but I am not fitting a Mode S transponder as well. I like to see and be seen by aircraft in a 40 NM radius but not by some Airservices nerd sitting in front of a screen making decisions for me. If mode S was compulsory there would be another 3500 aircraft have to be fitted with 1940s technology & an increased workload on Airservices for no benefit.

 

I agree that the bureaucratic thinking is still weirdly wrongheaded.  But I do think that universal ADSB IN/OUT (equitably achieved) is a good idea.

But anyway, isn't ATC rapidly moving in that direction - away from 1940s tech?  So with any IN/OUT you'd still be surveillable - by all and sundry. 

Which has its benefits, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to being surveillable  as that is the purpose of ADSB out and if it is picked up by ground stations fine though all I am concerned about is another aircraft in my vicinity on a potential conflict course. Primary and secondary radar are pretty useless on the east Coast below 5000 feet anyway so that may have some bearing on the latest Class E level proposal.

 

Collision Risk Modelling is not evidence based and the modelling depends upon inputs from those proposing change including their own bias & even then they come up with a ridiculously minute collision risk. Pathetic.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, graham brown said:

They have presented a safety case. The probability goes from 1 collision in 700 years to 1 collision in 25000 years. Wtf

 

Well there you go ... isn't mathematical science wonderful, vicar?!

 

Never mind that the aeroplane, as we know it, won't even be here in 50 years.  (Ditto the atmosphere, in 500  ;- )

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
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...