Class E

[Yenn]

I got the following as part of an email about Airservices proposal to change class E boundaries..

"As a direct result of industry consultation, we continue to refine the proposal to enhance safety outcomes while balancing airspace access and equity for all airspace users. We have been focusing on clarifying the case for change in leveraging surveillance technology to reduce reliance on visual sighting of aircraft and pilot self-separation, particularly in airspace of increased risk profile".   

I wonder what they are really trying to say and are they trying to be informative or just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. If I read it carefully I come away thinking they may be trying to tell us something, but they don't have any idea of how to communicate.

Can anyone here explain in English what they are trying to say?

 

[Garfly]

Exactly.  What does it mean!!??

 

 

ADSB for all?  

On 20/12/2021 at 2:54 PM, kgwilson said:

 Guess what, today I received an Email from Airservices which includes the following paragraph.

"As a direct result of industry consultation, we continue to refine the proposal to enhance safety outcomes while balancing airspace access and equity for all airspace users. We have been focusing on clarifying the case for change in leveraging surveillance technology to reduce reliance on visual sighting of aircraft and pilot self-separation, particularly in airspace of increased risk profile."

While it is standard Public service speak it looks like they are supportive now of ADSB & not promoting transponders.

You had a good shot at translating that Sir Humphrey talk there, kg, but I'm not persuaded you're right.  For a start supporting ADSB does not mean not promoting transponders which, of course, are ADSB (except the old ones).  And I didn't see the word 'affordable' in there which might have pointed to their support for cheap gadgets for the pensioner.  My guess is that the plan is to get proper transponders into as many aircraft as possible and that the ECD experiment will quietly be shelved (except perhaps for UAVs).  But if there are other bureau-speak experts out there, please chime in with other interpretations. 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:18 PM by Garfly

 

 

[walrus]

Guys, the wonderful world of Uber air taxis and Amazon delivery drones is not going to work without fully automated ATC/Collision avoidance. That will require ubiquitous ADSB. There is no way ATC can manually control traffic of such volume.

 

Think ATC: "QF1, line up and wait, Uber2345 cleared to 4 Privet Drive".




 

[Garfly]

Very true Walrus, we'd all agree.  No doubt protocols will be developed to take care of all that.

 

As it stands, though, most of us have little to do with controllers in our day to day flying ops, anyway.

 

In the here and now, what we need to know is what does that piece of bureau-speak actually mean.  Any ideas?    ;- )

[walrus]

It means that any man made flying object is going to have to have a compulsory electronic tag of some sort, period. Without that, we cannot automate collision avoidance.

 

However, what is NOT said is that such a system requirement also provides Government with opportunities for surveillance, control and ......taxation of aviators.

 

As I've said before, it is a trivial task  to code and build an ADSB based  "Automatic infringement generator" - a virtual universal three dimensional speed and red light camera, that compares everything you do with a regulatory template and flags non-compliance.. Government, via AsA and CASA, will not be able to resist that temptation.

 

Example: .........Not flying hemispherical levels above 3000 ft and when area forecast CAVOK  and greater than 1500 ft AGL- PING!

           

              ........... Infringing controlled or restricted airspace without lawful authority - PING!

 

The CASA fine notice will be in your email inbox before you have even landed.

[Garfly]

Yes, as the RAAus CEO is quoted as saying (in the recent newsletter):

 

“We see this this initiative as not only improving air traffic management surveillance and safety, but it will stimulate aircraft maintenance by supporting jobs and enabling the safe integration of new technology such as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and Remote Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)."

 

And I believe that many drones are already programmed to avoid other ADS-Broadcasting things. And, certainly, when the old Jetsons dream finally awakes to autonomous manned vehicles whizzing hither and thither it'll all need a fully automated collision avoidance system.

 

But then, semi-automatic collision avoidance, in the form of TCAS , has been with us for many a moon. and, as long as pilots still exist, I don't foresee a fully automated system taking over from them in the cockpit. 

 

But back to the present problem (and focussing within the expected lifespan of your average old-school hands-on recreational aviator  ;- ) the problem remains for the AsA/CASA mob - and for all of us - how to keep the mix of current players safely separated in uncontrolled airspace.  And yes, universal ADSB (even in 'manual' or semi-auto mode, for now) is being seen as the answer.   

 

We certainly need to be cynical when it comes to our regulators, but, when all's said and done I think I'm more fearful of a mid-air CRASH than a mid-air PING!  So I'm good with it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Garfly

[RossK]

Translation;

"We have been publicly flogged and have taken time to regroup. Please prepare for a fresh assault on your flying privileges early 2022"

Edited December 21, 2021 by RossK

[KRviator]

IIRC, the 787, A380 & A350 handle TCAS RA's with the autopilot now. I'm sure I read that somewhere, but do you think I can find it now? 😛

The whole "hemispherical levels" thing has a great get out of jail free card though:
 

Quote

91.275  Specified VFR cruising levels

             (1)  The pilot in command of an aircraft for a VFR flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight on a track, the aircraft is flown at a cruising level that is not a specified VFR cruising level for the track.

             (2)  Subregulation (1) does not apply if the aircraft is in uncontrolled airspace and any of the following apply:

                     (a)  the aircraft is below 3,000 ft above mean sea level;

                     (b)  the aircraft is at or above 3,000 ft above mean sea level but below 1,500 ft AGL;

                     (c)  it is not practicable for the pilot in command to fly the aircraft at a specified VFR cruising level for the track;

                     (d)  the aircraft is a glider in soaring flight.

             (3)  Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

                     (a)  the aircraft is in controlled airspace; and

                     (b)  air traffic control has given the pilot in command an air traffic control instruction, or an air traffic control clearance, to fly the aircraft other than at a specified VFR cruising level for the track.

             (4)  A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

^^That bit...I went from Broken Hill to Cleve, SA via Port Pirie a few days ago, and the highest available VFR level was 8,500. At Port Pirie, I climbed up to 10,000 for the over water portion across the gulf.. That gave me the ability to return to Port Pirie, or turn 90* and make it to Whyalla, or as I lost Whyalla, continue towards the runway at Cowell, ensuring I wouldn't have to go swimming if the noise stopped. I wouldn't have had those options at 8,500, ergo, 8,500 "was not practicable"...

So long as you can justify why a VFR level is "not practicable", you're fine. Which is why I don't think ADS-B will be used for that kind of thing, besides, imagine the Civil Libertarians? "It'll start with aircraft, then they'll mandate it for vehicles, and no more speed cameras, every car will report when it goes over 100km/h!", and CASA would have a tough time proving your choice wasn't practicable in a court of law, IMHO...

[Yenn]

I can't see where kgwilson said anything and also I can't see where anyone has translated what was written into understandable English.

We have governments which seem to rely on obfuscation to attack us.

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, Yenn said:

I can't see where kgwilson said anything and also I can't see where anyone has translated what was written into understandable English.

We have governments which seem to rely on obfuscation to attack us.

kg wrote that on Monday in the 'ADSB for all?' thread.

And I think RossK , above, wins the prize, so far, for best translation.