Class E Airspace

[Wilfred]

<a href="http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/amend/2006/cao95-55amdt1.pdf" target="_blank">

 

Civil Aviation Orders 95.8, 95.10, 95.12, 95.12.1, 95.32, 95.54 and 95.55 have been amended to allow sport and recreational aircraft operations under V.F.R. to be flown in Class E airspace in V.M.C. Further information is available on the CASA website.

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/amend/2006/cao95-55amdt1.pdf</A>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This was posted on the CASA website today.

 

Has anyone heard anything . it appears to allow us access to ClassE airspace.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

This looks to be correct, however it does not mention anything about the use of a transponder, which to date is required. Additionally, much class E airspace is over 7,500ft, thus many people flying in RA-Aus aren't meant to be there unless the terrain conditions require it - this has been discussed here many times before.

 

Therefore, it looks like if you are RA-Aus Registered you can enter Class E airspace, WITH a transponder (until I hear otherwise about the transponder).

 

 

[Wilfred]

Yes you must have a transponder and and radio on the required frequency andyou will need to have a need (terrain) to be above 5000 feet.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

I always wondered what the strict definition of needing to be above 5,000' is.

 

Myunderstanding was the minimum height you needed to be to glide clear of terrain in the event of engine failure.

 

Flying in FNQ we originally had to get special dispensation from Air Traffic Control to go from sea level to Atherton Tablelands (strip was at 3,300') and height was 3,000 (Cairns Traffic). Even then, we had to take a route that was almost suicidal. (ultimate tiger country they'll never find you or get to you)

 

Eventually it was recognized as a route for ultralights

 

By the way a few guys tuned their 2 strokes to that height as they lived thereand went into meltdown at sealevel.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Ultralights]

i heard a rumour that class E will be lowered to 500ft AGL.

 

maybe the change to allow RAA registered aircraft into class E

 

is in preparation for this??

 

 

[Wilfred]

CASA say that there are no projects underway at present that will change Class E to 500 feet.

 

If this ever happens and it is a pssibility in the future it will make radios & transponder use mandatory in all aircraft.

 

Probably a good idea in any case

 

 

[Paul Willett]

Generally A085 is the Lower Limit of E in East Coast Australia - this means at 8500 you are in G airspace, but above in E requiring Transponder. (Radio required above 5000 anyway, so it's a moot point).

 

However, there are some exceptions to Lower limits - around Mildura and Dubbo are two examples (from memory).

 

E is generally promulgated where Radar Coverage exists, and around high performance RPT routes in to regional areas.

 

The lowering of E airspace is being considered if low level surveillance improves. One way of doing this is through ADS-B, however, this is a lot further off than is often 'talked up'. Paul Willett

 

 

[PaulN]

This subject was discussed at length earlier and unfortunately (but understandably) the posts have been lost in the transition to the new forum. If memory serves me right the thread was prompted by Paul Willett.

 

Being keen on air touring I wasinterested to know the impactthat the changes would make for recreational flyers so made the effort to discuss with RA-Aus and CASA early on. From what I understand the change to bring E class down into G class was to afford better control/service for IFR flights only. Changes had to be made to the wording of the CAO otherwise rec a/c would be illegal in the new Class E areas, thus the amendments reported above. You will note in the Explanatory Notes of the above CASA link that control will be exercised only with IFR traffic and that traffic such as ours being limited to VFR in VMC will not be imposed (?)upon. Also, I'm led to believe that the use of a xpdr in Class Eis not a requirement for rec a/c. That said, I choose to use one on all flights ... see and be seen is good, especially when I have to climb over 5000' for pilot discretion safety.

 

Paul

 

 

[Wilfred]

Class A, B, C, D & E are classified as Transponder airspace

 

Transponder capable of Mode A & Mode C

 

"In Class E aircraft can operate without a clearance but they must carry and have turned on a mode C transponder"

 

 

[Paul Willett]

6. SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR (SSR)

TRANSPONDERS

 

6.1 Aircraft Requirements

 

6.1.1 All aircraft must be fitted with an operable Mode A and Mode C

 

SSR transponder for operations within classes A, B and C

 

airspace and any class of airspace at or above 10,000FT AMSL.

 

Aircraft operating in GAAP control zones are exempted from this

 

requirement.

 

6.1.2 All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted

 

with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously

 

powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode

 

A/C or Mode S SSR transponder when operating in Class E

 

airspace.

 

Note 1: Mode C operation requires the provision of pressure

 

altitude information to the transponder equipment.

 

Note 2: Procedures for operational use of SSR transponders and

 

transponder codes are detailed at ENR 1.6 Section 8.

 

6.2 SSR Transponder Exemptions

 

6.2.1 General exemptions against the requirement for carriage of SSR

 

transponders are in force for aircraft certified without an

 

engine-driven electrical system; eg, balloons, gliders and antique

 

aircraft.

 

6.2.2 Specific ATC exemptions against the requirement, for carriage of

 

SSR transponders, for the portions of flights subject to a

 

clearance, may be available subject to agreement with the

 

relevant ATC unit as follows:

 

a. For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder, but

 

without operating automatic pressure altitude reporting

 

equipment having a Mode C capability, the request may be

 

made at any time.

 

b. For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to

 

the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate

 

stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be

 

made or both, the request may be made at any time.

 

c. For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a

 

transponder, the request must be made at least one (1) hour

 

before the proposed operation.

Reference: AIP GEN 1.5, 6.2.2 Paul Willett

 

 

[PaulN]

Thanks to Turtle and Paul Willett the advantages of using this forum come to the fore once again. Your remarks gave me cause to do more research on the CASA and RA-Aus web sights. I stand corrected and thankful for your combined input.

 

My understanding of the requirement for xpdr in Class E airspace was wrong, the use of a Mode C transponder is mandatory, although specific ATC clearance is not required. The freshly revised (today) page of the RA-Aus web site is particularly helpful being free of the precise and cross referenced jargon that CASA uses. It's pleasing to know that RA-Aus is keeping their (our) site current. http://www.auf.asn.au/navigation/airspace.html

 

Cheers,

 

Paul<a href="http://w" target="_blank">

 

</A>

 

 

[Wilfred]

Its great to see the site is providing the knowledge base to improve our flying . Lets hope it also provokes the powers to be to notice theinadeqacies in the RAA training. I think Tony has been flogging this issue for ages. With a good percentage of RAA aircraft performing to the same or better standard than GA (speed and Range) its clear that RAA training is not keeping up. Procedural knowledge and the ability to operate precisely and correctly in high traffic situations is just not there with a lot of RAA operators and is also percieved by a lot of pilots to be unneccesary. There is a lot to be said for the GA online BAK exam as a part of the RAA licence and navs that are more in line with the aircraft to be flowns performance.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi

 

As I said previously there needs to be a different licence category between those that want to fly traditional to those that want to fly defacto GA aircraft.

 

For traditional, simple procedures, simple requirements. With some restrictions.

 

For defacto GA, well, must by necessity invovle much more training. With limited restrictions.

 

The situation as it stands at the moment means someone who learnt, say, on a Thruster originally can rush and buy a 200knot rocketship complete with retracting undercarriage etc with NIL experience on type. Sooner or later someone will cause an "incident" Goodbye privaleges.

 

Something must change NOW especially with proposed 720kg category in the wings. I believe it has come to this stage for this to happen.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I think that this has been a problem for a long time. the need to seperate the requirerments for licensing for as you say traditional vs persado GA is long overdue. there should be further training/endorsments required when stepping up in performance/type. it would be good to see a FAR103 type class with minimal requirememnts and sensible restrictions as to were and how to fly the lower perfomance ultralights. then a middle performance performance/weight catagory, then the pesado GA's with full on training. the line brtween GA and ultralight is very fuzzy.

 

it would be interesting to hear about those who did just step up and how they prepared for the transition. may help to promote others to seek futher instruction

 

back in the scary days it was not unusual to see someone stepping up from a scout into a sapphire or grasshopper. fun to watch but sometimes it did end in tears.

 

more comments on this please ozzie

 

 

[Paul Willett]

Being fairly new to the RAA scene I can't comment so much on transitioning from smaller slower types, but as one who has transitioned from much bigger faster types I can attest that a reasonable percentage of the growth in the RAA numbers have done exactly the same thing. Therefore there is a growing collective experience level of PPL's , CPL's and ATPL's who are also RAAus Certificate holders. This has responsibilites for the new RAAus members for sure, but the point is that most who are flying these faster types (from what I have seen anyway) tend to have a reasonable amount of previous experience.

 

Admittedly my observations may be completely different to the majorty view out there - what do you think?

 

When deciding on remaining with GA flying or coming to RAAus, one of the things that actually convinced me was the very professional approach taken by the school where I did my RAA training.

 

It is indeed true that a few bad apples can spoil it for the majority, and our conduct needs to be seen to be the equal or better of the GA fraternity. Most of what I see suggest that so far it is.

 

Paul Willett

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Start probing this a little more my gentle-folk. Rumours from the top have it that a "fast" and "slow" licence / certificate could be soon introduced. Stay tuned (or make some calls) for further info!

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi Clem

 

Probably overdue. But one wonders where the division will be? Or what other conditions will attach.

 

Maybe by max top speed? or Vne or open cockpit? Stall? or a combination There will be some grumbling no doubt.

 

Anyone have any ideas on the fairest way for division to happen BEFORE it happens. Please Post.

 

My suggestion would be for slow speed, max Vne 99 knot (this is the figure for max VNE without balancing flight controls, so it's not arbitary)

 

Offshoot it may happen to revitalize the lower end that has been languishing for a while but not really detract from hot and heavy catergory.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Admin]

Anyone have any ideas on the fairest way for division to happen BEFORE it happens. Please Post.

Micgrace

Mike, my personal opinion (and not of this site ) is that the division would have to be decided based on the objectivefor the division. For example if the objective is to provide safer circuit seperation between slow and fast aircraft then the division should be based on speed. But, if the objective was to provide say a differentiation between easy and hard aircraft for ab-initio training then the division may be flaps or no flaps - as an example.

 

Just my penny's worth!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

we now have a safe circuit seperation based on speed thru different levels in the patten, altho i am not too keen on sharing with helicopters.

 

as i said in above post, a Far 103 type catagory of something close to the original 95:10 will open up the industry at the lower end enable a easier and cheaper entry level that will feed the upper higher perfoming markets when they have the inlincation and or money to move up. (working baby boomer vs retired boomer$) i could afford a nice little rocket but with the rising cost of fuel, hangerage and fees and more fees i would not be able to fly it as much as something i can keep in a trailer and fly from a paddock. i'd put the upper limit of this lower catagory as single seat Thruster types 50/55 kts max,then 80/85kts max cruise, thenup tothe grey area of entry into GA. that makes three seperate groups

 

jump in any where your finances allow. just more training in the upper classes before they let you loose. the other turn off at the moment for lower end ie cheap aircraft. you can buy a Jeep for instance for $3/4000 then pay almost as much for your training. much of it is not relevant to the aircraft you are flying.

 

[Now there is a new catagory of "ultralight" that has been labled as "Nanolights" by the HGFA.Trikes, flying wings, ect., weighing in under 75 kilo. This will be a great entry level for those wanting to get into trikes ect but are unwilling to spend up to 30 grand on something they may roll into a ball. ]

 

If this could be approached in a sensible way it can only be to everyones benifit somewhere along the way. a long negleted end of the sport will be revieved and more industry created, by allowing a more afffordable entry point. Thatmeans more members and potenial customers for aftermarket goodies. Schools get to train more new pilots and then again when they 'feel the need', or retire and can finally afford what they really want. They now have a sound basic knowledge and experience when they move up. There fore the standard that they achieve when they complete the transition will begreater. they will be able to keep up with thefaster aircraft from lesson 1, and get in front of it soonerplus have better retention on the subject being taught. makes for a better class of pilot. Now, not saying that the lower endmust be the place to start, but for someone who wants to tinker with rag wings and victa engine, or buy a simple low power off the shelf machine and be content, this is way to go and move up anytime they wants. For the more affluent," please step right this way toour showroom and flight trainingsections and we will soon have you in an aircraft that you can't keep up with." (remember to send memo to spares dept.).

 

you fly the catagories that you have in your license. so if you have only 2 or 3 then no sneaking off totry one of those 'thingies'. and so forth.

 

What aircraft to use for ab-nitio training has been and will always usually begoverned by what aircraft is the most cost effective.

 

more debate please

 

ozzie

 

 

[Wilfred]

One way of looking at it is that there is no real need for lower catagory less prcedural licences, just individual aircraft endorsements. Perhaps the problem is more, that some of the pilots in the slower older aircraft have a perception that they do not need as much training as those in the newer faster aircraft. this is not really correct. There is nothing worse that going into a remote strip maybe a CTAF and finding that the unsafe and dangerous circuit practices relate to the attitude of a number of pilots that feel that as they ony fly at "muckadilla "in a slow old aircraft that they dont need to follow the same procedures as everyone else, Comments like "old bill only flys on thursdays and he doesent like to taxi the full lenghth of the strip so he takes off from the centre taxiway,oh also there is no mandatory requirement for radio calls so why bother to learn which calls should be made".. i am sure a lot of the crys are not for easier less complex requirements for slower aircraft, but more for the need for more comprehensive training for all RAA pilots so that our sport is safer for everyone. If any additional costs, and i am sure there will be some, are incurred , so be it, you cannot put a price on safety. There is obviously a need for training that takes into account the higher performance of some aircraft but that should be covered with those individual aircraft endorsements.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i was thinking more along the lines of a GA endorsment for the RAA

 

certificate, whereas students will train in subjects more

 

suited to GA style of flying, not only in performance factors, but way

 

of navigation. theroy in the use of VOR etc. but obviously not a

 

GA licence, just borrow from the GA syllabus.

 

from what i see, a majority of the plastic fantastic pilots and

 

owners are, like myself, Ex GA or current GA licence holders, and have

 

come over to the RAA for the fredoms and lack of costs involved. and a

 

lot more positive and club type atmosphere.

 

I feel there is definatly a need for licence groups, as like

 

myself, i hold a RAA certficate and GA licence, but would definatly

 

find flying a drifter or a Thruster a difficult machine to handle.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi

 

Looks like a can of worms has opened with the mere mention of a potential division. If something happens as least we have some foreknowledge?

 

As for the objective for the division, who knows what will exactly happen (or no) as yet. No doubt training would invovle a listing of restrictions that apply.

 

A basic licence would have to have some operational restrictions compared to a higher licence caregory licence.

 

The GFA has a "a" , "b" , "c" licence catergories with expanded privaleges for each catergory and the training at beginning level is no less intense. This wouldn't change but I'd imagine it would be appropriate to the licence catergory.

 

I'd actually expect operational standards to rise not fall as there becomes a clearcut division.

 

I'd imagine the commercial operators would rise to the occassion if there became a clearcut division and fill any resulting market gap as happens every time weight limits are lifted.

 

As it stands you can pretty well fly anything you like. This has started to come to a head as some types now come with the lot and I'd be the first person to get training in type if buying.

 

The mention of nanolights is interesting presumably could be registered in RAA? I might add I know very little about this catergory. I rather like the comfort of a long thick plank with 3 axis.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi ultralights

 

I presume you obtained the RAA certificate before the added tailwheel endorsement came into being.

 

Both types keep you on your toes whether taking off or landing. I am of the opinion this endorsement was a good thing. Although it must make things a little difficult for the guys/gals who get their certificate on nosewheel type to get the endorsement nowdays.

 

I had to learn in these types as that was it.The instructor who originally taught me, actually taught himself to fly at least those days are gone (thank God)My first attemtps at controlled flight (on ground ) werelaughable, more like a druken sailor in a stiff breeze. But I mastered them.

 

There is another problem with these types. Climbout speed is very close to stall. I still have the habits to this day, much to the annoyance of the GA type instructor when practicing stalls when doing renewal. Fast or dead in this type.

 

Also swing out on takeoff can nearly take full rudder to prevent a groundloop on some low speed types. Do not underestimate the piloting skills required to fly these.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

I beleive that there will be a speed attached to the licence. I apologise for not recalling exactly what it is, however I know the Gazelle fits into the lower speed category which would be a shame because as an example if a student got their certificate in a Gazelle, they would need to "upgrade" theircertificate to the Jabiru or similar.

 

 

[Paul Willett]

As mentioned a couple of posts up, what would be the problem with simply gaining endorsement for each type?