Lowering Class E between Melbourne and Cairns

[SplitS]

We should be lobbying for class E and D transit if we are fitted with a Skyecho2 or equivalent. This would be a big plus for rec aviation and increase safety for very little cost around busy centers. It would also open up class D for RAAus aircraft and mean they could do what they like with the current class G to E coastal proposal.

We would be lobbying from a position of "improving" safety with very little cost burden to us. 

[Thruster88]

The approval of the SkyEcho2 type EC devices seemed to happen without the usual long time frame.  I wonder if air services/ casa want to get enough units out there to see how effective they are, a big experiment before approving them for use in the new lower level class E.

The use of EC devices in the new E would be a sensible compromise for low end VFR aircraft. If everyone has an EC device or better it will be a good thing in my opinion.  

[Old Koreelah]

Whatever they do, let’s hope they get it right the first time, allowing everyone to invest for the long term. If I can trust them to not change requirement for a few years I would be happy to make a modest investment in a safe traffic system in the belief that almost all traffic would show up.

 

The last thing we need is to leave aviation in limbo, like the decade of indecision we’ve seen with the Fed’s energy “no-policy”.

 

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, SplitS said:

We should be lobbying for class E and D transit if we are fitted with a Skyecho2 or equivalent. This would be a big plus for rec aviation and increase safety for very little cost around busy centers. It would also open up class D for RAAus aircraft and mean they could do what they like with the current class G to E coastal proposal.

We would be lobbying from a position of "improving" safety with very little cost burden to us. 

Well, there's lots of evidence already that Class E transit with a SE2 is assured.

 

Taking this from the recent ATSB report on the accident west of Coffs:

In conjunction with this excerpt from  CASA ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-23 v1.0 

 

"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."

 

suggests they're saying that an SE2 is okay for E transit (no permissions required) but don't expect to be cleared into D or C with one. So even if RAAus gets CTA entry/transit rights you'll still need a proper transponder.  But maybe this is what RAAus should be angling for, at least some CTA entry rights for integrated TABS equipped craft - even though they technically don't meet the higher separation standards.  I don't like our chances but, in practice, SE2 devices will probably work very well in that role, in less dense traffic situations, at least.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Garfly

[Tex]

22 hours ago, horsefeathers said:

Well, it seems no transponder ,no Class E flying.

Bloody ridiculous proposal.

 

I understand Michael Monk is putting a submission together, and would be grateful for feedback from RAA pilots as to how this proposal will affect them.

 

I stopped reading (but will continue too) at this post to make this reply.

 

Where exactly is it mandated "no transponder, no Class E flying"? I can fly in Class E now with out one. Where is the proposal to make it so? I cannot find it.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Tex

[Thruster88]

29 minutes ago, Tex said:

I stopped reading (but will continue too) at this post to make this reply.

 

Where exactly is it mandated "no transponder, no Class E flying"? I can fly in Class E now with out one. Where is the proposal to make it so? I cannot find it.

The requirement is hard to find. It is not in the Visual Flight Guide, a fail on casa.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005B00728/Explanatory Statement/Text

[Tex]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

The requirement is hard to find. It is not in the Visual Flight Guide, a fail on casa.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005B00728/Explanatory Statement/Text

AHH yes the old "engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering" requirement.  Except in a GAAP. HAHA!

[RFguy]

Golly I go away for one day and 1000 posts on a subject.

 

I am all for transponders  or EC devices being mandatory > 1500 AGL, in order to gain improved airspace ops. I am with SPLITS on the position.

 

Easy enough to have a matchbox hanging off the SKyEcho sound an warning dingdong when an airplane is detected on ADSB-IN coming into the region etc.  No need for glass in the cockpit.

 

The is good reason to have an EC device, and I might go the whole hog and get a 200W ModeS-ES why - 
Flying around in country NSW, with a Mode A/C transponder , you keep an eagle ear on Melbourne Centre, listening for if your aircraft is detected by another operator (helicopter, RPT etc) , and.OR ATC gives that aircraft  information about 'unidentified GA aircraft...'  . You pipe up on Centre and provide further information about your intentions, position , heading etc.  With your rego, this  also allows ATC to look up your FP (if you lodged one) and the airspace becomes a cleaner safer place, incrementally.

With a EC device or ModeS-ES ADSB-OUT xponder, much of this info goes out with the bursts and your radio intervention is less required.

Edited January 24, 2021 by RFguy

[Kyle Communications]

I will be running the SE2 in my rebuilt savaanh when it gets flying. Maybe also in the RANS S-21 when it gets flying. The S-21 mission is a lot more than the sav though so I most likely will go with a full blown transponder. This is the one I like..again from Uavionix. It covers even more with the worldwide satellie system monitoring you as well as the normal terrestrial ground coverage

 

https://www.uavionix.com.au/tailbeaconx-exp-tso/

[kgwilson]

Does everything but not cheap at $5,320.00 for the TS0ed model & $4,433 for the non TSOed option.

[RFguy]

Yeah Pricey. I think I'd buy a ModeS-ES Garmin or Bendix  with top/bottom mounted antenna.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

On 22/01/2021 at 7:38 PM, jackc said:

Soon you will need a low level endorsement if you want to fly anywhere 😞.  Will be interesting to see a press release from RAA on this proposal?  They should be all over this like the Black Plague......

Fully aware that a transponder is not a required instrument in RAA aircraft however I fly out of the Sydney Basin (lots of air traffic) so have always had a transponder - basic safety!

[Kyle Communications]

My S-21 will be Experimental VH rego if the 760kg doesnt come in by the time its ready to fly so this is why I would need the full transponder...well dont NEED it but I like the satellite coverage side of it. The reason is my wife and I will be travelling around all over Australia just doing it in a aircraft instead of a 4WD and there isnt a lot of coverage of ADSB out in the never never. of course I will have a satphone with me but to be able to be tracked 24/7 when out there I believe is a good thing. Its going to cost 4k a year to insure the aircraft and I think $4500 for a piece of gear that everyone knows where I am is just another good way of see and be seen. Yes the SE2 is only 900 bucks and I may very well stay with it anyway when I get to see how it works for me while flying Mabel around while building the S-21. I like to have all my bases covered and if thats what it cost...that is what it costs

[RFguy]

I'd suggest a ModeS-ES for busy airspace. although...the skyecho ADSB-OUT though might well sufficiently complement an old Mode A/C transponder.

[Garfly]

4 hours ago, RFguy said:

 

... and I might go the whole hog and get a 200W ModeS-ES ... why - ...
 

Another reason for you to go the whole hog, RF, is you might be allowed to land at your own town's strip (if RAAus>>CTA happens ;- )

[kgwilson]

Tracking is simple and cheap. My Spot tracker cost $180.00 and there is the $200.00 annual subscription. It tracks my GPS location every 5 minutes and anyone I give access to the web site can see this. I can also put in a number of Email addresses for messages to go to when I do a Check in, when I have landed or when ever I need assistance. The SOS feature is the same as having a PLB.

[kasper]

I'll play the OLD FART in the room and ask what about actual old school ultralights and me?

 

My 95.10 self design trike has no electrical system at all, I use a hand held radio patched into my helmet, I have NO fairings or cockpit to attach anything to even if I could power it and it certainly will not be heard over the wind and engine.

 

I am currently limited to 1,700 AGL at my back paddock (5,000 AMSL 95.10 limit less the 3,280AMSL of the paddock) so this is only a 200ft reduction until I try going anywhere away from the top of the mountain ... very similar for my other two 95.10 airframes - flying flea and sapphire.

 

Basically 3 of my airframes become effective unusable to go anywhere unless I stay beloiw 1,500AGL ... and if anyone has tried planning a trip away from Armidale towards the coast or any population centre you might appreciate that this SUCKS as a proposal.

 

Really also gets my goat to talk blithely about it "only" being $1-2k ... I build whole airframes from scratch and use second hand engines scrounged ... I have a 912 powered aircraft sitting in the workshop thats has cost me under $10k total including full instruments and a fitted radio ... not happy to see Rec Aviation gallop at full tilt towards GA regulation and minimums without a safety case for the changes ... convienience for some, being 'seen' to do something by others and and 'its only $2k' are not acceptable in my opinion.  

 

[Tex]

Kasper, do you have a "engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a Mode A and Mode C secondary surveillance transponder". If not, you can fly in Class E without one.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Tex

[jackc]

Well,  time for me to suck it up and just buy a Skyecho 2.

Simplest solution with the most benefit for the future.

[skippydiesel]

Fair comments Kasper - unfortunately this sort of regulation may be acceptable to the majority but a minority (like you ?) suffer.

 

I have no particular interest in the airspace under discussion, however if there has been a significant increase in air traffic density, I can see the logic for adopting technology that may improve safety in this changed situation.

 

Of course we often see the authorities implement rules/restrictions, with little or no logical foundation - just bureaucratic miss use of power. I would not be surprised if you told me this was one of those situations.

[Garfly]

Kasper,

ain't nothin' 'old fart' about all that.

But wouldn't this regulation (as linked to by Thruster above) give you an exemption from carrying a transponder in E?

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005B00728/Explanatory Statement/Text

 

So maybe it's a net gain for your type of ops. (Here's hoping.)

 

Anyway, at present, the SkyEcho is <1K and a standalone battery powered device (c.10hrs on a 5v usb charge) I think CASA are co-operating with makers of this level of gear in order to place the last piece in their puzzle, as they see it, to protect regional operators from errant Sunday drivers.

 

I think I said earlier that they're also probably conscious that a proper transponder might be half the total value of some recreational aeroplanes.

[kgwilson]

Until there is a rule specifying ADSB in/out will suffice OVER a Mode A/C/S transponder a Skyecho 2 may not be enough. At about $900 though it is relatively affordable even though the chipset costs under $25.00

[jackc]

8 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Until there is a rule specifying ADSB in/out will suffice OVER a Mode A/C/S transponder a Skyecho 2 may not be enough. At about $900 though it is relatively affordable even though the chipset costs under $25.00

I guess something that is not over the top in cost, is better than nothing.

Our regulators  don't help because they can’t make up their minds in a reasonable time frame so people can plan for future changes......

[Bosi72]

Regardless of technologies, lowering airspace to 1500ft can lead to higher risks to pilots/aircrafts not wishing to enter controlled airspace. That also gives less opportunities for emergency landing in case of engine failure.

I believe lowering to 3000ft could be a better option.

  

[cscotthendry]

I've just noticed this thread so forgive me if I repeat something someone else already posted.
If what I'm seeing here is right, then CASA is trying to align our airspaces to what they do in the US. In the US, class E starts at 1200’ AGL in most of the country. There are places where it goes down to 700’ but that is noted on their “sectionals” which are similar to our charts all combined into one.
But there is this: we hardly have a fraction of the air traffic the US has AND we have NO potential to have that much traffic EVER. So I fail to see the justification or need for this other than aligning regulations with the US.