Tell us about your last flight

[Garfly]

54 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

Thanks Garfly, forgot to add that I’m RAA and have to stay out of controlled airspace and also that I long ago let my ASIC lapse due to lack of use.

Yeah, apart from the ASIC issue, as far as I know, you can still access YTWB remaining OCTA, and avoiding the Military Romeo's most of the time.

 

Maybe some locals could fill us in on that.  I'd be interested anyway.

[kgwilson]

Last time I was at Warwick it was pretty cruisy. They have model aircraft & gliders operating & the fencing was very basic (only farm 7 wire fence around most sides) & no gates so ASIC is unlikely to be an issue. LF is $12.00 & parking $12.00 a day after the first 24 hours.

[Old Koreelah]

14 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Last time I was at Warwick it was pretty cruisy…

Yes, I’ve had good experiences at Warwick (I was born there).

I once flew there for a family reunion after phoning around for hangarage.

Some nice strangers went away that same weekend and let me park in their empty hangar.

 

I’ll try for a spot a bit closer to Toowoomba.

[RFguy]

SO

Reading through the rules again, there isnt any requirement for TSO grade ADS-B OUT  in Class E airspace. So SkyEcho is fine as a 'tail light' .

There is , as I interpret it, a requirement for at least Class C transponder (transmits altitude).  Class E is buzzing with IFR flights. You are expected to maintain your altitude like a tiger. (and observe Axxx / FL region changes of course) , keep an eagle ear on the radio,  and steer clear of IFR routes and it is polite to advise center of your intentions if no flight plan or otherwise.  (AIP 3.2)
Be sure to understand how the transition layer varies with area QNH (CASR Part91 MOS 11.02)
-glen

Edited June 24, 2023 by RFguy

[pmccarthy]

My latest flight was today, William Creek to Wentworth. Check out the ground speed, 155 knots. Not bad in a Vixxen!

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

SO

Reading through the rules again, there isnt any requirement for TSO grade ADS-B OUT  in Class E airspace. So SkyEcho is fine as a 'tail light' .

There is , as I interpret it, a requirement for at least Class C transponder (transmits altitude).  Class E is buzzing with IFR flights. You are expected to maintain your altitude like a tiger. (and observe Axxx / FL region changes of course) , keep an eagle ear on the radio,  and steer clear of IFR routes and it is polite to advise center of your intentions if no flight plan or otherwise.  (AIP 3.2)
Be sure to understand how the transition layer varies with area QNH (CASR Part91 MOS 11.02)
-glen

 

Glen, are you're saying that you think the clarification I got from RAAus (as quoted above - and, in more detail, below) is wrong - have things changed?:

 

 

From: Gary ..........................
Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 6:31 AM
To: RAAus Policy <[email protected]>
Subject: Update on lowering of Class E airspace

 

Dear RAAus team,

 

your update today regarding the proposal to lower Class E made no mention of what seems to be a relevant implication; the CASA ‘concession’ to recreational craft to substitute relatively cheap EC (Integrated TABS) devices for TSO’d transponders in Class E.

 

CASA ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-23 v1.0 

Excerpt:

"Apart from an integrated TABS device able to substitute for a transponder in Class E & G airspace, lower cost options are not intended to overcome any existing requirement to carry a transponder, in any class of airspace.”

 

I’m not saying that this makes the proposal okay, not at all; but it does appear to be part of the grand CASA strategy (and a way to dampen resistance from the VFR crowd). Anyway I’d have thought that at least some engagement wit this gambit ought to be part of any response. 

 

The SkyEcho2 device, for example, seems to qualify under this concession. As you know, it's stand-alone portable unit that can even be moved between (uniquely registered) aircraft. So carrying one may indeed overcome many of the objections we, as a group, might otherwise raise.  It might even make some things better for our sector, such as clearance-free transit overhead Class D at Coffs. However, if, indeed, mandating this kind of device (at a minimum) is what CASA (in their obfuscating way) is intending, then why don’t they come out and say so?  

 

They should reveal their hand if they really want ‘consultation’.

 

 

BTW, this issue has been heavily canvassed in recent days on Recreational Flying forums but it seems nobody knows for sure what’s going on.

 

https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/37213-lowering-class-e-between-melbourne-and-cairns/

 

all the best,

 

Gary ..... (RAAus pilot/member)

 

 

On 27 Jan 2021, at 6:22 pm, RAAus Policy <[email protected]> wrote:

 

G'day Gary,

 

Thanks so much for your email. 

 

It totally agree with your notion that as an industry, and I mean all stakeholders including the regulator, need to work together to come up with solutions that work for all, with little or no impact. Of course the EC devices are a terrific situational awareness tool however, as you'll find in CAO 20.18, these are not able to be used by ATC and therefore do not meet the requirements of transponder fitment in Class E. 

 

The safety benefits of EC devices are real for us pilots, but because of the technical standards we're told by the regulator and Airservices that the integrity of the positional source information and because of the low wattage of the SkyEcho2, for example, it's not suitable for use by ATC and therefore it's filtered out of their radar picture.

 

Happy to discuss further.

 

Cheers

 

Matt Bouttell

CEO RAAus

 

From: Gary ...........
Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2021 7:45 AM
To: RAAus Policy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Update on lowering of Class E airspace

 

Hi Matt,

 

Thanks for getting back.

 

So what do you make of the quote from the CASA circular that I included in my mail?

 

They clearly say that Integrated TABS (SIL<=1) - such as a SE2 - can be substituted in Class E.

 

Is it false?  Has it been rescinded? What gives?

 

If you have clear info that contradicts the CASA statement above then it’s urgent that we know about it.

 

Even right now for ops in Class E.

 

Please refer to the Rec Flying forum I mentioned. 

 

https://www.recreationalflying.com/topic/37213-lowering-class-e-between-melbourne-and-cairns/  

 

 

I gather, from various CASA documents that it’s not only ATC visibility that’s in their thinking but also CDTI tech being aboard all regional RPT craft.  I reckon they figure that if RPT all have ADSB-in info displayed they can take over some of their own separation responsibility in E (as they do now in G) as long as everyone in the space has some kind of conspicuity going. And, in any case, a SkyEcho2 type device is likely, in practice, to be visible to ATC in terminal areas low power notwithstanding.

 

What say you?

 

gary.

 

 

From: RAAus Policy <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Update on lowering of Class E airspace

Date: 27 January 2021 at 7:04:59 pm AEDT

To: Gary .......

 

Hey Gary,

 

An integrated TABS device is not an EC device, such as the SE2. These are two different things. If you take a look at CAO 20.18 Appendix XIII (for integrated TABS) or Appendix XIV (for EC device) you'll see that an integrated TABS device must meet the technical specifications for (E)TSO-C199. and have a SIL of 1.

 

I think this raised the issue of how complex this matter is. People are confused as to the proposal but also the requirements as they stand today.

 

We'll make mention of this to Airservices (whom I'm meeting tomorrow) and CASA at the earliest opportunity to ensure the current requirements are made clear.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[RFguy]

The Skyecho is not a high accuracy device.  That's the problem. 

I am surprised that SkyEchoes are even permitted given they can transmit bogus positions.

 

WHAT THAT DISCUSSION you point to is about- Is the question of whether a TSO Transponder  can be substituted by a Skyecho - and the answer is NO.
 

The TSO transponder is still the gold standard, and required for working with industry facilities like TCAS etc.  SKyecho, being a non ship power item, with a variable fix performance is not an acceptable substitute.

 

 

 

 

 

[Garfly]

49 minutes ago, RFguy said:

The Skyecho is not a high accuracy device.  That's the problem. 

I am surprised that SkyEchoes are even permitted given they can transmit bogus positions.

 

WHAT THAT DISCUSSION you point to is about- Is the question of whether a TSO Transponder  can be substituted by a Skyecho - and the answer is NO.
 

The TSO transponder is still the gold standard, and required for working with industry facilities like TCAS etc.  SKyecho, being a non ship power item, with a variable fix performance is not an acceptable substitute.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I thought.  

 

That email exchange was not about whether a SkyEcho2 was a substitute for a TSO'd transponder, per se.  Clearly not the case.

It was about trying to get clarity on the meaning of the following limited exception:

AC 91-23 v1.0   "Apart from an integrated TABS device able to substitute for a transponder in Class E & G airspace

 

Thus the issue came down to the definition of "integrated TABS devices" and it turns out that I had misread part of the CASA docs in that regard.

That is what Matt from RAAus corrected me on.  But even in that exchange we did canvass the related issue of whether IFR cockpits had to have ADSB-IN CDTI (cockpit display of traffic information) which, I believe, they (still) don't and whether ATC filters out EC devices, which, I gather, they don't anymore, necessarily.  Those are what seemed to be the sticking points for ECs in E, rather than any perceived inadequacy of the SE2 to do its job as advertised.

 

However, I thought maybe things had moved on when you were suggesting that a SE2 might be okay as a 'tail-light' in Class E. 

 

(I think I might have missed your drift  ;- )

 

Anyway,  seems we all agree that the great unwashed need to stay well clear of the upper E classes unless carrying a transponder that will definitely trigger TCAS and definitely be seen by ATC.   At least until ADSB-IN CDTI is mandated for all IFR flights (as is already the case for ADSB-OUT).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Garfly

[RFguy]

Yesterday had probably the closest call I will ever have . I was mid - late downwind (doing Xwind exercise  circuits) and an aircraft 'joined base' and  flew across my nose, .. no notice. no radio call.  about 2 seconds gap. same height. 2 seconds faster on the downwind and I'd be dead. geezus. I had ADSB , other aircraft did not. Didnt see them by sight or by conspicuity device.  I remarked 'that was close' calmly but scared the sh1t out of my passenger (also a pilot) . The student piloted  aircraft was previously  turning crosswind when I was touching down on my T&G , so I was looking for that aircraft on late base in the air. The guess is they did a very deep wide circuit.  mutter mutter. I would never had seen them to my right , looking over into the town background.

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by RFguy

[facthunter]

You still need the Mk1 eyeball and a lot of lookout and some luck.  Nev

[Garfly]

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You still need the Mk1 eyeball and a lot of lookout and some luck.  Nev

My takeaway from Glen's story was that the old MkI Ball needs EVERY BIT of help it can get, when it comes to avoiding midairs.

Which is what the safety authorities have been on about for yonks; most recently by way of urging (subsidising) voluntary VFR ADSB uptake.

And, yes, luck is in large part self-made.  (Though, in these cases, universal uptake would be the greatest luck of all.)

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Garfly

[facthunter]

The "Circuit" can be a most dangerous place  IF there's a lot of traffic there, how would you avoid "clutter". WE used to have local TOWERS. .  YOU need to KNOW where EVERYONE is. TCAS gives avoidance info/directions.  I don't wear the "Big Sky "Theory. Near misses are just luck.  Better RADIO procedures would help. Nothings changed in 50 years  and may have gotten worse.  . Nev

Edited June 30, 2023 by facthunter

[RFguy]

and avoiding  this was purely luck..... more arse than class.
been doing alot of different aerdromes lately. I've started to modify my inbound approach to a circuit if there is any traffic or activity  such that I am unlikely to encounter arriving and departing traffic on straight ins straight outs even 5 miles out... (regardless of altitude)  by coming over the dead side at 1500' and doing the steep sweeping descending 180 turn down to circuit height to  midfield cross wind, so I maximize my chances of seeing things, and see what's going on the taxiways and runway. 

 

In busy circuits, there are good reasons for quick position calls on all the segments - despite the radio traffic increase which is sometimes discouraged..  It doesnt have to be your life story.  quickly said Traffic Cowra Delta Romeo Foxrot  base three-three Cowra. Doesnt even really need to word "Turning" or life stories like " intends to do a T&G after eating lunch and calling my mum:".

Additionally, aircraft with one radio might go onto the AWIS from the CTAF and will miss radio calls. 

 

 

 

[Garfly]

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The "Circuit" can be a most dangerous place  IF there's a lot of traffic there, how would you avoid "clutter". WE used to have local TOWERS. .  YOU need to KNOW where EVERYONE is. TCAS gives avoidance info/directions.  I don't wear the "Big Sky "Theory. Near misses are just luck.  Nev

 

Yeah, a busy circuit is more akin to city motor traffic conditions than any chunk of big-sky. 

Everyone is, by design, on the same level, which is both good and bad.  (Visibility is often less reliable in the air.)

TCAS doesn't apply either.  It'd be screaming spurious Resolution Advisories at you constantly.

Some kind of ADSB CDTI (Cockpit Display of Traffic Information)  doesn't need to be cluttered to show you any converging threats.

And contrary to the straw-man objections you don't need to be staring at it any more than you stare into your mirrors on the road.

In Glen's case a mere glance would have picked up that other aircraft on a wide circuit - if only it had been equipped.

(After all, he was expecting it to be ahead of him but already on base. Your MkI eyeball can't 'look' at the whole scene like a CDTI can.)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Garfly

[kiwiaviator]

Glad you were able to tell the tale Glen. I hope the supervising instructor has been fully briefed on this incident. We lost two fine pilots and people on a base leg collision a few years back. They weren't as lucky as you. I also think training aircraft should have ADSB fitted for many reasons.

[RFguy]

Now, I will get my ADSB-B TCAS style device out the door very much seriously.
Yep, supervising instructor was briefed. They are my neighbours so we all need to live together, which is good because it drives objectivity in the post event chatter.

[Markdun]

Consider installing a smoke system which you turn on in the circuit…that might make you more naked eye visible to others.  Glen, the other thing with a passenger is to enlist their assistance in eyes out of the aircraft, because as we know, most ppl are doing pre-landing checks on downwind (distracted) & mainly concentrate on outside visual observation for other aircraft just before turning onto a circuit leg. Yeh I know that even that, as is all ‘see & avoid’, will be crap because the human eye/brain is just not effective in picking up ‘non-moving objects’ in the sky; ‘see & avoid’ fails at the ‘see’ because you just don’t see intercepting traffic.

Raymarine and Lowrance also produce low power(digital) 360 degree 10nm radars which ought to pick up other boats/aircraft ~$3k.  The radome is a cylinder about 50cm dia & 15cm high. They are normally bolted onto a yacht mast spreaders, but I’m sure you could fashion a streamlined fairing to mount above the fuselage in front of the vertical stabiliser.

[RFguy]

smoke. yes.
Yeah I like the marine radar idea. I've thought a handful of cameras could pick them up, also.   A ground based system could also figure it out.  However, ADSB on all ships make that much easier...

However, if the flying school is not going to fit new transponders to all their fleet (although they have not specifically declined this- they MIGHT now)   (about 16 aircraft  I think) then I'll have to be defensive and have detection measures. The NVFR and IFR aircraft all have ADSB likely due to required / likely upgrades . 

 

It was like someone ran through a stop sign in front of me. 2 seconds max distance. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by RFguy

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

However, if the flying school is not going to fit new transponders to all their fleet (although they have not specifically declined this- they MIGHT now)   (about 16 aircraft  I think) then I'll have to be defensive and have detection measures.

They can't be persuaded to at least go for Electronic Conspicuity (SE2) at $500 a pop (subsidised)?

[RFguy]

problem is with itinerent / school aircraft is that there isnt any regime for keeping them charged

AND in the metal PA28 , the position performance is  "wholy inadaquite"  unless they're out  of the shadow of the metal skin under the windshield in front of the passenger .  which is no good.  so, they need to have the transponder upgrade which is notr so cheap because you got to put a GPS receiver into the roof skin which involes making a hole, a doubler plate, running a cable etc etc. 

 

This sort of problem would be mitigated with a dual receiver that talks to the other to get a composite picture of the sky. 

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, RFguy said:

and avoiding  this was purely luck..... more arse than class.
been doing alot of different aerdromes lately. I've started to modify my inbound approach to a circuit if there is any traffic or activity  such that I am unlikely to encounter arriving and departing traffic on straight ins straight outs even 5 miles out... (regardless of altitude)  by coming over the dead side at 1500' and doing the steep sweeping descending 180 turn down to circuit height to  midfield cross wind, so I maximize my chances of seeing things, and see what's going on the taxiways and runway. 

 

In busy circuits, there are good reasons for quick position calls on all the segments - despite the radio traffic increase which is sometimes discouraged..  It doesnt have to be your life story.  quickly said Traffic Cowra Delta Romeo Foxrot  base three-three Cowra. Doesnt even really need to word "Turning" or life stories like " intends to do a T&G after eating lunch and calling my mum:".

Additionally, aircraft with one radio might go onto the AWIS from the CTAF and will miss radio calls. 

 

 

 

Your "arrival" technique, was what was taught to me, in the erly 1919"s. - Arrive well above circuit height (+ 1000 ft) , call "over the top etc" joining intentions, descend on "dead side" to circuit height, join as stated. This gives the pilot time to "suss out" -  traffic, windspeed direction, etc AND gives other active aircraft your position, relative to a known geographic location, altitude & intentions.

[facthunter]

Descending onto other possible traffic is a bad situation. You were also taught to  clear your nose regularly when CLIMBING. For visibility the Biplanes have the worst of both worlds. What's the equivalent process when descending?? This sort of thing happens on finals too when everyone is tracking for the same spot. The runway threshold.. Without some control it's all up to you. Nev

[Garfly]

15 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Your "arrival" technique, was what was taught to me, in the erly 1919"s. 

 

2 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Descending onto other possible traffic is a bad situation ... the Biplanes have the worst of both worlds. 

We are so old!!!

[facthunter]

The others have yet to make it. WE HAD the best  times although it was a bit risky.  Going through  the workshops and seeing how it works and is built made it more Hands ON. We knew some of the engines problems from those who fixed them.  Nev

[RFguy]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Your "arrival" technique, was what was taught to me, in the erly 1919"s. - Arrive well above circuit height (+ 1000 ft) , call "over the top etc" joining intentions, descend on "dead side" to circuit height, join as stated. This gives the pilot time to "suss out" -  traffic, windspeed direction, etc AND gives other active aircraft your position, relative to a known geographic location, altitude & intentions.

The trouble starts skip of course when there is no wind and some are going off north, some going off south..... no dead side. I am very cautious in that case.
NEEDLESS TO SAY. I AM  NEVER, EVER GOING TO LET THIS NEARMISS HAPPEN TO ME AGAIN.  BY GADGETS OR WHATEVER