CASA Not Biased

[Foto_Flyer]

I attended one of CASA's information seminars the other day regarding the changes to non towered airfields and class D as of today! Great information was given along with additional explanations of things not necessarily found in the CAR 166 documentation.

 

There were also some interesting comments made that showed CASA (well their trainers anyway) have no bias against RA. One of the illustrations they used (purley hypothetical) was of a fast IFR regional turbo prop arriving at a non towered CTAF with an "ultralight" in the circuit (I've head that somewhere before I think....). They made it clear that the fast regional still has the responsibility to report on the CTAF frequency and look for traffic and that they shouldn't expect special consideration just because they are RPT traffic. The best comment they made was that the ultralight had just as much right to be there as the fast regional, much to the horror of the young CPL students in the mix.

 

After the seminar I asked one of the trainers about the possibility of RA pilots getting a rating or exemption that allowed even a limited entry to controlled airspace, maybe a limited allowence to visit Class D aerodromes (formerly GAAP's) for instance. While sympathetic for the reasoning, he said it was not likely to ever happen, and definitely not in the next couple of years. The only option, he explained, was to get a PPL.

 

He then went onto explain what we all know, that we can do a conversion from a RA pilot certificate to a PPL without much drama (apart from cost). It was while explaining this that he made the comment that the PPL curriculum was pretty much the same as the RA-Aus Pilot Certificate (with X-county) but to a higher standard. WHAT THE...!!! Well, when pressed for more information about what he meant by that, he clarified by saying the two were very similar but for the PPL the "higher standard" called for a class 2 medical, instrument time etc, whereas the Pilot Certificate did not require these. OK then, I'll let you off (I think)! But you can imagine the attitude of some if they were told that and didn't seek clarification. It's not just what you say but how you say it that's important.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I think as i mention last week, i honestly dont see us getting CTA ever. PPL will be the only route, which is a pain in the XXXX since i have been that down that road years ago.It comes down to dollars and cents.I can hire a teccy, or cub for around $140.00 a hour, plus no landing charges at boonah.Im not sure what the current rate for a 152 is, but its more than that.I sometimes think of getting back into a four seater like the archer, but its going to cost me $ Big time. Since i only fly every second weekend, im not sure if it is worth it, going back to GA. It is something i am going to have to think about.Since i live 20 minutes by car from Coolangatta.

 

 

[jetjr]

You dont need to change aircraft just need the PPL so long as you have transponder and recognised engine type

 

 

[dazza 38]

 

You dont need to change aircraft just need the PPL so long as you have transponder and recognised engine type

Yes, that is true, but i was thinking, if i finished my PPL, (completed GFPTages ago), i would fly from Cooly, since it is just down the road.Although you have made a good point though, i could still go to boonah, fly what i fly now,(they all have transponders, Rotax 912.), and still go into CTA. I used to fly at Cooly years ago in a warrior.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't think you will need a transponder to access the old GAApP aerodromes, they don't have radar. The higher standards for GA pilots over RAAus would probably be having to know how to behave in controlled airspace and above 5000', which is something I have found lacking in RAAus pilots knowledge sometimes. I know a large proportion of RAAus pilots are keen and knowledgable, but there are a few who do not share the thirst for knowledge.

 

 

[sseeker]

Im not sure what the current rate for a 152 is, but its more than that.

Sorry for going off topic, but I paid $260/hr at RACWA (Royal Aero Club of WA).

 

-Andrew

 

 

[sseeker]

Hi David,

 

Pretty sure the sheet said the instructor was $110/hr so that would make it $150/hr solo + landing fees. I pay $155 dual and $115 solo for a J160C.

 

-Andrew

 

 

[rgmwa]

Hire Costs

 

Hi David,Pretty sure the sheet said the instructor was $110/hr so that would make it $150/hr solo + landing fees. I pay $155 dual and $115 solo for a J160C.

 

-Andrew

I fly at RACWA too, and those numbers sound about right. I also think RACWA charge at the high end of the scale. A 172 is currently $226/hour, an instructor is $110, and a full stop landing will cost you another $27 (but that's a Jandakot Holdings operations charge, not a RACWA fee).

 

rgmwa

 

 

[HEON]

Not just the cost of PPL but that of BFR in them "modern cheap" VH aircraft that you don't normally fly thus needing more practice and more cost!

 

 

[The Wolf]

Not just the cost of PPL but that of BFR in them "modern cheap" VH aircraft that you don't normally fly thus needing more practice and more cost!

I was told by the school i intended to convert my licence with, that a BFR in an RA registered plane will count as your BFR for your PPL. But a BFR in a VH registered plane wont count for your RA licence.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

A BFR in an RA-Aus aircraft only counts for PPL if said aircraft could be registered VH also.

 

It would be logical the other way around too; do your BFR in a C172 and it won't count for RA-Aus, for the same reason you need at least 5 hours training to get your RA if you have your PPL. But I would assume a BFR in a VH-SportStar would count the same as in a Sporty with numbers on the side.

 

Back to the original topic: I heard a few disparaging comments about ultralights in the briefing.

 

 

[Foto_Flyer]

Back to the original topic: I heard a few disparaging comments about ultralights in the briefing.

This is disappointing to hear as the two guys conducting the seminar I went to were very supportive of recreational aviation. Oh well, I guess there will always be a diverse range of attitudes within the industry. The main thing to remember is that CASA acknowledges/recognizes recreational/sport aviation in the legislation and policies!

[facthunter]

honest attitude.

 

To be recognised is fine but we ALL know that we are here. What is the real attitude and where are we going? nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Looks like we're staying put, at least while Director Comrade McCormick is in charge of the Politburo. "No General Aviation is Safe Aviation" is his slogan.

 

I've had it up to here with his constantly proclaiming to be supportive and working with RA and GA at photo ops and then doing the exact opposite when he gets back to his desk.

 

 

[Foto_Flyer]

Hey Bass, you're going to have to change your blog to just CTAF now we're past June 3!

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Timed that well, didn't I? Actually CTAF is not gone at all, the procedures are still called CTAF. The only thing that is gone is ®, which is now implied for REG CERT aerodromes.

 

So the domain name is fine, but I'll keep the ® there now for nostalgic reasons. ;-)

 

 

[bilby54]

I went to one of the CASA seminars the other night and thought that the presentation was alright stuff.

 

I think that a lot of the radio requirement has come from the "light twin drivers" (my sincere appologies to the professional pilots who fly them) who thought it would be safer if everyone had a radio and CASA has to be seen to be doing the right thing with aviation safety.

 

It brought them all undone when they were told that it does not relieve them of their obligations to use 'see and avoid' procedures at non-controlled aerodromes. I suspect that what they are really after (light twin drivers) is transponders to be fitted to every aircraft entering a CTAF. I had an aircraft going right out of his tree the other day because he could not see on his TCAS even whenI told him that I had him visual.

 

I see and avoid anything larger than a grasshopper if possible

 

 

[facthunter]

"Light Twin" drivers.

 

You must excuse my ignorance, but am I right in assuming that the above term refers to Dash-8 etc?

 

It would seem to be very convenient for them IF all aircraft did have transponders as they have TCAS I presume, except at places of significant Light aircraft activity where there would be so much clutter. it most likely would not be any use. I have a little sympathy for them as the allround visability through the cockpit windows is not terrific, and they are moving at a speed where they will quickly over-run most of our types. Clearly there is much work to be done with both sides understanding the situation the other is in. All pilots should do a radio check with another station if possible before first flight or at any time that you might suspect that you are not getting out. nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

In flying, just like when I am cycling, I don't mind paying for a big fat reflector so that other traffic can see me better.

 

The biggest problem I have is the bureaucratically inflated price. Put a group of final year electrical engineering and computer science students in a room for a couple of months and they will come up with a commodity-hardware based solution that provides traffic information to all users within a 20nm radius of each other and in production it would cost $250 for a unit. It would have 99.9% (if not more) of the accuracy of ADS-B.

 

However, for McCormick Enterprises, 99.9% (up from 0% now!) isn't a good enough improvement. He wants 100% with ADS-B, even if it cost 100 times as much.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The problem with ADS-B is that while they say they want to, CASA is unwilling to let go of radar. Radar is crappy old analog technology. It has so many failure modes that a fly crapping on a capacitor in your transponder may stop it working. Making it reliable and keeping it reliable is expensive.

 

Enter 2010. If you don't base your solution around mode-S ES, but simply take a GPS, a CPU and a transmitter switching on once every second and bursting out a few bytes of identification and location information, you CAN do it for a fraction of the cost. And it won't fail and (more importantly) won't drift.

 

These old XXXXs are simply unable to think outside the box.

 

This should be a negotiation between us and CASA. Every negotiation needs to have a win-win outcome.

 

The truth is that with the chosen technology, for less than 5 grand, we won't have ADS-B out. And even if we spend 5 grand, the only advantage to us is that the regionals can pick us up around Mildura because for us to get ADS-B in, we need to spend at least 10 grand. And these figures will not come down unless the chosen technology changes.

 

There is NO win for us in this scenario.

 

If CASA, AsA and the airlines want to achieve what they say they want, they need to go back to the drawing board.

 

The ADS-B technology is fantastic

No it is not. ADS-B functionality is fantastic. The technology is 30 years old, under performs and is overpriced.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

David,

 

I get the horrors even at the thought of some tecno-dingbat pilot, head down in the circuit, looking for the traffic, rather than using his or her on-board ultra high speed multiple processor computer, simultaneously integrating high fidelity multi-scan audio and visual inputs --eyes, ears and brain ----and all produced by unskilled labour.

 

One of the demonstrated safety problems with "mandatory radio" is/was the almost automatic (even sub-conscious) implicit assumption that all you can hear is all that is there ---- completely excluding all the versions of digital dysfunctions (finger trouble) that prevent you hearing other traffic.

 

"Mandatory" ADS-B IN would only compound the problem, and remember that no cockpit presentation would be "safe" for close-in maneuvering --- all to do with scale presentation versus position accuracy, you wouldn't want to turn into something you thought you were turning away from, the reason why TCAS11 only has pitching escape commands.

 

 

However, I would be the first to say that a traffic presentation in front of you is a great aid to seeing some of the traffic, before you get to the circuit ------ but it is NOT essential for effective "alerted see and avoid", either in the circuit or en-route.

 

"Nice to have", but not "need to have" as in "mandatory", that word that seems to only appear, aviation-wise, in Australia.

 

Might I suggest that you have a look at some of the more substantial responses to the JCP re. ADS-B, and then consider why the "requirement/demand" for mandatory ADS-B for almost all aircraft, in a short timetable, all "subsidized", was dropped like a hot brick, once the proposal got to senior management levels in the Government and airlines.

 

No major airline ever agreed to the industry funded cross subsidy for GA ---- that was pie-in-the -sky, the low level functionaries who talked about that were not the ones who had their hands on the purse strings.

 

There is no airspace in Australia where the traffic levels are anything like the US, and US is only planning to make ADS-B mandatory where transponders are already mandatory, above 10,000' and withing 30 nm radius of a Class B airfield. And then only by 2020, and a lot can change. Unlike here, FAA does not require a transponder in Class E airspace below 10,000'.

 

The US dual system (UAT and 1090ES) means that relatively cheap UAT stand alone boxes are already available, now, from GARMIN and FreeFlight (ne. Trimble) ---- there is no need for a high end (not just any) Mode S transponder.

 

Just a few point:

 

(1) Have a look at the FAA ADS-B NPRM industry objections by the Air Transport Association and National Business Aircraft Association, based on high cost for no benefit ---- in other words, even the FAA proposal fails any cost/benefit test.

 

The FAA do not regard ADS-B as anything but a datalink for ATS purposes, and certainly NOT as a substitute for TCAS.

 

The two CASA "cost/benefit" studies were incompetent. Even in the JCP, it is NOT a cost/benefit analysis, as the process is generally understood, and as defined by such guidelines as the Productivity Commission or the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR). All the CBAs only covered ADS-B OUT, but many of the claimed benefits (most, like SAR, quite spurious) required ADS-B IN and low level surveillance.

 

In fact, most of the savings (to AsA) were going to come from the fact that the adoption of mandatory ADS-B was going to mean most aircraft (and all IFR) would have a forced fit C145 or C-146 GPS, and thus AsA would be able to pull out all but a handful of VORs and all NDBs.

 

Even then, the benefits were hugely miss-stated, by people who didn't understand IFR rules, including that you can already do GPS/NPA approaches, with a C-129/129A GPS. The only IFR "saving" revolved around alternate criteria and flight planning.

 

AsA "active disinterest" in WAAS meant that aircraft in Australia would never have the biggest (in my opinion) on-board benefit of C-145/146 GPS, precision vertical guidance, allowing an IFR approach to Cat 1 ILS minima at virtually any airfield.

 

No saving there to VFR at all. And the saving claimed did NOT require an ADS-B to have a C-145 or C-146 GPS available. Again, have a look at the GARMIN range --- some of which ( various 400/500 series) cost about the same as a Drifter.

 

(2) On the local scene, it has cost around $350-400,000 to enable ADS-B OUT (only) on a Dash-8. More than 10 times the JCP proposed subsidy to Regional type aircraft.

 

Interestingly, throughout the JCP, it was rather obvious that somebody didn't understand the difference between C-145 and C-146 TSOs, somehow equating one with VFR and one with IFR.

 

(2) If ADS-B IN is available to a TCAS ( the RTCA standard is long in place) the additional functionality, compared to a return from a Mode C transponder (or even another TCAS 11 equipped aircraft) is precisely ZERO. Last time I looked, neither Airbus, nor Boeing, offered OEM ADS-B/C IN for TCAS, as there is no customer demand.

 

(3)In the local airline scene, the ATC benefits of ADS-B OUT to the airlines has not been demonstrated in $$$ terms. There is not enough traffic over continental Australia to give savings from reduced separation. Since RVSM, being forced to cruise $$$ off optimum altitude or optimum route is rare.

 

(4) In terminal areas, MLAT provides the same functionality as ADS-B for ATS, but only requires aircraft to have a Mode C transponder. See AsA trials and plans for MLAT.

 

(5) AsA never had any plans to make ADS-B generally available below 30,000' and in most areas where there was any significant traffic, there is already primary and SSR coverage that is now going to remain.

 

(6) About 95% of Australia's population is going to be covered by new Primary radar (as per the US) because SSR or ADS-B has no national security functionality.

 

The baddies wouldn't operate their transponder ADS-B in the "Off Mode" if it was "mandatory", now would they???

 

(7) Even to provide ADS-B down to 5000' AGL across Australia was going to mean about 350 extra ground stations (versus the present 30 or so), and to do what?

 

There is not the satellite capacity to handle that, right now, satellite transponder capacity is at a premium, and we don't have the land based infrastructure (reasonable bandwidth land lines) to handle terrestrial transmission of the data from many geographically isolated ground station to the ATC Centers.

 

(8) One of the most amazing calculation, to show the complete unreality of the JCP ADS-B proposals, was done by the local Avionics Association.

 

They showed that, to make the proposed timetable for "mandatory ADS-B OUT" ( if the equipment was available, which is still isn't at an affordable price) and with the available avionics LAMEs, they would have had to drop all other avionics repairs or installation from then until the cutoff date for the mandate (2013??), and then they still wouldn't make it.

 

ADS-B/C/X has some interesting potentials, aircraft to aircraft separation (as opposed to a rough idea of SOME of the local traffic) is not one of them.

 

It should be, but the whole basis of the original Free Flight concept has been hijacked to completely reverse the original concept of less ATC intervention and much reduced collision risk---- to greatly increased ATC intervention.

 

Remember, the definition of ATC: To concentrate a few aircraft, in a vast and empty sky, over a point, creating a collision risk, and thereby justifying an ATC system.

 

Never ever discount the "rice bowl" effect, or "proponent bias" in any proposal, but particularly any Government/Semi Government proposal, especially when they are enthusiastically supported by those who will make a buck out of the supply of equipment.

 

More than 10 years ago, I was involved in the development, including trials, of an ADS-B system, including IN and OUT with traffic displays, and a previous poster is correct, the material costs, off the shelf, is quite low. The basic software is just that, basic.

 

The cost of development and certification (including patent licenses) is another thing altogether, and no non-TSO system that can be received by an ATS data antenna is ever going to be permitted.

 

Regards,

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes.

 

Thanks for the effort Bill. We are going through troubling times. Nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Thanks for you views, Bill.

 

Any system that was designed for self-separation would not require any ground stations at all and would work so long as the two aircraft are in line of sight of each other. If CASA/AsA wants to use it to keep an eye on us, they can put some listening posts around the country. It makes much more sense to have an air-to-air system that ground listens in on than to have an air-to-ground system that air-to-air gets shoehorned into. ADS-B as proposed certainly isn't required for it. Why on earth CASA is pushing for this is beyond me.

 

Fortunately for now, nobody is building the boxes (how can they without finalised standards?) and there aren't enough engineers around to install them. Call me again in 2020 when (well, if) they've figured out what they want and how to do it. If it still requires 5-10 grand at least to put in the boxes, I suggest we all tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine and take a stand; together we're strong.

 

Let's hope McCormick gets tired of the job soon and his replacement has some sense.

 

 

[bilby54]

You must excuse my ignorance, but am I right in assuming that the above term refers to Dash-8 etc?

No not Dash-8's as I have never had a problem operating with them in the area.

 

My comment was more towards the newer light twin pilot building time to eventually fly Dash-8's. There seemed to be the old attitude even from some low time commercial pilots that if you don't have a radio then you cannot be safe.

 

I think Bill H summed it nicely with his eyeball - brain - joystick description, even the Dash-8 pilots report me visual. I think that there is a culture in some training centres to forget to tell pilots that they have to look outside every now and again (a bit off topic)

 

 

[HEON]

I mouth off about CASA but think they may have a point in that a large number of pilots should not be allowed behind the wheel of a peddle cart!

 

On Sunday I went to the Gatton fly in where it was very evident that a considerable number of both GA and RAA pilots did not know what an ERSA was (or possibly could not read) as it states quite clearly that there is one LH and one RH approach to the runway depending on which one you used...or was that an inability to tell which way they were going and which direction was which?

 

Then there was the landing of two aircraft at the same time from different directions! The runway is arround 800m long! Was it chicken or did not see; did not care? Over heard one conversation where it was said "thats the aircraft...GA by the way...that did @&$%*^! at Watts Bridge at their flyin a few weeks ago".

 

I am not an instructor but have around 450hrs...think I can notice stupidity when i see it!

 

How about an aircraft doing a straight in approach with around 6 other aircraft in the circuit?

 

How about at least two aircraft turning base and final in front of at least two other aircraft allready on final?

 

I happened to be the first aircraft to arrive at the flyin. What I saw rearly makes a case for CASA that the only way they can save pilots from themselves is to make it impossible for any GA or RAA pilot to take off in any light aircraft...did not have a chance to view RPT pilots as 800m runway prevents most RPT's having a go/being seen at Gatton! (excluding one old, red, twin, ex-RPT, bi plane that not only looks beautiful but is flown the same way!)