The frequency changing “gizmo” was developed back when it was clear what a CTAF was, back in the days of MBZ’s.

No, it's 9.1.13!! :suspect:

In NZ I believe there is still a govt subsidy to install ADSB into a glider, at least enough to cover installation costs. Not sure if this is the case in OZ?

That would explain it. Alas, MBZs haven’t been around for quite some time. Wouldn’t be surprising if they came back, though.

(And, with respect, it’s always been clear what a CTAF is and was. It’s just a frequency. What’s been unclear since the abolition of defined zones around aerodromes in G (other than the odd BA and AFIZ) is at what point laterally and vertically from an aerodrome in G must the CTAF be used.)

So: What is the “height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome”? Isn’t it axiomatic that if we all have different answers to that question, there’s a ‘safety’ issue? I was hoping that Vag would enlighten us.

CASA have actually granted 50% of the cost of a "Visibility" ADSB. But visible to whom exactly?

Eligibility criteria from the website:


I would cast doubt on the ability of ADSB-IN to actually prevent this occurrence in certain circumstances.

Having the traffic on your EFB is great, however it really only alerts you to the presence of another aircraft when inbound, so that you can help set up your site picture of the traffic. From there you’d make a call etc and try to work out separation. Once you’ve entered what I’ll call the lions den here and mix it with the glider airspace, you’re purely see and avoid, as they will be twisting and turning and by the time ADSB catches up you’ll have spent way too long on your screen trying to work out where they are.

Flarm is far more advanced as it uses complex collision prediction algorithms, based on heading and other factors. I also see that newer Flarm modes incorporate ADSB-IN.

Yes, FLARM is hard to beat.

Wiz: I agree with you and I agree FLARM is more advanced than ADSB. I agree that all gliders talking would jam a frequency.

‘However, ’In two years regular flying often on weekends and transiting the YBLA area within 20 miles I have heard exactly ONE call from a glider on the 125.6 CTAF and nothing on Area. That’s ONE call by a glider, nothing from tugs either - and this is supposed to be the premier gliding club in Victoria. I may be old deaf and feeble but not completely senile and I still make calls at ten and I’m ready and listening from 20 miles or when not on the YWGT CTAF..

I would be delighted if we were discussing how to limit the number of calls from gliders but my experience is the effing reverse! Flying anywhere near YBLA is like entering the fictional “ cone of silence” as far as gliding is concerned - which is why I never go near it if possible.

Absolutely your best threat mitigation.

There are 1283 gliders currently on CASA register - all of them are eligible for ADSB rebate.

There is no offical ATSB report, nor there will be any. This is a matter for Police to investigate, which will likely involve both RAAus and Gliding Federation Australia.
However, we can discuss and put ourselves into either position, and what would we do differently.
Personally I would love to see FLARM gliders on my efb, and I believe glider pilots would love to see ADSB powered traffic on their FLARMs too.
Unfortunately this is not possible due to legal and technical limitations of two standards.

I believe that FLARM units will show ADS-B out equipped aircraft.

It appears RAAus tried to get the ATSB to investigate this one but they weren’t interested.

“It is with great sadness that I inform you that on 9 November 2022, an RAAus aircraft and a Glider were involved in a mid-air collision near Gympie Airport in Queensland. The pilots of both aircraft tragically lost their lives in the accident.

On behalf of RAAus and our members, I offer our sincerest condolences to all involved including families, friends and others affected by this tragedy.

Mid-air accidents of this nature are rare in Australia and a factor making this accident particularly unique is that it involves aircraft administered by different organisations. On Thursday I spoke to the ATSB Chief Commissioner to convey that RAAus would like the ATSB to independently investigate the accident, however, I was informed they would not. The Queensland Police will therefore conduct the investigation in order to provide information to the Queensland Coroner. RAAus will continue to support the Queensland Police with their investigation.

I would like to thank the Police, other emergency services, and the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) for their professionalism and way they’ve conducted themselves during this event.”


Maxine Milera
Acting CEO

That’s unfortunate, as I doubt that the Queensland police and Coroner will be in a position to understand that:

- aircraft X is ‘administered’ by organisation A

- aircraft Y is ‘administered’ by organisation B

- CASA is neither organisation A nor organisation B

- both aircraft X and aircraft Y were supposed to be complying with rules of the air and radio carriage and usage rules administered by CASA, and

- CASA and ATSB aren’t inclined to get involved.

Only in Australia.

To maximise the safety, both sides have to see each other.
At the moment anyone can buy a cheap SDR receiver from the Internet and start listening adsb traffic.
This is not possible for FLARM due to intellectual property restrictions of that company.

Pilots in UK/Europe have to pay subscription fees to listen to FLARM traffic.
https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en...the-SkyEcho-2-

Aren’t the GFA authorised CASA delegates, just like Raaus are, teaching to an approved CASA approved training syllabus?

I don't think CASA 'approve' syllabi, it's up to the organisations that have these delegations to sort that out.

No. They are self-administering organisations.

But that doesn’t mean CASA has no regulatory responsibility for or power over them,

This is an important point about FLARM that many seem to miss. While I can - maybe - understand the manufacturer keeping the vector analysis code to themselves I do not agree with the proprietary nature of the communication protocol.

Just as with using AM phone on common frequencies to allow all in the vicinity to listen to and be aware of traffic local broadcasts I consider related data transmissions should also be transmitted en clair (ie. an open protocol) so that all can receive such information regardless of the make of their equipment.

While I have a 'go lightly' view of regulation there are some things that beg to be addressed, this is one of them IMV.

FP.

There are many different types and generations of Flarm, and no, they don't all. I have a quite up-to-date unit which syncs with a flight-computer, but I didn't get the ABSB option as the few years ago I bought it, there were very few aircraft I might interact with that had ABSB out. I am considering upgrading.