Dick----congrats your little toy has MODE S. In most places around this place we affectionately call the GAFFA it won't be seen anyway........

GAFFA because it contains fark all radar coverage....so call it GAFFAR

That's were the ADSB will work but you will be stuck at FL280 being procedurally separated. Enjoy the extra fuel burn that comes with stubbornness.

Maybe you could promise Airservices that you'll only fly in areas with 100% radar coverage, that should give you a little area to play in..:D

ACMS,
Are you trying to tell us complete radar coverage above FL280 is NOT available in the J-curve??
By the way, the chip on bother shoulders is showing - the sign of a balanced personality.
Tootle pip!!

Where did I say self separation by radio is good, Dick? I quite dislike that type of separation, as do most professional pilots.

The subject has been done to death over the years, and I'm not going to go over old ground again.

Leadsled,
I worked as a regional pilot for almost one and a half decades, in both seats with many pilots over the years - all had different personalities. I can only base what I wrote on my personal experiences. What I can say is when I was in the right seat these pilots all conducted their OCTA ops generally in the manner I described in a previous post.

Now I'm in a different company flying the right seat of slightly larger aircraft, and guess what? The attitudes of the pilots I fly with toward other traffic OCTA are the same as the regional pilots I used to fly with. I'm not saying there aren't RPT bullies out there, just that I have not witnessed it with anyone I've flown with in over 20 years of airline flying ;)

So the safest course of action, for all concerned, would be to delay their arrival, or otherwise orbit to allow the low-time pilot to finish his approach and land, thereby removing the risk entirely, rather than telling them to do something that simply removes the risk to the airliner by passing it to the 200-hour-pilot-in-cloud who now has to deviate from an established approach and plan of attack. Ahh, no, it doesn't. So far as I am aware (always happy to be proven wrong, of course) there is no requirement for GA, or anyone else, to give way or otherwise give preference to, RPT traffic. CAAP 166 does say Note the "should consider" and "without undue inconvenience to their own operation". As aCAAP, it is not a mandatory requirement, so far as I'm aware never has been, and hopefully, never will be. As I said first time round, be polite, don't try to push me around and I'm more than happy to extend a leg or otherwise let you do your thing. But try to tell me to do something, and you can follow me in while I practise a short-field landing, with the turnoff at the far end of the runway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DS

KR what's the difference between the red and the green in the lower pic?

---

Red is SSR, Green is ADS-B theoretical range, AIUI. IT is a relatively old graphic from ASA, but the only one I was able to find that shows some, though probably not all, ADS-B ground stations. ASA refers you to a Notam to find the current list of operating ADS-B locations, but my Google-fu is not good enough to find this list at present.

The "advice" that non-RPT aircraft might like to give way to RPT aircraft is also in the AIP

Ref:- AIP 21Aug 2014. ENR 1.1-71 41.1.8

Ledsled----so this J curve you speak about.....Is that the East Coast ( CNS to ADL ) Radar coverage area above 10,000' is it?

Ok sorry didn't get the meaning of J curve until now.

Either way it leaves a huge hole over the GAFFA he can't fly in above FL280, an area that benefits from ADSB and I can see why ASA wants it fitted to all Aircraft so they can use the airspace much more efficiently. ( and make more money, what they call a win win )

So. What altitude does the radar coverage drop to at Ballina?

What would it cost the taxpayer to provide a tower in Ballina or a total radar coverage service?????

Can we justify the cost????

Nothing is free.

Isn't that why they are rolling out ADSB??

Methinks there is an ADS-B aerial on the fire station at Ballina.

I have not suggested a tower. What's wrong with terminal E run from the en route centre as per USA and Canada. Also brings in mandatory transponder for VFR so makes even safer.

And why not put in a Unicom like the USA. Can give known traffic and WX.

The public won't be able to believe that Airline pilots are forced to transmit on a non ATC frequency and arrange their own separation with 1930s radio procedures when in cloud.

Re " Airline pilots are forced to transmit on a non ATC frequency and arrange their own separation with 1930s radio procedures when in cloud."

WOW!! That's progress...... And maybe they also communicate with VFR aircraft who may be 'in conflict' and below the cloud...? Those 'Airline' aircraft sure do move fast, don't they?

That's the system Dick...remember...12/12/1991??
Services to VFR aircraft deleted!

And..."And why not put in a Unicom like the USA. Can give known traffic and WX."
Well....we USED to have such a service.
Now we have ....zilch.

No cheers:*

p.s. Thanx again for.....

A UNICOM is not permitted to give traffic information, and is very limited to what can be provided. Only a CA/GRS can provide traffic information. UNICOM or CA/GRS are the responsibility of an AD OPR. Refer MOS Part 139 Chapter 14.

So perhaps you should be talking to the Ballina AD OPR or the airspace regulator CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation, if you are suggesting Class E should be lowered and/or the AD OPR should be providing a CA/GRS.

Captain. Are you referring to CASA limitations on what a Unicom can do?

In the USA Unicom operators give known traffic and WX. Why can't we copy the success of this . We're you involved in the restrictions placed here or do you know who was?

Midnight,

Another Australian unique set of "regulations" cobbled together to provide work for ex-FSOs and retired ATC license holders, by putting in very limiting qualifications --- for what was an ill-conceived non-ICAO (or FAA) "service" ---- yet again.

And to hobble a proper Unicom, NZ/US/Canadian style --- which is not a traffic separation but information service. If the traffic is above the tower establishment levels, a tower should be established, not some half- axxx system.

As for the "provide jobs" bit, that was a statement by a then ranking "official" of Civilair, uttered at a consultation meeting in Canberra, when the whole idea was first trotted out -- needless to say, he was very anti Unicom, as well as very anti anything FAA.

Time and again, we see the refusal of certain aviation groups in Australia to accept well tried and proven concepts, and yet again inventing an Australia unique square wheel.

There is absolutely NOTHING unique about Australian aviation that requires Australian unique limiting regulation ---- look at Part 61, as another example.

Tootle pip!!

As far as I am aware introducing the UNICOM idea originated in CASA. I recall hearing something @ RAPAC many years ago, and Leadsled has given the history.

That said, being stuck with the regulations as they are, given the difference between the UNICOM service and CA/GRS, the latter would appear to be more useful a.k.a. what is provided at PD.

From Part 139:

Good to see CASA's MOS has kept up to date. When did MBZ's disappear?

Have any training organisations ever tried to put together a UNICOM or CA/GRS course?

What a giant dishonest con. Why can't a sensible human being give known traffic .

That's what happens in the USA and Canada with no safety problems over 50 years.

And the safety of. Airline passengers is reduced as a result!

Midnight,

The original qualifications were deliberately limited by regulation to holders or former holders of FSO or ATC licenses.

It is quite some time ago that one organisation tried to put together a course, with fierce opposition from within OAR. Is there a course now, I don't know, maybe some reader can tell us.

The union that covers many employees of the BoM was also resolutely opposed to pilots or other unqualified persons (ie: were not BoM accredited met. observers) broadcasting any met. observations.

Tootle pip!!

I had cause to ask Brisbane Centre this exact question after departing Ballina on a marginal VFR day. The controller indicated he had visibility of us at 'less than circuit height'.

The day in question involved 3 IFR aircraft and 1 VFR with stratus layers of cloud and rain showers in the vicinity. The frantic controller gave up trying to give ongoing updates on everyone's position as 2 aircraft were on the CTAF and 2 were on Centre frequency then 1 went back to CTAF as they thought there might be a conflict based on Centre's traffic information. In short it was unsafe and an absolute cluster!

The controller was audibly shaken which was when I asked at what altitude were we pick us up when we departed the airport. I suggested that class E to low level in this area would completely solve this problem.

What if we had low level Class E wherever radar coverage exists on the J Curve?

mjbow2,
Contrary to all the garbage talked, Class E is not dependent on having radar coverage, all it means is procedural control of IFR.
Contrary to claims by those still anti Class E, not all E in US has radar coverage.
Tootle pip!!

Leady - many thanks for the detailed background to these issues.

A few years ago I recall this came up during discussions @ RAPAC, and a bunch of sport aviation types including gliders, hang gliders, certain ultralights etc. had exemptions (CAO 95??) from the carriage of transponders in Class E, if they didn't have an engine capable of powering one, and that lack of visibility to ATC and transponder-equipped aircraft seemed to be an issue for low level Class E i.e. down to 700FT AGL.

Anyone know if these exemptions still exist? I assume they still do for gliders.