CASA discussion paper

[Guest basscheffers]

Bill, you may be correct today but I don't think your correct to assume the same of the future. I'm a farmer, won't be that long before we're using small UAV's for detailed crop imagery. unanimous, ie:no human intervention, means these aircraft wont see and avoid you if you don't broadcast your position, no problem for us, we'll just get the airspace over the farm declared a danger area. enter at your own risk!

Don't you mean autonomous?

Anyway: you are forgetting one tiny itty-bitty detail: you too will be required to carry the hugely expensive, certified, heavy and power hungry ADS-B equipment in your low-cost and efficient UAV if you want to share the airspace with us - being in a restricted area will not save you from that obligation.

 

Do you really want that? Or would you like to work with the rest of us and agree that your UAV will stay below 500 feet and we will stay above that - as we are already required to do.

 

It will save us both 30 grand and we'll both still be perfectly safe.

 

 

[apm]

Don't you mean autonomous?

probably, it was late.

 

you too will be required to carry the hugely expensive, certified, heavy and power hungry ADS-B equipment

correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the discussion paper was more aimed at the merit of ADS-B. I thought the idea of flying VFR is to see and be seen, ADS-b assists in this so I have no objection to it in principal. I do object to losing access to airspace.

On the cost and size of the current equipment, I agree totally. but I see that as a separate discussion, I believe that IF ADS-B is implemented as described in the paper, CASA would be hard pressed to force that equipment onto us without a fairly major revolt. I may be naive and I'm no EE, but I cannot see why a mobile phone size and cost device couldn't be developed over the next few years for VFR aircraft. would be accurate enough for conflicting traffic to get a fast visual fix.

 

well that's my $0.02 worth, I hope everyone reading this thread has responded to the paper.

 

Andrew

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the discussion paper was more aimed at the merit of ADS-B.

The DP sets a very specific timetable for implementation. So to me it is more than being about "do you think ADS-B is a good idea." If we don't act - and act beyond the realms of just responding to the DB - this is what we'll get.

 

I believe that IF ADS-B is implemented as described in the paper, CASA would be hard pressed to force that equipment onto us without a fairly major revolt.

I would hope so. Hopefully enough of us would keep flying in class G without the equipment. The problem is that if you finish your homebuilt after 2013, you won't even get a CoA without the equipment installed.

 

I may be naive and I'm no EE, but I cannot see why a mobile phone size and cost device couldn't be developed over the next few years for VFR aircraft.

You are not an EE and nor am I, but you are spot on technology wise. An ADS-B like device (not using mode-S!) could be made small, inexpensive and reliable. In fact, something close to it exists and is in use. It's called UAT, what the US uses for lower airspace. (but still won't require anywhere in class G) A few thousand dollars in equipment would get you ADS-B in and out.

However, CASA has mandated mode-S transponders. Now we have had Mode-C for centuries and you still won't get a Mode-C transponder installed for less than $2500. Mode-S is an extension on Mode-C, so I don't see why all of a sudden the transponder would become more affordable. Mode-S transponders you can buy now (with no GPS built in!) cost a minimum of $5K.

 

On top of that, you need a certified GPS. The only certified GPS people now fly around with are the likes of the Garmin 430W. These types of GPSs have cost many thousands for decades now. I don't see what miracle might occur to make them affordable all of a sudden.

 

And this is currently for ADS-B out only. There is not a single, production Mode-S ADS-B in solution in the world! Even the airlines don't have it. Whenever you see ADS-B in equipment advertised, it's the American UAT system.

 

would be accurate enough for conflicting traffic to get a fast visual fix.well that's my $0.02 worth, I hope everyone reading this thread has responded to the paper.

I hope so too, but judging by some of the comments in this thread, I think there are still a lot of people here that by the time this becomes law, cheap equipment will be available, as promised in the DP.

The fact is: it won't be. Maybe around $5K by 2020, but certainly not by 2013. So even if you think having traffic info is a good thing (which I think it is), the technology chosen and the way it is forced on us is all wrong.

 

Stop this now, then we can talk about a truly affordable and effective alternative.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Reminder to those who haven't responded yet - the closing date is Nov 30 so one week left to oppose this nonsense !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[DKM1]

Has anyone looked at the CASA discussion paper lately, I just checked and what I have just read is completely different to what was up there the other day.

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Perhaps john mcormick will sacrifice some of his huge salary and donate all the equipment, or mebbe ralph norris will chip in a few months salary.. shouldn't make much of a dint in 16 mill per annum...

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Well, i've just spent the last couple of hours reading and attempting to digest this CASA discussion paper and I am left with the overall feeling that CASA just doesnt even consider airspace under 10,000 ft (or us small beasties who populate this airspace) as worth while dealing with.

 

The whole focus of the DP seems to be RPT aircraft, at or above FL110, or within 20NM of of busy airports (yeah, its a simplification, but stay with me), and I sorta think it was written with that focus, and that RA aircraft and Class G under 10,000 ft got dragged into the DP either as an afterthought, or that a cut and paste exercise from a previous DP went unedited.

 

That's not to say that it is not worth your time putting in objections or comments - far from it. But the whole focus and tone left me wondering.... (and more than a little worried.)

 

And just another thought - can we get the RAA board to post their response to this discussion paper somewhere on this forum?

 

Cheers

 

Gerry

 

 

[facthunter]

Response from RAA.

 

Lee Ungermann went to bat on issues like this. Let's see how the current people respond. THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD.

 

This is a very important issue. What guidance are we gettng from our leaders?

 

They are too close or influenced by CASA. Join AOPA on the understanding that THEY do someting for the essential grass roots aviators SOON. Nev

 

 

[Rotaryman]

Casa

 

remember the CASA Motto.

 

Here at the CASA We Are Not Happy Till Your Not Happy..

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

Hi Guy's,

 

I've been quiet on this one but a couple of days printed out the discussion paper - sat down and read it all.

 

Conclusion , we should all be concerned - in fact very concerend. Whilst it is written mostly around and for the "big boys" it would - or will have huge implications for all of us if implemented.

 

In a nutshell - after 2020 we would all need ADSB-out for all practical purposes since there is the very real possibility that many areas that are now classed as "G" airspace will change to class "E".

 

Also the 20nm zone around class "E" would delegate us to the scrub!, since it would be class "E" to the ground.

 

I suggest - like others - to submit your own opinion to CASA asap. Time is running out.

 

fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[bilby54]

I have asked CASA to define their term "busier regional aerodromes" as that is left open for all sorts of interpretations and directly affects many of us.

 

Qantas Link have increased services to many western centres but are in the stages of retiring the smaller Dash 8's to the larger 400 series to reduce the number of flights so does that make the aerodrome less busy? As they have stated in the discussion paper Quote: " The probability of these risks is quite low presently but increases with increasing air traffic levels."

 

 

The other bit that caused me some concern was quote: "At these locations, collision risk mitigation is the responsibility of the pilots, operating aircraft with a wide range of capabilities and equipment – from new generation Boeing 737 with multiple navigation, communication and traffic alerting systems to ultra-light aircraft with a single pilot and perhaps one radio. While operating practices have been effective to date,"

 

All CTAF's have required the carriage and use of radio for some time now so why the sly remark about ultralight aircraft and OMG, only one pilot! Incidently, all of the crew change aircraft, RFDS and aeromedical Kingair's have only one pilot.

 

I personally don't have an issue with increasing safety through electronic means but I do not want it or see the need in the current climate to have it forced on us. The other point to make is that some pilots (I am trying not offend here) don't bother looking outside to see conflicting traffic but rely heavily on TCAS and I think that is when the collision risks escalate.

 

We all operate very well with RPT traffic so there is something more underlying with this 'discussion paper' and the pollies usually leak something before they implement it.

 

I hope everyone has their say and make a response to this

 

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Jetstar pilot Joe Eakins sacked for questioning airline safety | News.com.au

 

If the airlines are prepared to sack a pilot for voicing safety concerns then it begs the question why CASA even listens to them, let alone give them carte blanche to push around other aviation operators in Australia and slyly slag off knowing that they are being less than professional all the while. McCormick and CASA and the airlines have big problems Of their own making) and very little credibility it would seem. Its about time some one or some groups with intestinal fortitude called them to account, to do the RIGHT THING. For all of us not just ex RAAF et al... this is getting embarrassing for Australia and Australians .. its getting all very farcical..SAD sad sad...

 

 

[facthunter]

Sacked for commenting on reduced safety.

 

The Bloke is a hero. It is a BAD look for the airline and IF the management had any real appreciation of the likely reaction of the Union who HAVE to support the pilot, they wouldn't have done it. UNLESS...

 

Perhaps ( MORE LIKELY) the management WANT to bring on a dispute so they can bring the SUPERCHEAP foreign pilots in to help the airline get their passengers around over Xmas.

 

Check out WHO owns most of Jetstar. Nev

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Check out WHO owns most of Jetstar.

Air Marshall,

Don't you mean ALL of Jetstar.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

My reply to the union thing in a new thread, as it is off-topic for this one.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/general-discussion/125623-pilots-vs-unions.htm

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Back to topic: ADS-B and the DP. I did an interview with Bill Hamilton on this subject for the Plane Crazy Down Under podcast. Look for it in iTunes to put it on your iPhone/pod/pad, or listen direct on the website:

 

Episode 48: ADS-B: C’est un pétard! – with Bill Hamilton « Podcasts « Plane Crazy Down Under

 

 

[Chrism]

Podcast

 

Dear BAs,

 

Thanks for that interview-absolutely fascinating especially for one who is not to tech savy and very new to the game.

 

I take it then Bill's advice is to bombard the MINISTER and POLITICIANS as well as CASA.

 

I have just done the latter-may I encourage us all to do the same.

 

Chris

 

 

[DKM1]

CASA Discussion paper 1006AS closing date for comments, has been extended to the 14 December.