Latest OzRunways

[Downunder]

The reason casa will not do this is because the "system" is not 100% reliable, overheated ipads, out of range of radar or mobile data etc. 

 

CASA don't actually have to do much. Just facilitate the means of the existing "providers" to share data.

 

Most of it (traffic) is available now.....so I don't see a problem.

 

The big one would be air services radar and adsb paints.....that would be "magic" if it happened.

 

The context of the data and traffic would be exactly as it is now.......It's not like I'm suggesting this be used for primary navigation or anything,  just basically situational awareness to perhaps prompt a radio call....

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs I'd love you to expand on this cryptic answer. What particular regs are you referring to and how will they allow every pilot access to reasonably reliable traffic info, without costing more than a thousand dollars installation  and expensive annual maintenance? 

 

There's nothing criptic about the answer.

 

Start with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CARS) and the Civil Aviation (Safety) Regulations 1998 (CASRS) and follow the outflowing paths from there, and THAT will show you your legal obligations.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't think Turbs understands what we are discussing unfortunately. 

 

I did, and particuarly the suggestion that CASA should interfere with the operations of people in aviation by forcing a company to disclose its Intellectual Property to a competitor. That's fantasy stuff.

 

No doubt there were regulations before vhf radios became common and/or compulsory. 

 

As radio technology developed it became the new "norm" to have one. The skies became safer. 

 

We are on the same track with having most traffic visually available on a single screen. 

 

This will add another layer of safety. Will it be perfect? 

 

No, probably to the same degree the vhf radio system is not perfect. 

 

Will it be better than what we have existing now? Most definitely! 

 

I've been referring to the regulations we have to comply with now. In no way am I against improvement in performance but no one has authorised you to abandon your current obligations under CARS and CASRS. If people under the present system are required to have a minimum standard of equipment/instruments, an appropriate standard of training and certification to use that equipment, and someone has a better idea, that needs to go to CASA and the idea needs to be processed in a safe manner.  That's a better way than inevitably inviting an Audit.

 

 

[Thruster88]

CASA don't actually have to do much. Just facilitate the means of the existing "providers" to share data.

 

Most of it (traffic) is available now.....so I don't see a problem.

 

The big one would be air services radar and adsb paints.....that would be "magic" if it happened.

 

The context of the data and traffic would be exactly as it is now.......It's not like I'm suggesting this be used for primary navigation or anything,  just basically situational awareness to perhaps prompt a radio call....

 

You can do this yourself on the tablet. https://tx.ozrunways.com/ will show all ozrunways if you are not a user, I think avplan have a similar site. Flightradar24 app will show all the mode S(adsb). Aircraft with mode C or no EFB or EFB with traffic turned off obviously cannot be seen, maybe 50% of all aircraft at a place like Cowra. 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

There's nothing criptic about the answer.

 

Start with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CARS) and the Civil Aviation (Safety) Regulations 1998 (CASRS) and follow the outflowing paths from there, and THAT will show you your legal obligations.

 

Turbs I am grateful to you for the links, but you seem to have no bluddy idea what I've been saying. Are you suggesting that if all pilots brush up on our legal obligations that would be improve safety as much as much as full traffic awareness?

 

I did, and particuarly the suggestion that CASA should interfere with the operations of people in aviation by forcing a company to disclose its Intellectual Property to a competitor. That's fantasy stuff...

 

Fascinating reaction to a suggestion that our safety authority use its influence to improve cooperation between the various Nav. software apps. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs I am grateful to you for the links, but you seem to have no bluddy idea what I've been saying. Are you suggesting that if all pilots brush up on our legal obligations that would be improve safety as much as much as full traffic awareness?

 

It shouldn't be too hard to find the sections on navigation and separation; then you can see for yourself.

 

Fascinating reaction to a suggestion that our safety authority use its influence to improve cooperation between the various Nav. software apps. 

 

Even Safety Authorities are required to stay within the law; this was the statement, which wasn't the watered down version you're offering:

 

"This is where our supposed "SAFETY" regulator steps in and makes the children play nicely together.... 

 

All data (OR, Avplan, airservices and flight radar) could be gathered and sanitised, then redistributed..... "

 

"Steps in and makes" outside the regulations is not a power CASA has, apart from the fact that hundreds of amateurs cobbling up their own instruments on bargain basement tablets then attempting to fly on the result would be more likely prompt CASA to bring on another audit than anything else.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Oh dear. I don't think I'll bother any more.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oh dear. I don't think I'll bother any more.

 

Well at least think of the thousands of others using the airspace before going off half-cocked.

 

 

[aro]

The big one would be air services radar and adsb paints.....that would be "magic" if it happened.

 

Avplan do use ADSB paints, sourced from one of the internet sites I think. Their traffic seems to be much more comprehensive than OzRunways as a result. Perhaps being denied OzRunways traffic prompted them to get traffic from a much better source? Here are some screen samples from both, showing the same areas within a few minutes of each other:

 

Avplan

 

 

OzRunways

 

 

Avplan also source traffic from a glider network which is nice:

 

 

OzRunways:

 

 

The only additional traffic Avplan would be likely to get from OzRunways is non-ADSB OzRunways users, and OzRunways traffic outside the coverage of the ground ADSB network.

 

 

[Tasmag]

Avplan do use ADSB paints, sourced from one of the internet sites I think. Their traffic seems to be much more comprehensive than OzRunways as a result. Perhaps being denied OzRunways traffic prompted them to get traffic from a much better source? 

 

I have only ever used Ozrunways, but this capability is something that would make me take a second look at Avplan.

 

Mike

 

 

[Downunder]

I believe avplan have been showing 3rd party adsb data for a while.

 

I thought this would have prompted OR to follow suit but it appears not to have happened.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I have just bought a new iPad and put ozrunways and the trial AvPlan on. Will play with them both and see how it goes but the traffic stuff with ads is much better than ozrunways so far

 

 

[Tasmag]

Still only useful in 3g service area though. The ADSB-pi fixes that. Limited range though!

 

Mike

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Been laid up this arvo got a cancer cut out of my leg so laying on the bed. Been taking advantage of this time to play with both EFB. I have used oz for quite a few years now so reasonably familiar with it but most of this latest version is similar but there are a few things they have done which I am going to have to read some literature on it....I have been playing with avplan and never having used it I managed very easily to do what I wanted in dropping in a waypoint and doing a plan and it really wasn’t a drama. So far I am running 60/40 toward avplan now. Some say it’s not as intuitive as oz but to my brain it’s making a bit more sense in the tabs and the way it’s done. Got a lot more playing to do yet though but I do like avplan so far

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Many times I have tried to meet up with another glider in the air so we could fly together. It's a very hard thing to do because the sky is just so big compared to gliders and planes.

 

It has been calculated  that if everybody flew with their eyes shut, there would be a collision or a near miss on average once in 20,000 years in Australia. That is without a concentrating factor. Airfields are concentrating factors, and so are airspace boundaries. My recommendation is to open your eyes at these places. Maybe a radio call too.

 

So while the possibility of a midair is theoretically  there, the fact is that the risk of an enroute midair is so small that it is negligible.

 

I would put the risk at less than a millionth of the risk of an engine failure.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Many times I have tried to meet up with another glider in the air so we could fly together. It's a very hard thing to do because the sky is just so big compared to gliders and planes.

 

It has been calculated  that if everybody flew with their eyes shut, there would be a collision or a near miss on average once in 20,000 years in Australia. That is without a concentrating factor. Airfields are concentrating factors, and so are airspace boundaries. My recommendation is to open your eyes at these places. Maybe a radio call too.

 

So while the possibility of a midair is theoretically  there, the fact is that the risk of an enroute midair is so small that it is negligible.

 

I would put the risk at less than a millionth of the risk of an engine failure.

 

I would suggest having a look at the ATSB reports. An academic was drowned in a creek of average depth 1 metre. Taking into account all of outback Australia for that calculation was ridiculous. Logic would tell us that since an aircraft has to take off from an airfield and land at another, concentrations are involved there, and since the 95th percentile of aircraft flights of private aircraft take place around the small area of settlement in Australia  we would expect the number of collisions to be roughly what ATSB reports.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Many times I have tried to meet up with another glider in the air so we could fly together. It's a very hard thing to do because the sky is just so big compared to gliders and planes.

 

It has been calculated  that if everybody flew with their eyes shut, there would be a collision or a near miss on average once in 20,000 years in Australia. That is without a concentrating factor. Airfields are concentrating factors, and so are airspace boundaries. My recommendation is to open your eyes at these places. Maybe a radio call too.

 

So while the possibility of a midair is theoretically  there, the fact is that the risk of an enroute midair is so small that it is negligible.

 

I would put the risk at less than a millionth of the risk of an engine failure.

 

Back in the 90's I was flying a Tobago from Waikerie to Tailem Bend. I noticed to my left a plane, and that plane stayed in the same spot on my window for quite some time. We were on converging tracks for Tailem Bend. I did a R.H. orbit to let him get ahead. Had I been sleeping he may not have seen me and that could have been nasty. I guess VOR's and NDB's are concentrating points as well.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Back in the 90's I was flying a Tobago from Waikerie to Tailem Bend. I noticed to my left a plane, and that plane stayed in the same spot on my window for quite some time. We were on converging tracks for Tailem Bend. I did a R.H. orbit to let him get ahead. Had I been sleeping he may not have seen me and that could have been nasty. I guess VOR's and NDB's are concentrating points as well.

 

I had much the same experience flying in to Albury a few years ago. Flying next to an Air Truck about two miles off, slightly converging.

 

 

[kgwilson]

That's right, most of the time flying you see no other aircraft except when getting close to an aerodrome, an area of convergence. I remember listening to a speech by Tom Neil a Battle of Britain veteran who said most of the time during the battle they would go up looking for Luftwaffe and never see a thing. When they did it was absolute chaos.

 

 

[Airmover]

Both Ozrwys & Avplan are amazing BUT they have also increased the risk of a midair due distraction inside the cockpit etc and deadly (for want if a better word) accurate! Recently I was tracking NE in Nth NSW at 7500' in my plane A/P on, clear skies doing a little over 200 kts GS and out of the corner of my right eye this large white/blue B58 zoomed past me like an ICBM heading NW, same Alt frightened the bejesus out of me! Didn't show up on my Ozrwys, be great if everyone talked to each other electronically!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Both Ozrwys & Avplan are amazing BUT they have also increased the risk of a midair due distraction inside the cockpit etc and deadly (for want if a better word) accurate! Recently I was tracking NE in Nth NSW at 7500' in my plane A/P on, clear skies doing a little over 200 kts GS and out of the corner of my right eye this large white/blue B58 zoomed past me like an ICBM heading NW, same Alt frightened the bejesus out of me! Didn't show up on my Ozrwys, be great if everyone talked to each other electronically!

 

But they don’t and that’s the point I was trying to make a while back. Which is why we have separation training, and why we flight plan certain ways. 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Well at least think of the thousands of others using the airspace before going off half-cocked.

 

Turbs I find this quite insulting.

 

It seems you have made up your mind about what I am trying to say and nothing can change that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs I find this quite insulting.

 

It seems you have made up your mind about what I am trying to say and nothing can change that.

 

There's nothing to make up my mind about; none of us have any legal exemptions, I've referred you to our obligations.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

There's nothing to make up my mind about; none of us have any legal exemptions, I've referred you to our obligations.

 

Turbs you're a clever man; how about you just explain, in simple terms even I can understand, how your legal documents have anything to do with a suggestion made by a number of us, that would improve safety.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs you're a clever man; how about you just explain, in simple terms even I can understand, how your legal documents have anything to do with a suggestion made by a number of us, that would improve safety.

 

The documents are not my documents, they're CASA documents which will explain the boundaries for anyone wanting to use ADS-B.

 

As far as I know they haven't changed since I last referred to them, but you should check for any updates, currency etc.