CASA Consultation Paper (760 kg) Published.

[Garfly]

Nicely argued, walrus (and turbo, too).  But I hope 2(c)'s "practicable" would make it tough for any prosecutor to nail you on that, even if you happened to be (responsibly) 'transponding' your details at the time.

 

Still, I'd love to know what CASA's reasoning is regarding this rule change.

 

I wonder if it's about trying to clear up the wild-west of G space surrounding terminal areas used by IFR flights, more than, say, VFR/VFR separation in Big Sky country.

 

If so, IMHO it'd be more effective to donate TCAS conspicuous gadgets to all recreational craft and make sure that IFR types have the capability to detect and avoid them (when standard radio comms just don't cut it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Garfly

[facthunter]

If you fly in valleys, hemispherical levels just can't be applied and don't even think of LSALT. You are VISUAL   andmust stay that way... Nev

[Garfly]

True, that'd not be practicable by any measure.  One is encouraged to separate laterally in valleys, by keeping to the right.

[RossK]

I was taught that it's best to fly hemisphericals whenever you can, regardless.

Hypothetical.

I'm flying a track of 175deg at 3500ft and approaching a 3000ft plateau, cloud base is 5000ft, so leagally I can punch through there. But, the plateau is covered with tiger country. 

I can deviate track to 165deg and follow a valley with a floor of 1500ft around the plateau, but at the southern end I have to track back 6nm on a heading of 200deg before picking up my track of 175deg.

What altitude do I fly that 6nm on 200deg heading at - is it practical to descend to 2500ft and then climb back up when I resume track -  the leg is less than 4 minutes.

[facthunter]

This is an example of getting "thing" about Quadrantal when there are bigger issues. Fly the safest way in the circumstances and if you have low ceilings be able to do a turn around. IF you are climbing or descending, hemi's are not an issue. With the AGL allowance you can be just below the cloud and I would avoid any situation like that where someone could descend on top of you making an approach to a nearby airfield. Stay away from known descent paths and be active on the area frequency. You don't want low visibility situations with traffic without positive separation. Use EVERYTHING you have at your disposal to maximise your safety.  If it's too dicey postpone the idea.   Nev

Edited December 6, 2021 by facthunter

[Garfly]

19 minutes ago, RossK said:

I was taught that it's best to fly hemisphericals whenever you can, regardless.

Hypothetical.

I'm flying a track of 175deg at 3500ft and approaching a 3000ft plateau, cloud base is 5000ft, so leagally I can punch through there. But, the plateau is covered with tiger country. 

I can deviate track to 165deg and follow a valley with a floor of 1500ft around the plateau, but at the southern end I have to track back 6nm on a heading of 200deg before picking up my track of 175deg.

What altitude do I fly that 6nm on 200deg heading at - is it practical to descend to 2500ft and then climb back up when I resume track -  the leg is less than 4 minutes.

 

Ha, ha ... yeah, good question. 2,000' is a helluva hill climb for no good reason.

How about just tracking direct from the south end of your valley diversion to the destination? Depending on how far away it is, it might keep you on the [very] odd+ side of the hemisphere.  😉 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Garfly

[RossK]

7 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

How about just tracking direct from the south end of your valley diversion to the destination? Depending on how far away it is, it might keep you on the very odd side of the hemisphere.  😉 

There was/is another hypothetical mountain in the way 😁

[gareth lacey]

these posts should be its own ,this should only be about the increase in weight for experimental and lsa aircraft 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by gareth lacey

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, gareth lacey said:

these posts should be its own ,this should only be about the increase in weight for experimental and lsa aircraft 

 

That should also be in its own thread. This thread was about the consultation period which ended months, or even years ago.

[Flying_higher]

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

Nicely argued, walrus (and turbo, too).  But I hope 2(c)'s "practicable" would make it tough for any prosecutor to nail you on that, even if you happened to be (responsibly) 'transponding' your details at the time.

 

Still, I'd love to know what CASA's reasoning is regarding this rule change.

 

I wonder if it's about trying to clear up the wild-west of G space surrounding terminal areas used by IFR flights, more than, say, VFR/VFR separation in Big Sky country.

 

If so, IMHO it'd be more effective to donate TCAS conspicuous gadgets to all recreational craft and make sure that IFR types have the capability to detect and avoid them (when standard radio comms just don't cut it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its my understanding that this rule has been changed to align with ICAO SARPS. 

 

And as someone said previously, the reality is that most people fly hemispherical in cruise regardless of how low you are to ensure it gives a little protection against a collision event. In busy airspace along the East Coast this is very much advised.

 

In terms of deviation, from the standard hemispherical level, whilst this is an item of strict liability, there may very well be operational reasons such as cloud, turbulence or terrain that stop you from being able to operate at the correct altitude. In this case one would simply make a broadcast on the area frequency (if carrying a radio) and what you're doing. Eg, "Traffic in the Ivanhoe area, ABC is a C172 is X miles from Y, tracking to the north east at non-standard 6500 due terrain/weather. Traffic in Ivanhoe area". 

 

Finally, I think low-cost ADS-B with an IPAD for ADS-B (IN) is a great addition to any cockpit in the enroute environment - so long as we understand its limitations and knowing that not everyone has ADS-B and therefore it won't pick up all traffic. In saying that, as it becomes more accessible the benefits will certainly improve too.

[RossK]

On 02/12/2021 at 2:00 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

now we find that the rest of us are to be restricted to flying under 3000 ft!

 

Now I am faced with an awful choice... fly dangerously low or fly illegally.

Hi Bruce,

unless i've missed something (which is possible) there is nothing in the new rules that is forcing us to fly under 3000ft. The radio requirement is still above 5000ft in class G

The only extra burden is to fly the VFR cruising levels if above 3000ft.

[Garfly]

On 03/12/2021 at 10:12 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

Well I am reassured that the 3000 ft is not some sort of limitation after all.

Yeah, nah, that's been sorted already.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

On 6/12/21 at 9:22 AM, Garfly said:

True, that'd not be practicable by any measure.  One is encouraged to separate laterally in valleys, by keeping to the right.

Ah nope. 
valley and mountain flying principles are you fly on the downwind side of the valley, 1/3 of the way up the slope. 
that’s where the least lethal turbulence is. 
if you fly on the right and that’s the upwind side in the rolling turbulence of strong  winds you might be slammed into the ground and dead before you get to the end of the valley. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Jaba-who

[Garfly]

Yes, that's true, one is encouraged to keep to the right (of any prominent linear feature enroute) only when it is otherwise practicable.  Same as hemispherical levels.

 

Click to expand:

 

 

https://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/mountain-flying-2.php

 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Garfly

[kgwilson]

The NZ PPL has a Mountain rating which we don't have here. I flew in the mountains all the time over there as it is pretty mountainous especially in the South Island. When completing my PPL 40 years ago even before the rating came about the CFI would get students to fly up a valley that got narrower towards the top & explained the procedure and always ensuring you were on the correct side and had an escape route (180 deg turn) as often the tops would be in cloud. The exercise was to have a fictitious cloudbase & a plan to fly up the valley through a pass and down the other side of the range with a couple of practice reversals along the way. It was good practice that I used in real life situations a few times.

[Garfly]

52 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

The NZ PPL has a Mountain rating which we don't have here. I flew in the mountains all the time over there as it is pretty mountainous especially in the South Island. 

That puts me in mind of this mountain-flying training-film (40') made some years ago by CAA NZ:

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Garfly

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a video " 180 seconds to live " where they flew up a valley and got trapped. Just like your training thing kg. Only not with the good result.

 

[Garfly]

 

If that's the "178 Seconds to Live" one then I think it's more about VFR into IMC:

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

That puts me in mind of this mountain-flying training-film (40') made some years ago by CAA NZ:

 

 

 

That brings back some memories. On a good day there is nothing more spectacular than flying in the Southern Alps in a C172. I'd love to fly my own aircraft there as it has a much wider performance envelope than the C172.

 

I took a C172 to the 2000 Warbirds over Wanaka and after a day at the show 4 of us took the aircraft to Milford Sound from Queenstown. All paper Maps with no GPS and dead reckoning then. With 3 pilots & only 1 passenger the shared workload made everything much easier. To get up to 10,000 feet after takeoff from Queenstown with 4 blokes & full fuel meant full power all the way up the lake and the river valley that feeds the lake. That was over 30 NM & then we kept climbing till we turned up a valley & crossed a range over the Holyford valley, then followed the valley West till we got near the coast & the mountains dropped away & flew up Milford Sound to the strip at the end. The mountains drop vertically to the sound below with spectacular waterfalls and mind blowing scenery.

 

I had to fly past the airport up a valley with vertical sides & bush everywhere do a 180 and land facing the sea all the time being thrown all over the place by mountain turbulence. Adrenaline stopped me noticing all this and when we finally taxied in, I got out & almost collapsed on the ground from exhaustion. We then went on a boat trip up the sound & I was a sight seeing passenger on the way back.

 

I don't think they let anyone do this these days. Best flight of my life.

[walrus]

I love the base leg at Milford Sound and the final turn by the cliff.