I know it's not. I just had a laugh when I read that line in the AsA blurb. It's been like a stuck needle on airspace threads.

What? You mean where it is most needed?

You answered a question I didn't ask. I didn't ask about releasing an internal Airservices investigation.

The reason there are supposedly independent transport safety investigators is to conduct supposedly independent investigations to find out why things happened.

I note that reg 2.9 of the TSI regulations says: "For the purposes of section 48 of the Act, a recording is not an on‑board recording for the purposes of the Act if the recording is: (a) an oral communication recorded by an air traffic service or a certified air‑ground radio service for the purpose of directing or monitoring the progress of an aircraft ...".

I ask again: What provision, precisely, of the TSI Act prohibits the ATSB from publishing ATC/Centre comms recordings?

I don't think Airservices has thought this out. The proposed airspace has to include at least half the GA, RAA and SAAA aircraft fleet.

Furthermore the devil is in the detail: "Leveraging new technology" is code for mandatory ADSB out, however that requires at least a $3000+ high integrity GPS whether you want to (or are permitted to) use Class C Airspace or not.

...And you can stick the Sky Echo where there is no echo - all I see when I look at one is a future E-tag. I'll bet Airservices has a plan to charge everyone for the "privilege" of using airspace.

I do not buy the safety case for one minute either.

Leveraging new technology can mean satellite based VHF or satellite based ADSB.

For a bloke paranoid about being under constant surviellance, you don't seem to mind living in a state that locks you down under marshal law for so called health reasons.

ASA is using this as a copout to avoid spending money where it's needed now eg on-ground comms and ADSB ground stations in the Pilbara and Goldfields.

And you asked a question quoting my post #78, which was in response to a question in post#75. All to do with Airservices control of data, not ATSB.
In reply to your ATSB question, nothing to prevent ATSB release of recordings, etc. subject to certain caveats in the Act and Regis.

I'm not defending them.

McLimit, Covid has nothing to do with aviation safety.

[QUOTE=Sunfish;10982908]I don't think Airservices has thought this out. The proposed airspace has to include at least half the GA, RAA and SAAA aircraft fleet.

On the contrary, Sunfish, Airservices has thought this out but we do not know what their thoughts were/are. However we can speculate......
If you think they genuinely want to do what they propose, then they know, as well as we, that the "GA, RAA and SAAA" people will knock it back; so,

• Either it is a straw man, designed to appear to be doing something, but in the full knowledge that it will not get up; or,
• It is a challenge to the authority of CASA, who, according to their airspace reports, classify the current Class G as "fit for purpose"; or,
• As postulated by Dick Smith and myself in earlier posts, it is a face saving response to the ATSB report on Mangalore, that they will already know the results of, but we do not.

Either way, it is a classic "wedge" often used in politics, where those of us who support low level Class E, cannot be seen to now oppose it, when the Government (Airservices) propose to introduce it.
At the same time, if it does get up, as proposed, Airservices will have got what they want, more services to charge for and make more money for Canberra; and,
If they get what they want but without a transponder mandate, and with their nonsensical S-AFIS rejected (why would you introduce low-level Class E then exclude two, with more to come, aerodromes that really need it!) then they can claim, if anything goes wrong that it was not their (ie, their boss the Minister's) fault.

So, I believe we should call it what it is, a disingenuous (A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it is delivered with the intent to deceive or to serve some hidden purpose-Miriam Webster) attempt at consultation with the industry over the top of CASA, the airspace regulator.

The fatalities at Coffs and Mangalore should have resulted in an announcement and action by CASA. After all, they are the safety regulator.

There was no requirement for them to remain silent for the extensive time that the ATSB will take to complete the reports.

To get E to work at low levels will require new CASA approved regulations for ATCs and pilots.

I see not the slightest hint that there is any individual at CASA who will get the support from the top to bring in and “sell” these changes.

The lower E was to come in about 18 years ago. Despite the fatalities at Benalla and Mangalore CASA says nothing!

Airmanship
 

Hi Dick
Did you read the ATSB report on the mooney accident. I have been denied clearances from time to time but I have been licenced to fly, in receipt of weather and carried navigation equipment and current AIRAC maps to guarantee a safe plan B. Denial of a clearance does not and never should lead to this type of accident. The pilot should not have been in the air without a current licence and no planning or equipment.
also, the aircraft I own is fitted with a low cost ADSB. This is a small price to pay for my safety and the safety of others. I know pilots who say the can't afford it but they are happy to spend 3 or 4 grand on a holiday or new aircon for their house. Priorities? Airmanship? Do you really need the regulator to mandate common sense in such a safety critical transport system?

3000 bucks is not much to spend to upgrade 1970s control panels to the 21st century. Put one in my lightie and amazingly ATC can see me and RPT can see me. And all for under 4000 dollars. My flying school also upgraded their fleet. A small reprioritisation of funds but a huge leap in safety for me, my family and other aircraft in my vicinity (unless the can't afford to fit it. - hmm saved money by not having transponder or ADSB wonder if their last words would be oh @#$% wish I had. bought the ADSB!).

Sunfish, then stop comparing every business deal you've done since 1968 with aviation.

In his defence, it says he’s new here :-)

That's no excuse for his stupidity.

How much, Dick?

In many cases giving a separation service in E is no more labour intensive than giving traffic information in G.

So zero extra cost, or very little.

And if it can prevent further accidents like the four fatalities at Mangalore it could be well worth making the change.

I would test at 1200 agl at a place like Ayers Rock to find out the cost and delays, if any.

From a RPT perspective they would want to change the current arrangements as they are to restrictive. If nothing changes on a separation front under this new system places like Ballina are going to have serious ground congestion problems. The current arrangements in low level Class E seem to be that no one can depart until the arrival aircraft has landed. Where as in Class G the departing aircraft can get away whilst the inbound aircraft is manoeuvring for the instrument approach. If they are just going to apply the current arrangements to a Low Level Class E then people are going to be taxiing for 30-45 mins at CTAFS waiting to multiple arrivals. There needs to be a way of aircraft departing whilst the arrivals are on the instrument approach.

And to think you used to work at CASA, one would have thought you would have more of an understanding of ATC, Dick.

What a ridiculous, untrue, dangerous, and insulting statement to all ATC's.

You clearly don't understand the complexities of providing a separation service, particularly considering that it's often going to have to be a procedural (non surveillance) solution and run over HF with no direct VHF comms until 4000 ft, at many aerodromes.

You also fail to appreciate the increased physiological demands placed on the controller with the extra airspace. No longer are they providing traffic and monitoring the situation passively while two aircraft safely negotiate separation (usually less than an ATC separation standard) on the CTAF or the numbers. They are having to actively monitor the traffic they have issued clearances to, to ensure continual application of appropriate separation standards and solve all of these NEW conflicts. Considering the aforementioned lack of surveillance and VHF in many places this becomes incredibly arduous in terms of mental capacity and workload.

Please, understand the minutae of what you're saying before posting.